What will disappear next?

[Thermonuclear]

As far as Apple is concerned, Steve Jobs' vision of the Apple computer as being an appliance, regularly replaced instead of being a steel-and-silicon heirloom, is now fully being realized.

Jobs was not the father of the Macintosh. Indeed, for several years Jobs did the best he could to kill the Macintosh project which had begun in 1979. It was only after Jobs had been marginalized from the Apple II, Apple III, and Lisa projects did he decide to take over the Macintosh project.

The idea of the Macintosh and its objective as an information appliance came from the same fellow who gave the computer it's name: Jef Raskin (1943-2005).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jef_Raskin

There's an awful amount of history here which isn't recalled much these days, and it is the responsibility of the living to ensure that the dead receive credit for their achievements. When Jobs took over the Macintosh project, he brought in a lot of money from the board which was good. But most everything else he brought to the project was bad, and that's why Raskin and several other top engineers who brought the machine to life left shortly after the Macintosh was delivered.

 

[JohnGrey]

Jobs was not the father of the Macintosh. Indeed, for several years Jobs did the best he could to kill the Macintosh project which had begun in 1979. It was only after Jobs had been marginalized from the Apple II, Apple III, and Lisa projects did he decide to take over the Macintosh project.

The idea of the Macintosh and its objective as an information appliance came from the same fellow who gave the computer it's name: Jef Raskin (1943-2005).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jef_Raskin

There's an awful amount of history here which isn't recalled much these days, and it is the responsibility of the living to ensure that the dead receive credit for their achievements. When Jobs took over the Macintosh project, he brought in a lot of money from the board which was good. But most everything else he brought to the project was bad, and that's why Raskin and several other top engineers who brought the machine to life left shortly after the Macintosh was delivered.

I'm well aware of Jef Raskin's role, or rather non-role, in the creation of the Macintosh. Just as I'm very aware of what it would've been had Jobs' more ambitious and admittedly large head hadn't prevailed. Raskin went on to produce his "vision", the Canon Cat, which, despite being released in 1987, was purely text output. So thank God for what Jobs brought to the table besides money.

 

[capathy21]

I usually stay out of these sorts of discussions because it's ultimately futile when, short of voting with one's wallet, it amounts to nothing. However, to me, there is a very real problem with the mentality that Apple should continue to keep one foot firmly in the past with legacy support of older technologies.

I'm very certain that in the days of the PDP-10 and other mainframe-class architectures, to many the personal computer seemed underpowered and lacking in extensibility, especially given how little computing power could be housed in a basic pizza-box or tower configuration, but that style of computing died and personal computing became the norm. It did so not because it was more powerful or provided a greater ability for future expansion, but because it allowed the class of product to be purchased by a larger number of people. Now the wheel has turned and the days of hobby kit-style and Frankenstein PCs is now largely over, and should've been probably a decade earlier than it was. As far as Apple is concerned, Steve Jobs' vision of the Apple computer as being an appliance, regularly replaced instead of being a steel-and-silicon heirloom, is now fully being realized. Twenty years ago, because of their rarity and great expense, computers were generally owned by people that knew and understood them, could service them, and in most cases needed the opportunity to expand because buying whole new systems was reserved for every five or ten years, but times were already changing; computers were moving from the office to the home. Despite this, the models for PCs retained the construction trappings and swiss army knife hardware mentality that was, for perhaps 95% of computer owners, neither needed nor helpful. They really needed, and now want, prepackaged, functional machines at competitive prices, though competitive being commensurate with what is provided in the exchange. Inflation adjusted to 1994, a $1000 MBA in 2014 costs a mere $622, roughly the same cost as the Newton MessagePad 115 during the same year. Does anyone here, that was an active and buying computer user during that time, ever remember any computer, power equivalently regressed, for less than $1500 with all accompanying equipment? I certainly don't. I do remember a solitary $3000+ Christmas present with a colorful apple on the box under the tree that year.

Even as a software developer, I'm personally gratified by the direction that Apple is taking with their products and their adoption of the post-PC paradigm. Apple still offers, to one degree or another, the sort of power computing experience that some assert they no longer do, it just has a dollar figure attached to it that most people either can't or won't meet. They realized, probably before most, that the average user, the one that caused family, neighbors and tech support so many headaches, does not need a computer to do what they need or want, and the content consumption devices they need are relatively cheap to replace on short-term schedules. Those that do need power computing can still get it, machines of power and build quality inconceivable even a decade ago, they just have to pay heftily for the privilege.

Very well stated.

 

[capathy21]

If Apple made automobiles, then each of its cars would have the hood welded shut and the only warning light on the console would say "Return to factory for service". When then car needed an oil change, it would have to be trucked back to Apple, taking a week while the owner experienced the joys of public transportation. The car would cost twice as much as a comparable non-Apple car and official support would last no longer than the loan payments.

Not a fair comparison. There is no regular maintenance required on my rMBP that would be equal to an oil change. Modern components in my machine will not need regular maintenance nor will they need changing before I have long gotten my use out of them. I do not have a spinning hard drive or any moving parts. Yes hard drives fail. Flash storage is different. Could it fail? Possibly. But the chances are slim.

Modern Mac's are very competitive in their pricing when you compare them spec for spec with a Windows equivalent. Not twice as much by any means.

How long should they support something? 10 years? Buy the machine you need, use it for 3 or 4 years and get another. It's not that difficult. Every thread you create is to bitch about something else Apple has done. No one forces you to stay with Apple. If you dislike them so much, then don't buy their products.

The rest of us enjoy their products and appreciate how they have moved technology forward.

 

[melendezest]

I usually stay out of these sorts of discussions because it's ultimately futile when, short of voting with one's wallet, it amounts to nothing. However, to me, there is a very real problem with the mentality that Apple should continue to keep one foot firmly in the past with legacy support of older technologies.

I'm very certain that in the days of the PDP-10 and other mainframe-class architectures, to many the personal computer seemed underpowered and lacking in extensibility, especially given how little computing power could be housed in a basic pizza-box or tower configuration, but that style of computing died and personal computing became the norm. It did so not because it was more powerful or provided a greater ability for future expansion, but because it allowed the class of product to be purchased by a larger number of people. Now the wheel has turned and the days of hobby kit-style and Frankenstein PCs is now largely over, and should've been probably a decade earlier than it was. As far as Apple is concerned, Steve Jobs' vision of the Apple computer as being an appliance, regularly replaced instead of being a steel-and-silicon heirloom, is now fully being realized. Twenty years ago, because of their rarity and great expense, computers were generally owned by people that knew and understood them, could service them, and in most cases needed the opportunity to expand because buying whole new systems was reserved for every five or ten years, but times were already changing; computers were moving from the office to the home. Despite this, the models for PCs retained the construction trappings and swiss army knife hardware mentality that was, for perhaps 95% of computer owners, neither needed nor helpful. They really needed, and now want, prepackaged, functional machines at competitive prices, though competitive being commensurate with what is provided in the exchange. Inflation adjusted to 1994, a $1000 MBA in 2014 costs a mere $622, roughly the same cost as the Newton MessagePad 115 during the same year. Does anyone here, that was an active and buying computer user during that time, ever remember any computer, power equivalently regressed, for less than $1500 with all accompanying equipment? I certainly don't. I do remember a solitary $3000+ Christmas present with a colorful apple on the box under the tree that year.

Even as a software developer, I'm personally gratified by the direction that Apple is taking with their products and their adoption of the post-PC paradigm. Apple still offers, to one degree or another, the sort of power computing experience that some assert they no longer do, it just has a dollar figure attached to it that most people either can't or won't meet. They realized, probably before most, that the average user, the one that caused family, neighbors and tech support so many headaches, does not need a computer to do what they need or want, and the content consumption devices they need are relatively cheap to replace on short-term schedules. Those that do need power computing can still get it, machines of power and build quality inconceivable even a decade ago, they just have to pay heftily for the privilege.

Well, the problem that I have is that is not really about Apple keeping a foot firmly in the past, it's about them keeping one in the present.

There is no reason for Apple to push forward without discontinuing support for technologies that are still in use. Computing tech, for the last couple of years, has plateaued somewhat. We are on a transitional period (the cloud, etc), but I feel Apple has jumped the gun a bit and has given us machines tailored to their (apparently accurate) vision of the future, but removing the machines that can more easily, flexibly and effectively integrate into the present tech.

It takes time to replace/build out infrastructure. But Apple, in their earnest to skate where the puck is going to be, has skated a bit too far ahead.

So the issue is not Apple's direction, is the lack of diversity in their portfolio. They very well could give us cutting edge (should some of us want it), but also give us currently useful. For example, I feel it would've been excellent for Apple to release the new Mac Pro alongside an updated version of the old, with TB, USB 3, and the latest PCI standards, just like they did when they released the Cube. They did not discontinue the Power Mac in their push forward, back then. Apple's portfolio was more balanced (briefly) in their portable line when they had 3 categories: Ultrabook-entry level (Air), Ultrabook-power (RMBP), Desktop replacement (cMBP). It seems to me that they are still downsizing, consolidating, and "focusing" as if it's 1995. It isn't. They seem to be attempting to put all their fruit in one basket (iPhone/iPad), and it may backfire.

Apple should let go of the notion that for Apple to win (by going after the majority base with iPad/iPhone/Air combo, new Mac Pro), they have to lose the computer or IT "enthusiast" (that does appreciate their previously-held philosophies of easy accessibility, expandability, and configuration flexibility such as the old Mac Pro and the cMBPs, including the enterprise IT folks).

Apple is in a position to grow and cover (perhaps now more niche) markets and segments that fall within the computing realm, simply because they have their cash cows (iphone/iPad), as well as lots of cash and brand popularity. I could care less if they release a so-called smart watch.

I also never felt that Apple machines were expensive. I felt that they provided a great value and still do. I'm all for the push forward.

But I don't like the transformation from computing company to appliance-only company. I would've preferred that Apple did both, kind of like a company that sells cars, trucks, and SUVs, both electric (the future) and gasoline/diesel (the present). A simply updated (Retina or not) 17 in the "old" shell with USB3, TB2, 802.11ac, new PCIe, and Blu-Ray drive would have been an AWESOME machine. That's what people who buy 17s we're expecting. Instead Apple KILLED the line, one that had been produced for 10 years. Same could be said for the Mac Pro. Many expected an update that would allow them to plug into their existing infrastructure (the present), not require a whole new one (the future) now.

Give me more options Apple, not take them away.

But alas, it is what it is and it's not meant to be. I have come to peace with it: the Apple I liked is dead.

Long live the new Apple.

They're still better than their competitors, in my opinion, and I think I can wait it out (with my existing infrastructure) until the future catches up with the present.

OK, I've hammered these points enough. It has been fun to discuss. Thanks everybody for the intellectual exercise!

 

[melendezest]

Not a fair comparison. There is no regular maintenance required on my rMBP that would be equal to an oil change. Modern components in my machine will not need regular maintenance nor will they need changing before I have long gotten my use out of them. I do not have a spinning hard drive or any moving parts. Yes hard drives fail. Flash storage is different. Could it fail? Possibly. But the chances are slim.

Modern Mac's are very competitive in their pricing when you compare them spec for spec with a Windows equivalent. Not twice as much by any means.

How long should they support something? 10 years? Buy the machine you need, use it for 3 or 4 years and get another. It's not that difficult. Every thread you create is to bitch about something else Apple has done. No one forces you to stay with Apple. If you dislike them so much, then don't buy their products.

The rest of us enjoy their products and appreciate how they have moved technology forward.

I think you misinterpret dissent with dislike.

I believe Thermo loves Apple, but (like me) disagrees with some of its decisions. He's not alone.

I personally come here to discuss things and be exposed to both sides of an issue. These forums are neither a bitch session nor a cheerleading squad alone.

I love hearing the other side's point of view, even if it is "I hate Apple", as long as I get to experience the "why", the rationale behind the dissent, dislike, or mere disagreement.

I always come from the premise that we're all Apple fans here. This particular thread was skewed towards the dissent side by the TS, but the "why" has been well represented by both sides.

And we're all better for it by being exposed to them, at least.

Cheers!

 

[capathy21]

I think you misinterpret dissent with dislike.

I believe Thermo loves Apple, but (like me) disagrees with some of its decisions. He's not alone.

I personally come here to discuss things and be exposed to both sides of an issue. These forums are neither a bitch session nor a cheerleading squad alone.

I love hearing the other side's point of view, even if it is "I hate Apple", as long as I get to experience the "why", the rationale behind the dissent, dislike, or mere disagreement.

I always come from the premise that we're all Apple fans here. This particular thread was skewed towards the dissent side by the TS, but the "why" has been well represented by both sides.

And we're all better for it by being exposed to them, at least.

Cheers!

Nice points. I would have to agree

----------

It has been fun to discuss. Thanks everybody for the intellectual exercise!

Yes it has. We all love the intellectual exercise of debating for the fun of it!

 

[Roller]

I think you misinterpret dissent with dislike.

I believe Thermo loves Apple, but (like me) disagrees with some of its decisions. He's not alone.

I personally come here to discuss things and be exposed to both sides of an issue. These forums are neither a bitch session nor a cheerleading squad alone.

I love hearing the other side's point of view, even if it is "I hate Apple", as long as I get to experience the "why", the rationale behind the dissent, dislike, or mere disagreement.

I always come from the premise that we're all Apple fans here. This particular thread was skewed towards the dissent side by the TS, but the "why" has been well represented by both sides.

And we're all better for it by being exposed to them, at least.

Cheers!

For years, I've wanted Apple to offer a mini-tower, a computer that would let me install drives, memory, and video cards without voiding the warranty, but less expensive and more compact than the Mac Pro. When I realized that was unlikely, I bought my first iMac for home use, back in 2006. I've not been satisfied with every design decision (the lack of a stand with height adjustment is but one), but that iMac and its subsequent replacements have served me very well. My current late 2012 27" is easily the best (in the sense of lack of problems and letting me do what I need to do efficiently) of the many Macs I've owned or used since 1984.

I understand that others have differing points of view, and I respect that. But I wonder about Thermonuclear's motives when he starts two threads pointing out what he perceives are deficiencies in the iMac. Is he venting, trying to influence opinions, or attempting to provide information for prospective buyers? It's not so much the substance of his posts that bothers me (though his inclusion of items such as modems and I/R ports didn't bolster his argument) that bothers me, it's the holier-than-thou tone.

For that matter, you also wrote "We really should let it go, but it's fun to come here and futilely argue with those with kool-aid stains on their shirts." That's not discourse, it's just plain insulting, and calls into question your desire to come here for rational debate on the merits or faults of what Apple does.

 

[JohnGrey]

Well, the problem that I have is that is not really about Apple keeping a foot firmly in the past, it's about them keeping one in the present.

There is no reason for Apple to push forward without discontinuing support for technologies that are still in use. Computing tech, for the last couple of years, has plateaued somewhat. We are on a transitional period (the cloud, etc), but I feel Apple has jumped the gun a bit and has given us machines tailored to their (apparently accurate) vision of the future, but removing the machines that can more easily, flexibly and effectively integrate into the present tech.

It takes time to replace/build out infrastructure. But Apple, in their earnest to skate where the puck is going to be, has skated a bit too far ahead.

So the issue is not Apple's direction, is the lack of diversity in their portfolio. They very well could give us cutting edge (should some of us want it), but also give us currently useful. For example, I feel it would've been excellent for Apple to release the new Mac Pro alongside an updated version of the old, with TB, USB 3, and the latest PCI standards, just like they did when they released the Cube. They did not discontinue the Power Mac in their push forward, back then. Apple's portfolio was more balanced (briefly) in their portable line when they had 3 categories: Ultrabook-entry level (Air), Ultrabook-power (RMBP), Desktop replacement (cMBP). It seems to me that they are still downsizing, consolidating, and "focusing" as if it's 1995. It isn't. They seem to be attempting to put all their fruit in one basket (iPhone/iPad), and it may backfire.

Apple should let go of the notion that for Apple to win (by going after the majority base with iPad/iPhone/Air combo, new Mac Pro), they have to lose the computer or IT "enthusiast" (that does appreciate their previously-held philosophies of easy accessibility, expandability, and configuration flexibility such as the old Mac Pro and the cMBPs, including the enterprise IT folks).

Apple is in a position to grow and cover (perhaps now more niche) markets and segments that fall within the computing realm, simply because they have their cash cows (iphone/iPad), as well as lots of cash and brand popularity. I could care less if they release a so-called smart watch.

I also never felt that Apple machines were expensive. I felt that they provided a great value and still do. I'm all for the push forward.

But I don't like the transformation from computing company to appliance-only company. I would've preferred that Apple did both, kind of like a company that sells cars, trucks, and SUVs, both electric (the future) and gasoline/diesel (the present). A simply updated (Retina or not) 17 in the "old" shell with USB3, TB2, 802.11ac, new PCIe, and Blu-Ray drive would have been an AWESOME machine. That's what people who buy 17s we're expecting. Instead Apple KILLED the line, one that had been produced for 10 years. Same could be said for the Mac Pro. Many expected an update that would allow them to plug into their existing infrastructure (the present), not require a whole new one (the future) now.

Give me more options Apple, not take them away.

But alas, it is what it is and it's not meant to be. I have come to peace with it: the Apple I liked is dead.

Long live the new Apple.

They're still better than their competitors, in my opinion, and I think I can wait it out (with my existing infrastructure) until the future catches up with the present.

OK, I've hammered these points enough. It has been fun to discuss. Thanks everybody for the intellectual exercise!

In certain ways, I sympathize with your feelings on the matter, but the issue is that it's still indicative of that swiss army mentality that I mentioned in my original post. In yesteryear, that mentality was both necessary and possible in that, raw computer hardware was essentially sold in barebones configuration, with extensibility being possible through the replacement of modular parts. Ultimately, the issue with that is that, from a cost analysis of fabrication, it is significantly cheaper to produce internal hardware that is not modular or replacable, and that cost saving becomes even more stark when trying to engineer hardware to fit inside enclosures of increasing brevity. And don't forget that as early as 2003, portable computer sales were overtaking desktop sales, and that it's expected that tablet sales with overtake all proper computer sales next year, so the appetite is obviously towards those segments of the computing market, with the emphasis on ease of use and portability. It's no coincidence that all of Apple's computing solutions, with somewhat the exception of the iMac (which with its recent revision is now firmly targeting the low-cost home and education market), are emphasizing this goal of portability, even at its top-tier, where the physical dimensions have decreased by more 50% (50K cm3 vs 21cm3) and whose weight is a mere 25% (39 lbs vs 11lb) in base configuration, and even more in larger configurations.

Undoubtedly you'll say that there's nothing wrong with that, just do both at the same time. The problem is that Apple is not a company with the kind of marketshare that can justify the expense of maintaining a broad architecture diversity; as of this month, despite the quality of hardware and software, OS X still maintains a marketshare of just under 7.4%, less than one-third of the installed base of Windows XP, released 13 years, and less than one-seventh of Windows 7. It does not even beat the much- and fairly-maligned Windows 8/8.1 by almost half. When producing consumer goods, you have the age-old problem of capital realization, in that it is non-liquid, non-fungible form, and in this case is exacerbated by the short obsolescence cycle which exponentially decreases its nominal value over time. MTO enterprises like Dell can get away with this because, first, they design essentially nothing beyond case and chassis materials, and because there is no integrated hardware-software philosophy (the trade-off to this is requiring a bloated OS that must support a plethora of hardware configurations) and, second, because the customer base is, or at least was until very recently, sufficiently large in current and on forward basis, to justify that type of operation. Apple simply does not have the installed or prospective base to support the cost of manufacturing or delayed profit realization of having that much operating capital waiting in channel to be purchased, exception on its most expensive configurations.

And don't forget, Apple tried it your way back during Michael Spindler's disastrous tenure as CEO. They had dozens of configurations of hardware and software, both in the desktop and laptop space. It was a disaster which contributed significantly to Apple's near-insolvency.

 

[Thermonuclear]

Since Apple started making real money from its iGadgets ten years ago, it has consistently removed features both hardware and software for little reason other than to coerce more computer sales. The removed hardware was inexpensive, so no real money was saved. The removed software had already been designed, tested, and delivered, so no money was saved there, either. Apple has abandoned countless users, mostly at the pro end, by ending LAN storage, ending all rack mount hardware, and eviscerating the Mac Pro -- a powerful, easily customizable, general purpose machine -- now replaced by an expensive toy mostly limited to video editing.

Now, Apple is giving up on the primary education market, as schools see that a Chromebox or Chromebase can meet all their students needs at a small fraction of the cost of the cheapest iMac.

Further, Apple cares less and less about general purpose software development. Nearly all improvements to Xcode over the past few years are those which assist making applications limited to Apple's gadgetry, applications from which Apple scalps a hefty thirty percent commission on each sale.

Instead of efforts to add real value to their machines, Apple has spent their cash on shiny exteriors and an obsessive quest for thinness while at the same time doing their best to eliminate a user's capability for maintenance and upgrading.

There's a price to be paid, though. Apple has been trading market share for transitory profit with frighteningly big losses in desktop sub-share. If the current rate of decline continues, what will happen in a few years when it's just not worth it to Apple to make any real computers? Apple could still ride the gadget gravy train by licensing its application development tools, while abandoning the last of its computer users and leaving them to ponder how their walled garden became a desert.

I started using Macs with the original 128 KB model, and bought the first of too many Macs starting with a 1986 Mac Plus.

For years I would actively recommend Macs. Now I warn about them.

 

[JohnGrey]

If the current rate of decline continues, what will happen in a few years when it's just not worth it to Apple to make any real computers?

If that time ever comes, then Apple won't make computers any longer. It's that simple. They have no obligations to do anything that is not in, what they consider to be, their best interest. Of course, they could ultimately be wrong, the vast majority of their buyers could go elsewhere, in which case they would cease to exist. Theirs is a business and that's their prerogative.

 

[freediverdude]

Well I think the whole market is moving away from desktops and laptops, not just Apple. I myself, for the past year, have not owned a personal desktop or laptop. I do use the mundane Windows machine provided for me at work, for work and some browsing, but for everything else, I have 2 iPads, 2 iPhones, and an Apple TV, and I've gotten along just fine, surprisingly. Just recently been considering MAYBE a MacBook Air, but I don't even know if I would use it! I may just get another iPad, since I took one to work.

So unless you've got a large library of non-iTunes movies to store locally, or a huge photo library not in icloud, or you need to work with large files or documents at home, there just doesn't seem to be a use case for a "real" computer anymore. Maybe for kids homework or something? I dunno, I don't have kids. But yea I think desktops will be a niche market in the future.

Editing to add: got rid of that old iMac in my sig a long time ago, editing my sig now.

 

[melendezest]

For years, I've wanted Apple to offer a mini-tower, a computer that would let me install drives, memory, and video cards without voiding the warranty, but less expensive and more compact than the Mac Pro. When I realized that was unlikely, I bought my first iMac for home use, back in 2006. I've not been satisfied with every design decision (the lack of a stand with height adjustment is but one), but that iMac and its subsequent replacements have served me very well. My current late 2012 27" is easily the best (in the sense of lack of problems and letting me do what I need to do efficiently) of the many Macs I've owned or used since 1984.

I understand that others have differing points of view, and I respect that. But I wonder about Thermonuclear's motives when he starts two threads pointing out what he perceives are deficiencies in the iMac. Is he venting, trying to influence opinions, or attempting to provide information for prospective buyers? It's not so much the substance of his posts that bothers me (though his inclusion of items such as modems and I/R ports didn't bolster his argument) that bothers me, it's the holier-than-thou tone.

For that matter, you also wrote "We really should let it go, but it's fun to come here and futilely argue with those with kool-aid stains on their shirts." That's not discourse, it's just plain insulting, and calls into question your desire to come here for rational debate on the merits or faults of what Apple does.

Why is my statement insulting? There are Apple apologists here that will defend Apple all the way to irrationality, just like there are "trolls" on the other side of the irrational debate.

I merely point out that I enjoy arguing with some of them.

The "insult" was not directed at anyone in particular, but if the shoe fits...

 

[Roller]

Why is my statement insulting? There are Apple apologists here that will defend Apple all the way to irrationality, just like there are "trolls" on the other side of the irrational debate.

I merely point out that I enjoy arguing with some of them.

The "insult" was not directed at anyone in particular, but if the shoe fits...

Like you, I come to these forums to hear other points of view, say what I think, and hopefully learn something. However, you used a pejorative phrase that stated that it's pointless to argue because the people you're debating aren't rational. You didn't direct it a particular person, which meant that, by default, it applied to anyone here with opinions contrary to yours, regardless of the nature of their counterpoints. IMO, that's disrespectful.

 

[melendezest]

Like you, I come to these forums to hear other points of view, say what I think, and hopefully learn something. However, you used a pejorative phrase that stated that it's pointless to argue because the people you're debating aren't rational. You didn't direct it a particular person, which meant that, by default, it applied to anyone here with opinions contrary to yours, regardless of the nature of their counterpoints. IMO, that's disrespectful.

Well, that's your interpretation of the words I used. People need to lighten up a bit.

Somebody will always end up getting offended by something. Some people are softies, and need to be babied. Not me. I dish it out, but I can take it too.

If a statement not directed at anyone in particular offended an individual, then that individual applied it to him/herself.

I pointed out the truth: there are folks here with kool-aid stains on their shirts (I understand it too--Apple kool-aid is delicious). I like debating with those people. That's it.

 

[Choctaw]

If so many of those features aren't needed, then why were they ever there in the first place? And just because you don't use something doesn't mean that no one else does. I have used ALL of those features except for the expansion slot.

Just to tease a bit. All that really is needed in life are two things. Duck Tape, and a can of WD-40. If something does not move and you want it to, then use WD-40, if something moves and should not move, use the Duck Tape.

OH, and if dealing with the changes of Apple products is a problem, then don't use them, buy something else.

 

[Ethosik]

Wow really? Saying new computers do not have 10 year old ports and hardware is just ridiculous.

Did you know that most computer manufacturers are getting rid of DVI on their low end systems? Dell, HP, Lenovo, ... They all do this.

Old connectors go away, it is just the way it is. Do you complain to Dell that their computers do not come with parallel ports?

Most of what you guys mentioned can be found in the form of an adapter.

What if you want 10Gbps ethernet on your existing computer? All Apple will need to do is make a new thunderbolt adapter that supports 10Gbps. What would you have to do if it was onboard?

I am glad they do not have a DVD drive built in to the rMBP. I have only used discs once in the last 3 years to burn a song for a wedding. I used the adapter for that. The good thing: it can be disconnected. I still have a nice thin light laptop without a drive.

Also, saying that SSDs on a 17" cMBP is just as good as a rMBP. No it is not. You are limited by the SATA speeds. You are not getting the full performance of a SATA 3 SSD if you are on SATA 2. And you are getting much lower speeds vs PCIe SSDs. I have an old Mac Pro before they updated it (2010 model). I am limited by the SATA 2 speeds. My workflow does not need more than that. But to say it is just as good as a fact is not true. It is just as good for YOU and ME. I can appreciate the enhancements an SSD can make if it is on SATA 3 or PCIe.

Also, the cMBP gets lower resolution and has an older GPU.

Your RAM is limited to whatever DDR version you have. Not to mention you cannot upgrade it forever. There is a limit. Systems have a maximum limit. You cannot put 32GB of ram in your 17" cMBP.

 

[dyn]

This entire post misses the forest for the trees.

You are correct in stating that your post (posts even) are missing the forest for the trees here. And I'll explain why:

Again, my machine allows me to use whatever I want to put in it, so I'm not limited to OWC drives.

The point was that workloads define whether or not your or somebody else's setup is the faster one. It is not a simply matter of comparing numbers. You need to know what those numbers entail.

Who cares about a very specific workload? Everybody's argument against my machine's superior flexibility is that Apple targets most users. I doubt "most users" have a "workload" that will tax their computer to the point can be used for a comparison point here.

You have no idea what you are saying here. You are now saying that I am right and you are wrong: your notebook isn't faster nor is anybody else's because what most people do on their machines can already be done on something like an iPad/iPhone. The hardware in those devices is enough. The reason that most will still use a notebook is because of the bigger screen, physical keyboard and the different operating system which allows for different kind of apps. Using a Mac Pro or the cheapest MacBook Air will make no difference to them. Thus your claim that your notebook is the fastest cannot hold any truth.

Things like typing, printing, browsing the web, reading, composing and sending e-mail and so on will not be faster on a machine with more than 1 SSD. These are all tasks that won't benefit from faster i/o. They will benefit from a better thought out workflow in the application and maybe even the operating system. That's why data entry is so much faster with Omnifocus on an iPhone than it is on a Mac. Same goes for taking a selfie.

That said, and as I mentioned before, until someone actually posts the results of a comparison speed test of a RMBP besting a 2011 MBP with RAIDed SSDs you are posting nothing but theory and parroting Apple marketing. If we use the "typical" user workflow, I bet that my 17 with RAIDED SSDs will smoke anything out there. But yes, this is theory too.

There have been many benchmarks concerning SSDs in RAID and single disk SSD setups. The RAID one was only faster when it came down to sequential speeds which 99,9% of the users will hardly use at all. In some cases the RAID was slower due to its nature (you need to fetch something from multiple disks instead of 1 for example). This is just basic knowledge about RAID and SSDs.

You can also clearly tell from user experiences. Many people are disappointed with an SSD because it doesn't bring them as much performance as they thought. The only thing it does is start up things a bit faster. Afterwards, everything is still as slow as can be. In case of Windows machines that are in a domain the login process is as slow as it was before (with the HDD). Also, the booting process sees little performance increase because about 75% of the entire process is taken up by things like the BIOS/EFI/UEFI, RAID cards, NICs (PXE), etc.

Now, lighter is good, no question. But 1-2 lbs lighter is not better at the expense of flexibility and power. I concede, this is personal preference. Which is why I contend that Apple should have kept the Air line for those that prefer portability, the RMBPs for those who want power and lightness, and the cMBP for those that want power and flexibility at the expense of weight. 2 out of 3 are appliances. And please, spare me the "Apple focus" argument. It is pure, fresh, BS, and only meant to save "more-money-than-God" Apple money.

I partially agree with that because I don't think the Air and Retina line can coexist. They should be merged because they are too similar. The technology to merge is there so why not? The old MBP should have been kept for those that like to customise their machines. I would not underestimate the weight part though. It's a very big issue for those who use a notebook for what it is meant: a portable system.

My 17 is a desktop replacement. Apple simply pulled out of that segment. I carried my 17 all over the world, from Kuwait to Japan (those are REALLY long flights from the States). No need for external drives, hell, no need for a TV in tents (military).

Lots of people don't ever use peripherals other than a mouse with their notebooks. I've only met 1 person who actually carried around a set of disk drives: one of my classmates. He carried around a big desktop replacement and yes we did laugh at him.

Multiple people can see everything clearly on a 17inch screen.

They can on smaller displays. It all depends on the resolution and dpi used. I've seen 17" notebooks dusting away in closets because the resolution is too high for the user (they can't read whatever is on screen clearly).

I can easily connect to any infrastructure without having to remember to bring too many adapters. I can even tailor my machine for the type of "mission" I'm performing: will I need a lot of capacity, a lot of speed, or a combination of both? No problem. Legacy optical media or network connectivity required (the world doesn't advance as quickly as Apple wants it to)? No prob. RMBP? Stuck with stock configuration, in dongle hell, and external peripheral nightmare.

With Thunderbolt you have that same flexibility. It's only different. If I don't want to do all that I don't have to lug around a big heavy notebook that comes with all bells and whistles every invented. You can take whatever setup you need. That's a different kind of flexibility and for some it doesn't work (if you have no idea what you are going to encounter and thus need to carry everything for example).

So once again, let me clarify this: The RMBPs are great machines. For most people, they are perfect. Way better than any other (alternative) machine currently in production.

It all depends on the workload and the user. There are some users that I don't recommend getting a Mac at all. One uses a computer to get things done and that's exactly what it should do. That is all that matters, not the brand That's, again, the reason why your machine isn't the faster one per definition.

They are really better for Apple: easier to manufacture, non-upgradeable in any way, way less cost to build, less materials, and bigger profit margin.

Not easier to manufacture per se but easier from a marketing point of view. You need to max out the system when you buy it or buy a new one later. That way of doing things does suit the way companies use their computers but it usually doesn't match the consumer way of using their computers. Companies simply write off entire machines.

Small recap: this is more like the Top Gear episode where they test what type of vehicle is the fastest in London. On paper it's the car, in reality it's a bicycle. The same with a Porsche 911 vs a Fiat Panda. On paper the Porsche is the faster car, yet in a city centre where you are only allowed a max of 50kmh neither of them will be faster. There is much more at play than raw speed of the machine. That's the entire point of my post and it is a point you are completely missing.

 

[melendezest]

You are correct in stating that your post (posts even) are missing the forest for the trees here. And I'll explain why:


The point was that workloads define whether or not your or somebody else's setup is the faster one. It is not a simply matter of comparing numbers. You need to know what those numbers entail.


You have no idea what you are saying here. You are now saying that I am right and you are wrong: your notebook isn't faster nor is anybody else's because what most people do on their machines can already be done on something like an iPad/iPhone. The hardware in those devices is enough. The reason that most will still use a notebook is because of the bigger screen, physical keyboard and the different operating system which allows for different kind of apps. Using a Mac Pro or the cheapest MacBook Air will make no difference to them. Thus your claim that your notebook is the fastest cannot hold any truth.

Things like typing, printing, browsing the web, reading, composing and sending e-mail and so on will not be faster on a machine with more than 1 SSD. These are all tasks that won't benefit from faster i/o. They will benefit from a better thought out workflow in the application and maybe even the operating system. That's why data entry is so much faster with Omnifocus on an iPhone than it is on a Mac. Same goes for taking a selfie.


There have been many benchmarks concerning SSDs in RAID and single disk SSD setups. The RAID one was only faster when it came down to sequential speeds which 99,9% of the users will hardly use at all. In some cases the RAID was slower due to its nature (you need to fetch something from multiple disks instead of 1 for example). This is just basic knowledge about RAID and SSDs.

You can also clearly tell from user experiences. Many people are disappointed with an SSD because it doesn't bring them as much performance as they thought. The only thing it does is start up things a bit faster. Afterwards, everything is still as slow as can be. In case of Windows machines that are in a domain the login process is as slow as it was before (with the HDD). Also, the booting process sees little performance increase because about 75% of the entire process is taken up by things like the BIOS/EFI/UEFI, RAID cards, NICs (PXE), etc.


I partially agree with that because I don't think the Air and Retina line can coexist. They should be merged because they are too similar. The technology to merge is there so why not? The old MBP should have been kept for those that like to customise their machines. I would not underestimate the weight part though. It's a very big issue for those who use a notebook for what it is meant: a portable system.


Lots of people don't ever use peripherals other than a mouse with their notebooks. I've only met 1 person who actually carried around a set of disk drives: one of my classmates. He carried around a big desktop replacement and yes we did laugh at him.


They can on smaller displays. It all depends on the resolution and dpi used. I've seen 17" notebooks dusting away in closets because the resolution is too high for the user (they can't read whatever is on screen clearly).


With Thunderbolt you have that same flexibility. It's only different. If I don't want to do all that I don't have to lug around a big heavy notebook that comes with all bells and whistles every invented. You can take whatever setup you need. That's a different kind of flexibility and for some it doesn't work (if you have no idea what you are going to encounter and thus need to carry everything for example).


It all depends on the workload and the user. There are some users that I don't recommend getting a Mac at all. One uses a computer to get things done and that's exactly what it should do. That is all that matters, not the brand That's, again, the reason why your machine isn't the faster one per definition.


Not easier to manufacture per se but easier from a marketing point of view. You need to max out the system when you buy it or buy a new one later. That way of doing things does suit the way companies use their computers but it usually doesn't match the consumer way of using their computers. Companies simply write off entire machines.

Small recap: this is more like the Top Gear episode where they test what type of vehicle is the fastest in London. On paper it's the car, in reality it's a bicycle. The same with a Porsche 911 vs a Fiat Panda. On paper the Porsche is the faster car, yet in a city centre where you are only allowed a max of 50kmh neither of them will be faster. There is much more at play than raw speed of the machine. That's the entire point of my post and it is a point you are completely missing.

Good God. Once again, and for the last time, I am comparing Apples to Apples here. Literally. To bring up any other devices is to not be paying attention. But that's just it. You really aren't.

Other people here were making blanket statements that Apple's current MBP offerings are faster than the last 17. My point was that, given the inflexibility of the new, coupled with the flexibility of the old in regards to configuration options, I highly doubt that. Given that there is NO PROOF, people need to just drop it. It's a BS statement that I didn't make.

You bring up workloads like it matters within the context of my argument. So let me make it as plain as I can: Unless someone is A/B'ing the 2 setups (current MBP and a 17 with the fastest SSDs available in RAID 0), then it's pointless to tell me the newer machines are faster. Until said comparison occurs, NOBODY knows that. But it IS known that 2 SSDs in RAID 0 will pretty much smoke a single drive configuration, when testing against that specific configuration. In short, I didn't say my MBP was faster. I said that people haven't proven that the new MBPs are.

Screen size: A bigger screen is easier to see. Period. That DPI/resolution argument is BS. You can have infinite resolution on a screen the size of a watch. But a 50 inch TV will be easier to see.

Peripherals: I was referring to the fact that I don't need additional external drives, dongles, etc, given the flexibility of the 17 when compared to the new Apple portables.

Thunderbolt: My 17 has it too. But the flexibility is NOT the same as you point out. My machine is more adaptable to pretty much any environment I happen to come across.

Pretty much everything else you say is off topic, given that this is a specific comparison between 2 Apple models. Which is the point you have missed in this entire thread, since it is you who is responding to my posts.

I'm done.

 

[MattInOz]

Apple will drop the screen next. It is the most troublesome iMac part....
The new entry-iMac is the first sign they think the iMac as an all-in-one is dead meat. Never did Apple made such a fool of its customers as with this model.
The USB plug will be fixed. EU laws force a new universal mobile connector, and the draft specs are USB 3.1: flippable, Lightning-like-rugged and USB 3 speeds.

I think the screen is the next to go...
because it'll be replaced with projector technology. Instead of buying by screen size you'll buy by screen res (ie. 2K/ 4K) models that look like a sleek sound bar when switched off. We'll control our own screen size by projecting on to a wall, an accessory screen or on to the table with motion sensors as a touchscreen.

 

[MattInOz]

....
Do you think that the narrow aperture bottom facing speakers are better than the front facing ones?

....

Do you think that moving any port to the back of the machine makes it easier to use?
...

Yes I think these speakers are better. They bounce the sound off the desk up to your ears. So you can hear a song as background more clearly at a lower volume. Great in office situation where you have very different taste in music to the rest of the office.

No the wired keyboard with USB ports was the best version they have done in terms of access.

 

[Thermonuclear]

OH, and if dealing with the changes of Apple products is a problem, then don't use them, buy something else.

Do you realize how absolutely worthless that statement is?

What if Apple doubled all its prices? "Buy something else."
What if Apple eliminated all warranties? "Buy something else."
What if Apple reverted to using only eight bit CPUs? "Buy something else."

How does "Buy something else" help anyone with an investment in Apple hardware or software?

How does "Buy something else" help reduce or reverse Apple's losses in market share?

 

[joe-h2o]

Do you realize how absolutely worthless that statement is?

What if Apple doubled all its prices? "Buy something else."
What if Apple eliminated all warranties? "Buy something else."
What if Apple reverted to using only eight bit CPUs? "Buy something else."

How does "Buy something else" help anyone with an investment in Apple hardware or software?

How does "Buy something else" help reduce or reverse Apple's losses in market share?

It's more helpful than "the modern Mac sucks because it doesn't have a 56k modem". Just a thought.

 

[Thermonuclear]

Yes I think these speakers are better. They bounce the sound off the desk up to your ears. So you can hear a song as background more clearly at a lower volume. Great in office situation where you have very different taste in music to the rest of the office.

I've got a G3 iMac with its facing Harmon Kardon speakers, a G4 iMac with its standard external H-K speakers, and a 2010 iMac with its bounce speakers. The G4 iMac ranks first and the 2010 Mac last. Why? In part because primate evolution has given us forward facing, directional earlobes. The effect is even better when the audio source is directionally aligned with respect to the hearer's ears, something which can be done by elevating the G4's speakers. This alignment also was done by design with the stereo speakers on the Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh.

The bounce speakers on most HDTV models have the same shortcomings as do those on all recent iMacs. Anyone who is serious about audio gets a sound bar. Mine is made by Polk Audio and is fed via TOSLINK (digital optical). It also came with a cute little remote, another thing which has disappeared from the iMac.

For an office environment, I'd use a good set of lightweight semi-pro headphones; no one would be disturbed by my audio and I wouldn't be disturbed by theirs.

 

[WilliamDu]

= The Apple iWatch will sell like hotcakes because it can fulfill an intense need -- but that need has nothing to do with knowing the time of day.

It remains to be seen whether this huge lump on your wrist with a tiny screen providing marginal, or really urgently needed information for a probable very high cost will sell like hot cakes.