16-Inch MacBook Pro With All-New Design Expected in 2019, 13-Inch Model May Gain 32GB RAM

[PickUrPoison]

Too late, Apple. I'm shopping for a nice, thick hackintosh right now.

Apple’s ok with the hackintosh community, otherwise they’d shut them down. Having more people exposed to macOS is a net plus for Apple, and most of the installations don’t equate to lost sales. Pros with the money to buy Macs typically don’t steal the software they need to do their job, and they don’t have time to spend on keeping a hackintosh running.

In your case, since Apple doesn’t make “nice, thick” laptops, you’re not a potential customer either. But enjoy the benefits of macOS, with Apple’s (tacit) blessing!

 

[jamesrick80]

Hmm my new laptop will be a topped spec Dell or HP laptop with Samsung's newest 15.6 inch OLED 4K HDR display panel with 500 nit brightness produced specifically for laptops that will be released in Dell and HP laptops later this year. I bet Apple won't even offer this in a MacBook pro.

 

[VertPin]

Here’s an ideal wishlist for the next MacBook Pro.

-Don’t make it any thinner
-Bring back the old keyboard
-Increase battery life (and while you’re at it, give us the “time remaining...”)
-Silly, but a glowing apple logo would be nice too!

I’m ready to sell this Garbage keyboard MacBook Pro .

 

[jameslmoser]

Apple’s ok with the hackintosh community, otherwise they’d shut them down. Having more people exposed to macOS is a net plus for Apple, and most of the installations don’t equate to lost sales. Pros with the money to buy Macs typically don’t steal the software they need to do their job, and they don’t have time to spend on keeping a hackintosh running.

In your case, since Apple doesn’t make “nice, thick” laptops, you’re not a potential customer either. But enjoy the benefits of macOS, with Apple’s (tacit) blessing!

I don't buy it... as soon as all their Macs contain the t2 chip or newer, or they are all running custom apple cpus... I bet newer versions of macOS will only work on a real mac.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I don't buy it... as soon as all their Macs contain the t2 chip or newer, or they are all running custom apple cpus... I bet newer versions of macOS will only work on a real mac.

It’s not enough to transition to an all-T2 lineup; Apple would also have to kill support for all non-T2 machines. Apple still sells many models without T2 here in 2019 including iMac, Mac Pro, 2017 MacBook Air, 13” nTB MacBook Pro and 12” MacBook. Customers who buy these machines are going to expect OS updates until at least 2025. The same applies to the case if Apple requiring ARM; they’d have to obsolete all Intel hardware. That’s probably an eight year horizon at least.

So I think hackintoshes will be around for many years.

 

[jameslmoser]

It’s not enough to transition to an all-T2 lineup; Apple would also have to kill support for all non-T2 machines. Apple still sells many models without T2 here in 2019 including iMac, Mac Pro, 2017 MacBook Air, 13” nTB MacBook Pro and 12” MacBook. Customers who buy these machines are going to expect OS updates until at least 2025. The same applies to the case if Apple requiring ARM; they’d have to obsolete all Intel hardware. That’s probably an eight year horizon at least.

So I think hackintoshes will be around for many years.

I didn't say they wouldn't be around for awhile, what I said is as soon as apple is able to prevent hackintoshes all together and have excuses for doing it (like it requires functionality of mac specific hardware to function) they will. There is no blessing, tacit or otherwise, by apple to use them.

 

[turbineseaplane]

as soon as apple is able to prevent hackintoshes all together and have excuses for doing it (like it requires functionality of mac specific hardware to function) they will.

Agreed

Sadly, I don't think Tim realizes that "locking it down more" won't make hackintosh users buy legit Macs.
It its far more likely to just make those users leave macOS and likely other parts of the Apple ecosystem as well.

 

[jameslmoser]

Agreed

Sadly, I don't think Tim realizes that "locking it down more" won't make hackintosh users buy legit Macs.
It its far more likely to just make those users leave macOS and likely other parts of the Apple ecosystem as well.

Yeah, because even people who buy macs are already leaving...

 

[turbineseaplane]

Yeah, because even people who buy macs are already leaving...

I'm in that boat (sort of) right now.
If my 2015 15" MBP died and for some reason (just hypothetical here) I wasn't able to buy another one...

I'd buy a Thinkpad and go to Windows.

One thing not on my list of desires for a new MacBook Pro is "more locked down and limited in flexibility"

 

[jameslmoser]

I'm in that boat (sort of) right now.
If my 2015 15" MBP died and for some reason (just hypothetical here) I wasn't able to buy another one...

I'd buy a Thinkpad and go to Windows.

One thing not on my list of desires for a new MacBook Pro is "more locked down and limited in flexibility"

I just built my new desktop, and went with surface book 2... now my old mac pro and macbook pro are collecting dust... I was so hopeful for the new mac pro but as time went on the more likely I realized I was going to be disappointed by it.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I didn't say they wouldn't be around for awhile, what I said is as soon as apple is able to prevent hackintoshes all together and have excuses for doing it (like it requires functionality of mac specific hardware to function) they will. There is no blessing, tacit or otherwise, by apple to use them.

That still doesn’t really make sense. You’re contending that six or eight or ten years from now, Apple will kill hackintoshes as soon as they have a hardware excuse... after a twenty year run, they’ll finally have the justification they need.

But they don’t need a hardware excuse. If they cared at all about people building hackintoshes, Apple could have slammed the door anytime over the last ten or twelve years. Who would argue they don’t have the right to prevent people stealing their software?

And if they do transition completely to an in-house CPU, of course that will be the end of hackintoshes, since no one would expect them to keep building an x86 version of their OS just for the hackintosh community. The hackintosh would be dead, but by collateral damage, not by any specific intent by Apple.

Allowing people to openly steal their OS for the last dozen years is obviously tacit consent, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. There’s really no reason to view the T2—or an ARM CPU—as Apple coming for your hackintosh.

 

[jameslmoser]

That still doesn’t really make sense. You’re contending that six or eight or ten years from now, Apple will kill hackintoshes as soon as they have a hardware excuse... after a twenty year run, they’ll finally have the justification they need.

But they don’t need a hardware excuse. If they cared at all about people building hackintoshes, Apple could have slammed the door anytime over the last ten or twelve years. Who would argue they don’t have the right to prevent people stealing their software?

And if they do transition completely to an in-house CPU, of course that will be the end of hackintoshes, since no one would expect them to keep building an x86 version of their OS just for the hackintosh community. The hackintosh would be dead, but by collateral damage, not by any specific intent by Apple.

Allowing people to openly steal their OS for the last dozen years is obviously tacit consent, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. There’s really no reason to view the T2—or an ARM CPU—as Apple coming for your hackintosh.

Its against their EULA and they actively prohibit virtualization solutions from supporting it... Just because they haven't gone out of their way on a futile attempt to prevent you from doing it doesn't mean they are giving any kind of consent.
[doublepost=1551400786][/doublepost]Don't get me wrong I'm all for running it on pc hardware... If they really thought services was the future, if they treated macOS as a service that was free for mac buyers, but pc users had to pay, they would probably make some serious money. But as of right now... they DON'T consent, tacit or otherwise, for you to run macOS on non mac hardware.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Its against their EULA and they actively prohibit virtualization solutions from supporting it... Just because they haven't gone out of their way on a futile attempt to prevent you from doing it doesn't mean they are giving any kind of consent.

Of course hackintoshes are against the EULA (as is virtualization, though outside the scope of our discussion). We’re talking about tacit consent, not express consent. If you’re expecting them to say, out loud, “we’re going to leave you alone to do your hackintoshing unless you try to do it for commercial purposes” then you misunderstand the word tacit.

If you think Apple couldn’t make life extremely difficult for the hackintosh community if they so chose—or that Apple has some hidden agenda to eliminate hackintoshes by spending hundreds of millions/billions on developing their own silicon—there’s really not a whole lot left to discuss. If you want to believe Apple wants to take away your hackintosh, by all means, believe. But do realize there’s no evidence they’re interested in anything of the sort. Just saying, “well it’s possible” is unconvincing. Maybe you can build a stronger argument?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for running it on pc hardware... If they really thought services was the future, if they treated macOS as a service that was free for mac buyers, but pc users had to pay, they would probably make some serious money. But as of right now... they DON'T consent, tacit or otherwise, for you to run macOS on non mac hardware.

If a Clover developer tells you Apple just slammed the door shut, or you see any evidence that Apple is no longer ignoring the hackintosh community, you may assume Apple’s tacit consent has been withdrawn. Until then, Apple is saying—albeit not out loud—“if you want to build a hackintosh, we’re fine with that”.

 

[jameslmoser]

Of course hackintoshes are against the EULA (as is virtualization, though outside the scope of our discussion). We’re talking about tacit consent, not express consent. If you’re expecting them to say, out loud, “we’re going to leave you alone to do your hackintoshing unless you try to do it for commercial purposes” then you misunderstand the word tacit.

If you think Apple couldn’t make life extremely difficult for the hackintosh community if they so chose—or that Apple has some hidden agenda to eliminate hackintoshes by spending hundreds of millions/billions on developing their own silicon—there’s really not a whole lot left to discuss. If you want to believe Apple wants to take away your hackintosh, by all means, believe. But do realize there’s no evidence they’re interested in anything of the sort. Just saying, “well it’s possible” is unconvincing. Maybe you can build a stronger argument?

I don't need to. As I said, its against their EULA... that alone is the opposite of consent. Go ahead and think what you want... I don't care to argue with you anymore about it.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I don't need to. As I said, its against their EULA... that alone is the opposite of consent. Go ahead and think what you want... I don't care to argue with you anymore about it.

Yes, Apple expressly forbids installation of macOS on non-Apple hardware; if they didn’t I could run a commercial business doing just that. But they simultaneously look the other way from anyone who creates a hackintosh for their own personal use. They accept the hackintosh community and allow them to do their thing wholly unrestrained. If I were an attorney I may not agree that this demonstrates tacit consent, but that’s really a side issue.

The fact is Apple is explicitly allowing hackintoshes to exist. And you mis-read my call for a stronger argument. Clearly I said there’s no evidence Apple is interested in taking away your hackintosh. You’ve provided absolutely no argument to the contrary, weak or otherwise.

Me aside, if you want to convince anyone that Apple cares enough about hackintoshes to bother doing anything whatsoever to kill them, you’re going to have to come up with some type of argument to back that statement up. Just saying, “well they could, once they obsolete the 2017 MacBook Air and the current Mac Pro, 12” MacBook and iMacs many years from now” is not at all convincing. Especially given the fact they could kill the hackintosh now if they so chose.

 

[jameslmoser]

if you want to convince anyone that Apple cares enough about hackintoshes to bother doing anything whatsoever to kill them, you’re going to have to come up with some type of argument to back that statement up.

what the hell are you talking about??? My point is they don't care enough to stop it, but that is not the same thing as them consenting to it. If hackintoshes were a bigger threat to their business they might have bothered. I don't think they could have prevented it as easily as you think... it would be an uphill battle, just like them trying to prevent jailbreaking iOS.

I think maybe you need to look up the definition of that word "consent".

 

[buckwheet]

I just built my new desktop, and went with surface book 2... now my old mac pro and macbook pro are collecting dust... I was so hopeful for the new mac pro but as time went on the more likely I realized I was going to be disappointed by it.

While I generally agree with your thoughts in this thread, I really don't understand why people have the attitude that, simply because of the time it's taking, they are "likely" to be disappointed by the modular Mac Pro. Is there really any relation between the duration of the wait and the quality of the result, in this case? Unless you're suggesting that the time it's taking suggests that they may be re-inventing the wheel again, like they did in 2013... (?)

Sorry, but I've heard this sentiment many times over the past year, and I really don't see any legitimacy to it. Being impatient, and moving on to another platform as a result is totally understandable, but that impatience has no bearing on what Apple is building...

 

[jameslmoser]

While I generally agree with your thoughts in this thread, I really don't understand why people have the attitude that, simply because of the time it's taking, they are "likely" to be disappointed by the modular Mac Pro. Is there really any relation between the duration of the wait and the quality of the result, in this case? Unless you're suggesting that the time it's taking suggests that they may be re-inventing the wheel again, like they did in 2013... (?)

Sorry, but I've heard this sentiment many times over the past year, and I really don't see any legitimacy to it. Being impatient, and moving on to another platform as a result is totally understandable, but that impatience has no bearing on what Apple is building...

The time alone they are taking to reinvent the wheel instead of just give us what we are telling them we wanted is reason enough for me to be disappointed. The fact that they obviously have no intention in supporting NVidia cards in even eGPU enclosures means its not likely the Mac Pro will support them either. I have generally preferred NVidia.

After they made the new Mac Mini have user upgradeable ram, etc, I was a little more optimistic. However, the longer they take, the more likely fewer people are going to wait for it, which means the less money they are going to make on it, which means its probably going to be another 4 or 5 years before they update it again if they even bother. It doesn't seem like there is much of a future for it.
[doublepost=1551458038][/doublepost]If they wanted to "innovate" on a new project, fine, but they should have released an updated cMP in the meantime... it clearly works for most people, Apple knows it and is still supporting the 5,1 in Mojave.

 

[PickUrPoison]

what the hell are you talking about??? My point is they don't care enough to stop it, but that is not the same thing as them consenting to it. If hackintoshes were a bigger threat to their business they might have bothered. I don't think they could have prevented it as easily as you think... it would be an uphill battle, just like them trying to prevent jailbreaking iOS.

I think maybe you need to look up the definition of that word "consent".

In my initial post that you replied to, I said Apple’s ok with the hackintosh community, otherwise they’d shut them down.

You said “I don’t buy it.... as soon as all their Macs contain the t2 chip or newer, or they are all running custom apple cpus... I bet newer versions of macOS will only work on a real mac.”

But you’ve offered nothing to support that statement. In fact, Apple’s current position is they don’t seem to care much at all about the hackintosh, and allow/permit the hackintosh community to freely and openly violate the EULA.

You’re wrapped around the axle on this issue of consent. Take a step back and defend your contention that as soon as Apple has a hardware excuse to kill hackintoshes, they will. Why? They apparently don’t care in the least, and have been allowing it for more than a decade. (I’d be surprised if it would cost more than $1.00 to put an encrypted boot PROM on a Mac, if Apple had any interest in killing hackintoshes.)

wrt the consent issue you’re hung up on: Apple refraining from taking action against the hackintosh community—who are obviously violating the Apple hardware-only portion of the EULA—can be seen as tacit consent of their conduct. They’re looking the other way, even though they could take legal action. But that’s not really relevant to your claim that Apple will use the T2 as an excuse to kill hackintoshes. There’s no evidence Apple is interested in taking away your hackintosh—at least not any you’ve provided.

 

[atikalz]

It’s not about the money. It’s about convenience. My MacBook Pro 2015 (by the way bought after I tried the 2016 new model and returned it) just works. Out of the box. Since over 2 years everything connects and the keyboard works so fine, even when working weeks at the beach in an RV where a lot of Fine sand went in every part of the MacBook.

You can make a TB3 port fully backward compatible with any of your USB-A devices. The same cannot be said the other way around.

It'll cost you as little as $1 to convert any of your USB-A devices to a USB-C version. I have almost a dozen USB-C to USB-A endcap adapters. They were cheap and they work.

You're so done with Macs. If you refuse to spend $1 per device to update your peripherals, why on earth haven't you moved on to Windows?

[doublepost=1551533974][/doublepost]

It’s not about the money. It’s about convenience. My MacBook Pro 2015 (by the way bought after I tried the 2016 new model and returned it) just works. Out of the box. Since over 2 years everything connects and the keyboard works so fine, even when working weeks at the beach in an RV where a lot of Fine sand went in every part of the MacBook.

And no i am not done with Mac at all. Will never go back to windows. I just don’t like the actual MacBook Pro and hope for the new model, that they give pro users a proper keyboard, drop the stupid and annoying touchbar and maybe put a usb-a slot in. I think the last wish won’t happen. For the rest I have a good feeling.

 

[jameslmoser]

Apple knows USB A is still the most common port, otherwise they wouldn't have included that cable for all their iPhones. The fact they just expect everyone to buy a bunch of dongles or throw out their old equipment is just ridiculous, and not very environmentally friendly.

I buy new hardware all the time... I waste more money on new gadgets then I care to admit... and still the only USB-C device I own is my Nintendo Switch.

 

[smirking]

The fact they just expect everyone to buy a bunch of dongles or throw out their old equipment is just ridiculous, and not very environmentally friendly.

Moving toward a more versatile plug will be more environmentally friendly in the long run. USB-A is outdated. Apple's the only company willing to roll the dice and go all-in to push the industry toward updating outdated standards sooner instead of later. If you're concerned about environmental friendliness, it makes more sense to support a faster transition to USB-C.

USB-A is only convenient because that's the most common type of port. As a plug, it sucks because you frequently have the full sized USB-A squarish plug on one end and on the other side it's one of the following:

• Micro USB-A
• Micro USB-B
• USB Mini-b 5 pin
• USB Mini-b 4 pin
• USB 3.0 B-Type
• USB 3.0 Micro B
• Lightning

Good grief. I have every single one of these USB cable variants in my cables box and my oldest adapter is a USB-A hydra/multi-plug that allows me to translate one USB plug format to any of the other ones so I don't have to carry multiple types of USB cables.

 

[jameslmoser]

Moving toward a more versatile plug will be more environmentally friendly in the long run. USB-A is outdated. Apple's the only company willing to roll the dice and go all-in to push the industry toward updating outdated standards sooner instead of later. If you're concerned about environmental friendliness, it makes more sense to support a faster transition to USB-C.

USB-A is only convenient because that's the most common type of port. As a plug, it sucks because you frequently have the full sized USB-A squarish plug on one end and on the other side it's one of the following:

• Micro USB-A
• Micro USB-B
• USB Mini-b 5 pin
• USB Mini-b 4 pin
• USB 3.0 B-Type
• USB 3.0 Micro B
• Lightning

Good grief. I have every single one of these USB cable variants in my cables box and my oldest adapter is a USB-A hydra/multi-plug that allows me to translate one USB plug format to any of the other ones so I don't have to carry multiple types of USB cables.

Good grief is right...it get tiring listening to you guys make excuses for apple's poor decisions. Just answer this, if everything that your saying is true then why is apple still selling iPhones with USB-A cables???

Having so many different ones is a pain, but most of those are generally found on laptops or computers. You know what port is found on most laptops and computers... USB-A.

USB-A is only convenient because that's the most common type of port.

Exactly. Its suppose to be a universal port! If all your devices still work with it, how is it convenient to use a dongle to hook up to a different type of port. It doesn't matter if the port is better if nothing you have will take advantage of that, and require an adapter.

I understand that progress requires change... but that doesn't mean a switch is flipped and everything changes at the same time. Their laptops all contained USB-A, then no USB-A and all USB-C... that is ridiculous. Dongles galore...
[doublepost=1551641905][/doublepost]They made everyone start using lighting adapters for headphones, and now they are going to switch to USB-C... they should have done that before removing the headphone jack. The decisions they are making are not consumer or environmentally friendly at all... and to pretend they were necessary or even courageous is insulting.
[doublepost=1551642006][/doublepost]If I go to an electronics store right now, I would guess that 90% or more of all the devices that came with a USB cable still being sold today came with a USB-A cable. How is that outdated??

 

[smirking]

Good grief is right...it get tiring listening to you guys make excuses for apple's poor decisions.

Not making any excuses. Just stating the rationale for embracing the future. It's never painless. It's not going to be convenient, but it's a move in the right direction.

Having so many different ones is a pain, but most of those are generally found on laptops or computers. You know what port is found on most laptops and computers... USB-A.

Not true. All those plugs I mentioned aren't found on most laptops. Those alternate plugs are typically found on peripheral devices whose other end is a USB-A port. USB-A being ubiquitous doesn't mean it's better. If ubiquity determined what was best, we'd still be watching movies on VHS tapes.

Exactly. If all your devices still work with it, how is it convenient to use a dongle to hook up to a different type of port. It doesn't matter if the port is better if nothing you have will take advantage of that, and require an adapter.

I think you may have missed what I meant. I'm pretty sure that I have even more gadgets than you do. I have a whole box of cables that are different variants of USB-A / USB-B plugs and at times I have to carry extra cables just so I can connect to different devices. People complain about dongles and adapters but don't complain that USB-A can't really connect to anything else without either adapters or the exact right version of the cable with a USB-A male plug on the "computer" end and one of a number of other plugs on the peripheral end.

I suspect they don't complain because this inconvenience is already baked in and they already have different cables for different devices. The status quo locks you into that reality. USB-C is a change away from needing a whole box of different cables for different situation to needing just one cable for anything.

Of course one cable to rule them all is not where we're at right now, and the vast ocean of legacy devices out there probably means it'll be a long time before we reach one cable paradise, but at least we're moving in the right direction.

 

[temhawk]

I changed my mind about it, you're right. A few extra adapters/cables isn't a big problem, especially for the 'pro' audience. It's about moving in the right direction. That's also why I'm still going to buy a hackintosh.