Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Launches New 'Behind the Mac' Ad Campaign

ocnitsa said:
One issue here is that Apple is letting their overarching design motivation (thinness), a design that works with a less-pro, more mainstream crowd, clash with preferences by the pro community which butt up against thinness (more power/RAM, current CPUs, a variety of ports). The choices they are making probably can be put on a routine schedule, because they often are irrelevant to hardware release dates. Touchbar and keyboard design work (or don't work) on their schedule. Case in point: the 32GB RAM option. Their refusal to go that route boils down to their design motivations that originate in thinness. They say it's because logic board revision and non low-powered RAM will reduce battery life. While that's true (and many pros don't care), the battery could be somewhat larger if there wasn't a non-budge stance taken on thinness. I think it's arguable that their stance on ports can likewise be linked to thinner design (and probably more standardized designs for logic boards). The ironic thing is that this is only a problem because the pro line is under the same overarching design constraints as the other lines...in fact, I imagine if they offered a 17 inch model that eschewed those constraints, people would stop complaining (apart from the broken keyboard design) about the 13 and 15 inch models.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. Although I admit that the form factor of the 2016+ is nice, I'd gladly use a 2015-sized machine in order to avoid the many problems associated with this overemphasis on thinness. While I once thought Ive was pretty brilliant, recent decisions seem to indicate otherwise.
[EDIT: Mind you, I'd never buy a 17" machine. Too large for me, as I travel a lot. Combining the 2015 thickness with the width/height of the 2016 would be perfect, imho.]
[doublepost=1529074410][/doublepost]
cBraunDesign said:
Here's a thought. Take the 2015 MBP, switch out the mini display ports for TB3/USB-C, keep everything else the same, and stuff new chipsets inside and add 32GB of RAM. Bam. Perfect computer.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple Fritter, Rhartford and Yvan256
buckwheet said:
Absolutely agree. Although I admit that the form factor of the 2016+ is nice, I'd gladly use a 2015-sized machine in order to avoid the many problems associated with this overemphasis on thinness. While I once thought Ive was pretty brilliant, recent decisions seem to indicate otherwise.
[EDIT: Mind you, I'd never buy a 17" machine. Too large for me, as I travel a lot. Combining the 2015 thickness with the width/height of the 2016 would be perfect, imho.]
[doublepost=1529074410][/doublepost]
EXACTLY!!!
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, the 2015 form factor is still a "current" Apple product (as in, it can still be purchased), so this isn't entirely beyond the realm of possibility... [EDIT: Hmm... MR's quoting got confused here... I mean that updating the 2015 model with current ports and internals isn't beyond the realm of possibility.]
 
Mr. Dee said:
Behind the Mac is a company that doesn't care anymore it seems. Thumbnails look like a bunch of frustrated users.
Click to expand...

And a lot of hot air!

“We love the Mac”
“We have a killer upgrade coming for Pros… just not this year… or next year”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple Fritter
BWhaler said:
Apple sells obsolete technology with crappy keyboards.

This is the state of the Mac.

  • iMac Pro: 182 days ago
  • iMac: 374 days ago
  • MacBook: 374 days ago
  • MacBook Air: 374 days ago
  • MacBook Pro: 374 days ago
  • Mac Pro: 436 days ago
  • Mac Mini: 1337 days ago
And most of those “updates” were inconsequential bumps. Is it even ethical to be selling the Mac mini at this point?

Design decisions, e.g. 1 USB’s c port which is required for power, The ill-conceived touch bar, mindlessly making everything thinner over functionality, and again, those train wreck keyboards, etc., make the current line up worse than what they offered 3 years ago.

No amount of marketing or slick videos is going to fix how bad the hardware situation is, nor will it cover up Aaple’s unwillingness to regularly update the Mac line.

Apple is causing the decay of the Mac through their lack of care, and it breaks my heart.
Click to expand...
Correct.

https://apple.slashdot.org/story/18...are?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed

The half-decade disaster that is Mac hardware is widely reported by mainstream media but Macrumors (the internet's authoritative Apple news site) not only refuses to post about it, but actively censors discussion.

The emperor has no clothes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: bigandtasty
I think they should kill the Air, make the MacBook an Air, the 2016/17 MacBook Pros into MacBooks, and revise the 2015 MacBook Pro to be a proper professional machine, with fully up-to-date internals. (Ideally, I'd like the smaller bezel of the 2016, but would settle for the 2015 size.)
 
LordVic said:
The problem is. when you call a device "PRO" there needs to be the assumption that it's going to be configurable enough to account for a wider range of options than most consumer devices. Pro (to get away from the idea of work vs non work since work is pretty subjetive), generally means that the computer itself can scale to the workload that it is required to perform.

For many people, who want Apple computers, who need high end performance needs, 32gb might very well be a requirement. By not even providing this option (Even if it has battery life affects), Apple has put a ceiling on their "Pro" line that many who want/need 32gb cannot cross.

16gb is more than enough for gaming. I've yet to see an AAA title that will saturate that. But there is a tonne of enterprise, and even consumer software titles that will benefit tremendously from more RAM.
Click to expand...

The issue here is that 32 GB needs to be supported by the apps. I haven't seen many apps in the Apple ecosystem that would benefit from 32 GB. Perhaps it's simply because app developers know that the limit is 16 GB so that's what they can work with on the MBP platform.
 
PickUrPoison said:
I’m sure Apple appreciates your concern. But there’s no need to panic, iMac and MacBook Pro are updated yearly.
Click to expand...
Actually they stopped shipping Pro laptops a few years ago.

If it doesn't have a full power processor, and if you can't put lots of RAM in it, it's not a Pro laptop.

Look at the professional lines from literally every manufacturer except Apple. Literally every one.
[doublepost=1529077066][/doublepost]Anyone need additional proof that Apple is just a vertically-integrated marketing company?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple Fritter and Queen6
buckwheet said:
I think they should kill the Air, make the MacBook an Air, the 2016/17 MacBook Pros into MacBooks, and revise the 2015 MacBook Pro to be a proper professional machine, with fully up-to-date internals. (Ideally, I'd like the smaller bezel of the 2016, but would settle for the 2015 size.)
Click to expand...

Agreed. What would be nice is at the very minimum they just update the internals across all their Mac product lines. For example, it would be nice if the Mac Mini was simply updated with more modern internals. i5 1.4 ghz for $500. What an abysmal value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple Fritter
ipponrg said:
The issue here is that 32 GB needs to be supported by the apps. I haven't seen many apps in the Apple ecosystem that would benefit from 32 GB. Perhaps it's simply because app developers know that the limit is 16 GB so that's what they can work with on the MBP platform.
Click to expand...
Dude what are you talking about.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveW928 and LordVic
ipponrg said:
The issue here is that 32 GB needs to be supported by the apps. I haven't seen many apps in the Apple ecosystem that would benefit from 32 GB. Perhaps it's simply because app developers know that the limit is 16 GB so that's what they can work with on the MBP platform.
Click to expand...

No, that is not true or the case in any way.

32gb of ram doesn't need any specific app support. it only requires an OS that can support it. Once you have 32gb of ram, or 16, or 8, or even 128, any app can address any portion of that they need. do all apps scale their memory usage up with RAM availability?of course not. They shouldn't. tehy should only take what's needed.

But there are apps that do use more than 16gb. many DB engines, many enterprise stuff. In addition, it's not individual programs themselves, but multitasking and the multitude of programs that one might run in parallel that would can use that additional memory space.

For Example: Trying to do some network implementations and Virtual machine testing with multiple Virtual Machines. want to run 2 x VMs? How about 3-4 of them with a DB engine running?

There is absolutely plenty of use cases where 32gb would be welcome. No additional App support necessary.

Most consumer software won't use more than 1-2gb of RAM usage on their own. but when you start using a lot of software at once, the extra memory goes a long way.

your comments about App support for RAM doesn't really make it sound like you understand the point you're trying to make, sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aknabi, Apple Fritter, SteveW928 and 2 others
These ads kind of remind me of Apple commercials from the 90’s, I like them. I’m hoping that this is the beginning of Apple paying a little more attention to the Mac. Get a strong ad campaign going, update and clean up the Mac product line and release Mojave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluecoast
LordVic said:
No, that is not true or the case in any way.

32gb of ram doesn't need any specific app support. it only requires an OS that can support it. Once you have 32gb of ram, or 16, or 8, or even 128, any app can address any portion of that they need. do all apps scale their memory usage up with RAM availability?of course not. They shouldn't. tehy should only take what's needed.

But there are apps that do use more than 16gb. many DB engines, many enterprise stuff. In addition, it's not individual programs themselves, but multitasking and the multitude of programs that one might run in parallel that would can use that additional memory space.

For Example: Trying to do some network implementations and Virtual machine testing with multiple Virtual Machines. want to run 2 x VMs? How about 3-4 of them with a DB engine running?

There is absolutely plenty of use cases where 32gb would be welcome. No additional App support necessary.

Most consumer software won't use more than 1-2gb of RAM usage on their own. but when you start using a lot of software at once, the extra memory goes a long way.

your comments about App support for RAM doesn't really make it sound like you understand the point you're trying to make, sorry.
Click to expand...

Ah that's true - my bad. I was thinking in the scope of app work and not parallel VMs.

I actually only run 1 VM here, and now I remember trying to run 2 VMs and running into issues. It was a combination of both RAM and CPU though.
[doublepost=1529078373][/doublepost]
dirt_farmer said:
Dude what are you talking about.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I do. I actually forgot about the situations that @LordVic explained. I know you're an anti Mac fanboy, but maybe you should try to be more civilized because I'm not against you.
 
ipponrg said:
Ah that's true - my bad. I was thinking in the scope of app work and not parallel VMs.

I actually only run 1 VM here, and now I remember trying to run 2 VMs and running into issues. It was a combination of both RAM and CPU though.
Click to expand...

yup. Performance and Requirements is not necessarily going to scale directly in a single program (though some do), but accross workloads and process flows. if you're a user who regularly just has a single fullscreen program or two up, than 8 is probably enough. some can even get away with 4 still (though getting harder). But when we're talking about Professional use cases (not all pro is the same, but in many cases) it's about being able to have enough power via both CPU, RAM and storage to run multiple things without significant bottlenecking. Running out of physical RAM is a tremendously LARGE bottleneck to performance. Even the fastest NVME SSD's that Apple has don't hold a candle to RAM's performance. Forcing a program to swap it's memory to disk will have dramatic performance impacts.

the RAM case for Apple is the typical 80/20 rule. 20% of your users might want it, but cutting out 20% of your user base to focus on the 80% has it's own risks involved. at least making an option for 32gb with the caveat "this BTO option will reduce battery life by approximately X%" would be acceptible if 32GB is a necessity to those willing to buy it. But Apple has taken the approach "We know what you need better than you do" approach. Which tends to piss some users off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple Fritter
citysnaps said:
Why? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. The original poster was a Hater.

Pay it no mind.
[doublepost=1529079001][/doublepost]
Mic'sBook said:
It's so sad the Apple logos on newer MacBook (Pro) models no longer shine again :(, which is a 'feature' since the PowerBook era
Click to expand...
Apparently, it was a problem of them showing through on the display-side under certain lighting conditions.
[doublepost=1529079326][/doublepost]
BWhaler said:
Apple sells obsolete technology with crappy keyboards.

This is the state of the Mac.

  • iMac Pro: 182 days ago
  • iMac: 374 days ago
  • MacBook: 374 days ago
  • MacBook Air: 374 days ago
  • MacBook Pro: 374 days ago
  • Mac Pro: 436 days ago
  • Mac Mini: 1337 days ago
And most of those “updates” were inconsequential bumps. Is it even ethical to be selling the Mac mini at this point?

Design decisions, e.g. 1 USB’s c port which is required for power, The ill-conceived touch bar, mindlessly making everything thinner over functionality, and again, those train wreck keyboards, etc., make the current line up worse than what they offered 3 years ago.

No amount of marketing or slick videos is going to fix how bad the hardware situation is, nor will it cover up Aaple’s unwillingness to regularly update the Mac line.

Apple is causing the decay of the Mac through their lack of care, and it breaks my heart.
Click to expand...
So, you are complaining about computers that, other than the mini and the Pro, have been updated a year ago or less, right?

Just wanted to make sure of that.

You do realize, of course, that CPU advancements have pretty much come to a halt, speed-wise, at least. And GPU advancements are "getting there", too. So, other than "changing the height of the tail-fins", just WHAT, exactly, is to be gained by FORCING an "Update" for anything BUT the Mac mini and the Mac Pro?

It's freaking ridiculous.
[doublepost=1529079407][/doublepost]
Hater said:
They asked me to partake, but I can't as my project didn't render in time - it has been bouncing off the 16GB RAM limit.

For 5 bloody years.
Click to expand...
Talk to Intel about that.
[doublepost=1529079657][/doublepost]
SteveW928 said:
Yes, they actually have to do something now, but hopefully this is a small sign.
Click to expand...
I'm REALLY getting sick of this meme!

Other than the Mac mini and the Mac Pro (and even IT was updated about a year and a quarter-ago), ALL of the Macs have been updated in JUST over a year. And the iMac Pro in less than HALF a year! See THIS post:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...nd-the-mac-ad-campaign.2123355/#post-26155023

That's QUITE sufficient, given that, other than the MacBook Air (and maybe the MacBook (non-pro)), ALL of the Macs have state-of-the-art CPUs and GPUs and I/O.

Now what? You need to check your facts before just parroting a Hater meme...
 
Last edited:
MacsRgr8 said:
The thing fo me:
Will there, or will there be not a "modular" 2019 Mac Pro? Based on Xeons and TB3 eGPU's, i.e. a real workstation?

I know it has been stated, but seeing is believing.
I have this feeling Apple doesn't really want to sell a new x64-based Mac Pro, but move over to ARM and an AX based "security chip", locking down macOS akin iOS.

It's strange how quickly "Classic" Mac OS became outdated: 1984 - 2002: 18 years.
M(m)ac( )OS( X) as desktop OS is lasting 18 years now too: 2000 - 2018.
Click to expand...
Is it 2019 yet?

There's your answer.

As for MacOS "Classic" vs. "modern" macOS: Apple was feeling the constraints of the Classic OS, and tried valiantly to rework and retrofit modern design into it; but the best and easiest path-forward became for Apple to purchase NeXT, primarily to acquire OpenStep. Fortunately, that Unix-based/Mach XNU hybrid OS has been able to grow and roll with the punches to stay relevant over the years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back