Yeah here in MR we mainly use the word "innovation" to mean "cool new tech that we want to buy". But of course that's a narrow use of a broad word. That definition doesn't take into account that the cool new tech had to be innovated in a way that was affordable for people to buy. That means innovating processes to bring down the cost of production, and that often includes innovating new tech within those processes. That tech just doesn't happen to be customer-facing so we often don't ever know about it, much less get excited by it. But it's what allows us to have our shiny things. Companies are always working on these innovations behind the curtains--Henry Ford did it which made the car widely accessible, Tesla did it which made the electric car widely accessible, and Apple did it which made the MacBook widely accessible.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple on MacBook Neo Design: 'We're Certainly Not Making Any Compromises'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Detnator
macrumors 6502a
Ok… looks like you answered my question above… before I asked it…
Why is “binned” relevant to anything. For one we don’t know they’re binned. For two, even if they are… so what? It’s a chip that runs macOS with more than adequate performance. And the chip’s specs are exactly what their marketing says they are.
But that’s just the appetizer. You’ve really come to the party here…
Your entire argument and your countless posts about it, all come down to this one premise: Apple defined MacBook by their lineup at that moment before the release of the Neo…
Yeah… no. It’s opinion, which you’re entitled to, but you’re still wrong.
So when they released a product that differed from that existing lineup, that new product doesn’t fit that specific definition of MacBook, therefore, they’re…
You described i7Guy as obtuse, but now, Defining a MacBook as what was specifically on the market right before the Neo, is so narrow and blind it’s by the far more obtuse…
MacBooks have been around for just over twenty years.
When the 11” MacBook Air came out was it not a MacBook because it had a smaller screen than any other before it? Or the 16” because it had a bigger screen?
When the original MacBook Air arrived, and had a lot of “compromises” in order to make it fit in an envelope, was it not a MacBook?
Or what about other Macs? When the first flat screen iMac came out was it not an iMac or even a Mac because it didn’t have a CRT monitor built in?
Mac laptops used to have USB-A, now they only have USB-C (the connector not the protocol), did they stop being Macs then because, Macs always had USB-A (except oh wait, they didn’t before 1998).
After each architecture change (68K - PPC - Intel - ASi) were the new ones no longer Macs or members of their respective lines because they had different chips in them?
Especially the transition to ASi - no more BootCamp. Does that mean they’re not Macs any more? But wait, they couldn’t do Bootcamp before they got Intel chips, so they stopped being Macs when they got Intel chips…?
I suppose the iPod mini was misnamed because it wasn’t truly an iPod any more, because it didn’t have a hard drive in it, just a piddly little SSD. Yeah… that was a compromise.
Do you need any more examples?
Again, sadly you’ve been suspended so you can’t respond. Which is a shame. Because I’d really like to hear your case in all this context.
If you are ever allowed back, just one thing: if you can find holes to pick in some of my examples that’s great, but your point falls unless you can pick, and articulate, holes in ALL of my examples.
Why is “binned” relevant to anything. For one we don’t know they’re binned. For two, even if they are… so what? It’s a chip that runs macOS with more than adequate performance. And the chip’s specs are exactly what their marketing says they are.
But that’s just the appetizer. You’ve really come to the party here…
Your entire argument and your countless posts about it, all come down to this one premise: Apple defined MacBook by their lineup at that moment before the release of the Neo…
Yeah… no. It’s opinion, which you’re entitled to, but you’re still wrong.
So when they released a product that differed from that existing lineup, that new product doesn’t fit that specific definition of MacBook, therefore, they’re…
and…
You described i7Guy as obtuse, but now, Defining a MacBook as what was specifically on the market right before the Neo, is so narrow and blind it’s by the far more obtuse…
MacBooks have been around for just over twenty years.
When the 11” MacBook Air came out was it not a MacBook because it had a smaller screen than any other before it? Or the 16” because it had a bigger screen?
When the original MacBook Air arrived, and had a lot of “compromises” in order to make it fit in an envelope, was it not a MacBook?
Or what about other Macs? When the first flat screen iMac came out was it not an iMac or even a Mac because it didn’t have a CRT monitor built in?
Mac laptops used to have USB-A, now they only have USB-C (the connector not the protocol), did they stop being Macs then because, Macs always had USB-A (except oh wait, they didn’t before 1998).
After each architecture change (68K - PPC - Intel - ASi) were the new ones no longer Macs or members of their respective lines because they had different chips in them?
Especially the transition to ASi - no more BootCamp. Does that mean they’re not Macs any more? But wait, they couldn’t do Bootcamp before they got Intel chips, so they stopped being Macs when they got Intel chips…?
I suppose the iPod mini was misnamed because it wasn’t truly an iPod any more, because it didn’t have a hard drive in it, just a piddly little SSD. Yeah… that was a compromise.
Do you need any more examples?
Again, sadly you’ve been suspended so you can’t respond. Which is a shame. Because I’d really like to hear your case in all this context.
If you are ever allowed back, just one thing: if you can find holes to pick in some of my examples that’s great, but your point falls unless you can pick, and articulate, holes in ALL of my examples.
Detnator
macrumors 6502a
Three points:
1. What’s so hilarious about the marketing?
The consensus among some here seems to be that when Apple's head of Industrial Design said they made "no compromises" on the essential things that Mac a MacBook a MacBook, she was lying because it doesn't have a haptic trackpad, P3 color and a bunch of other things that are absolutely not defining features of any MacBook.
Perhaps subjectively certain features are stand-out features to certain individuals or even certain groups of people, but that's entirely subjective, not objective fact as implied by those pushing the "lying" argument.
There was no deception. At best there was an opinion, by the people that have every right to define their own products however they want.
So again, what's so hilarious about the marketing?
2. Huh? People are getting suspended because they're posting in this thread ...? On what grounds?
3. I'll call your iBook with three MacBook Neos.
- The cheapest (new) Mac laptop ever made before the Neo was the 11-inch MacBook Air for $899 in 2014 = ~$1240 in today's dollars.
- If your iBook is the G3/700 12-inch from 2002 it was $999 then = $1800 in today's dollars, and if it's any other model it was more.
For decades people have been complaining that Apple just won't make anything that will compete with the low end of the Windows world. Steve said "but they're junk". Some people said "we don't care if it's junk, we just want cheap macOS." Steve said "we don't make junk." And that was it.
Steve was the best thing that ever happened to Apple. Twice. And sure, Tim's not Steve, and rest assured I have my issues with corporate greed billionaire wealth, and the rest of it. But as the leader for 15 years now of one of the most financially, and technologically, successful companies in history, he's not the complete flop everyone makes him out to be.
In particular, right here, right now, he's done something Steve perhaps never would but more likely never could. He's released the cheapest Mac laptop ever made by at least 2x.
And unlike everything else at its price point, it's not junk.
eltoslightfoot
macrumors 68040
I would like to say more but I don't want to get suspended. But yes, people are getting suspended based solely off this thread. I don't understand why or what, but if you read between the lines, you should be able to figure it out.
So, no, I won't really address your points. Both good and bad.
Detnator
macrumors 6502a
I'm not sure how that makes sense. If you don't know why or what, then how do you know it's based solely off this thread?
I'll welcome if you message me directly to address my points...
With these circular conversations I wish I still was...
Not once did I say that — I very specifically said “don’t say there weren’t compromises made when there were clearly compromises made to meet the this price point. Reasonable ones, but compromises WERE made, none the less.” I do not understand people's aversion to nuance in communication.
It lacks components, and by extension — user experiences — those coming to the MacBook line previous to the Neo’s announcement would come to expect from a MacBook’s evolution to date. That is not to say it’s release does not then redefine what a “MacBook” is, or does that mean this is a bad product, but words matter. They shouldn't say they made no compromises when they clearly did. Even reasonable ones. No one said the decision was unreasonable for their goal, just don’t lie and say you (they) didn’t, as it undercuts what they did in consumer perception, but no one is claiming it undercuts the final result.
This is a straw man argument — again, no one said it wasn’t a MacBook, it’s in the name. You are reiterating a point no one is arguing. The issue anyone here has is what was specifically said in that interview, not the product as a whole or it’s advertising, or the reasons for the compromise on components — that is all reasonable.
I did, but it is important to understand the parameters of the conversation. No one is knocking the laptop, just the wording used in the interview, very specifically. The list of what compromises were made have been reiterated several times just by me, even, but the point is mute. Individuals such as yourself have been misinterpreting the point of this debate — no one thinks the compromises to hit this price point aren’t reasonable, we’re just telling Apple just don’t say you (they) didn’t make any when it’s clear (and again, reasonable) that you did. It’s like baker saying they didn’t use butter when they did — just say you used butter because we know that’s needed to make this thing you want to make. Saying you didn’t just invites an unnecessary scrutiny that wasn’t looking to be critical in the first place.
I appreciate that, and I would also love to know. I know it was reported, but when I asked what I did wrong I wasn’t answered besides a vague, canned response. I felt I was calm, reasonable and respectful. I wasn’t insulting but I was frustrated at the circular conversation I was having.
"Apple shouldn’t make computers that open it’s self to the lower end of the market.”
— Said no one
Everyone agrees it’s a good move — they just didn’t like the wording from the interview saying they didn’t make compromises when we know they made reasonable ones to hit a price point. No one is mad they did, just don’t then turn around and say they didn’t. And — please — stop saying they said "At that price point there are no compromises” because at no point in that interview did they say that. You are assuming they mean that but the very fact they didn’t is the entire reason of this discussion.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
100% I agree with the wording. I’m not in the universe of “they” who don’t like the wording. I cannot see any compromising in the design, which includes ports and display and non backlit keys for the price.
They didn’t say "for the price" — you did, even the quote you copy and pasted as evidence didn’t have it — had they said “for the price” we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Your last sentence will forever be an incorrect statement because of that specificity. It isn’t a matter of opinion — they said words in that specific interview that are incorrect and you are turning yourself into a pretzel to legitimize them. You continue to conflate critique of the interview for criticism of the product, it’s marketing campaign in general, or if it is actually a MacBook — when either of those points are being argued.
Last edited:
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Of course it’s for the price. That didnt even need to be said it’s implied, imo. You are using pretzel logic to criticize the wording if I’m turning myself into a pretzel to legitimize them.
No, it’s not implied, nor could it be to anyone outside those of us that visit sites like these. That’s the entire point. this isn’t jazz, we aren’t meant to listen for the notes not played, or words that aren’t said.
Detnator
macrumors 6502a
Ok so we’re getting to the bottom of this then.
First up, I’m not misinterpreting the debate. Yes you have repeatedly said the compromises were reasonable to hit the price point. Some are debating that but you and I are not, at least. No, we are debating whether or not her statements about design were false or misleading…
I’m not being snarky when I say this: Yes, you’re absolutely right. Words matter. ALL of them.
Everyone taking yours and similar positions are entirely quoting her out of context, leaving out some of the words.
The head of industrial design, in an interview entirely about her and her team’s role in creating and implementing the industrial design said they didn’t make any compromises in the design.
Anyone not taking that out of context - considering all the words and context - understands that she was talking about the solid structure, the finish, the premium body, hinge, materials, etc. that make up the industrial design.
And, she’s right. There are indeed no compromises in the industrial design of this machine. Everything about THOSE aspects are well and truly up to Apple’s standards as compared with the other current laptops. She is not lying or misleading.
I and others made this point very early in this thread, and then you repeatedly stated that she was misleading (at best)-__ because of the compromises made compared with existing MacBooks.
You have taken her entirely out of context.
She commented that it is “undeniably a MacBook” and you repeatedly stated that that was misleading because it had made compromises compared with the existing MacBooks immediately prior to its release - except all the compromises are spec/performance compromises not industrial design compromises.
Let me spell it out further: Her entire point, in context, is “yes we made it less performant and lower specced than the existing models to meet the price point, BUT we did not compromise on the industrial design - the stuff that makes it look and feel like every other MacBook regardless of the specs.”
On the other hand your argument is entirely about specs. You even said “components” above (none of which are industrial design). And Back to one of your first replies to me when I made the point above originally:
However, according to every definition I can find as to what industrial design is, your definition is incorrect.
As well as checking dictionaries, I asked one of the big AIs (not saying which because someone will say “yeah well that one doesn’t know anything” based entirely on bias and opinion) about what industrial design means in a laptop. I checked most of the sources so it’s not hallucinating. It said:
Industrial design: Ergonomics, comfort, size, form, material, port etc. arrangement, aesthetics, branding, manufacturability, portability, power. Easy to use, beautiful, robust.
NOT engineering and how it works: nits, port speed, trackpad engineering, keyboard backlight, processor speed/performance, RAM/SSD size/speed, WiFi/bluetooth versions, or any of the other things that you and others keep saying were compromised.
Yes, THOSE engineering specs were compromised to hit the price point, but nothing about the industrial design (what she was talking about in that interview) was compromised.
Or… tell me where anything I’ve said here is wrong, and the head of industrial design, commenting specifically on the industrial design, in an interview almost entirely about the industrial design, lied or even remotely misled, about “no compromises” in the industrial design?
With respect, it’s difficult to have this out again with a fourth person. I truly appreciate the the amount of information and the reasonable approach you have in this post — especially in comparison to others here — but there is only so many times I want to re-write the same things over and over, so I’m going about this in an abridged sort of way.
Not at all — at least not from me, I’ve specifically spent a ton of time talking about it in context of industrial design. As a designer my self I am very aware of the various disciplines, as well as have colleagues in industrial design, I’m extremely aware of the wide gamut of tasks involved in the discipline, and how it shifts from role to role, and company to company. An entry level designer will be focused on aesthetics and material sourcing. Sometimes high level, sometimes very niche-focused. The head of industrial design however would be focusing on the entire gamut of industrial design, which does include consideration of components, as they will be working hand-in-hand with the Engineering department. No one is asking industrial designers to design the components, but the limitations of the shell dictate the components it can house, how it will solve thermal issues, and which components they can get away with. It all goes had in hand at the industrial design level. You seem to be limiting the perspective of what one design can do, I am referring the entire departments efforts in which she oversees and operates.
If — for you — industrial design means “we used aluminum for the shell”... then we can just agree to disagree, as it sounds like that is the core of the argument. It has an aluminum shell, there for its industrial design is uncompromised. I have a higher expectation for industrial design, and like all design — form and function must be balanced. There is no balance when the form isn’t considering what’s going in it, how it can house it, and maintain its’ rigidity and thermal support, and all sorts of other marriages with the engineering department that will then source the parts and engineer them to fit to the new shell. The quote — as you interpret it — makes it seem like it’s done in isolation when that is never the case. Notice I never mentioned specs, power, port speed, or any other elements that have to do with performance because I know the context of the conversation.
Finally, I also — just to make sure I was on the right track — ran it through Gemini, and I got this:
"Yes, industrial design (ID) absolutely considers the components inside a device. While industrial design focuses on the aesthetic, ergonomic, and user-facing aspects of a product, it must work in harmony with mechanical and electrical engineering to ensure the product is functional, manufacturable, and structurally sound.
An industrial designer often acts as the bridge between user needs and technical constraints, ensuring the "envelope" (housing) fits the "guts" (components)."
Industrial Design involves more than just the aesthetics of a product, but also marriage of form and function of what goes in the product, with thoughtfulness of the user experience. I hope this shows I have never lost the context of the conversation, and if this didn’t bridge the gap between our perspectives, we can just agree to disagree. But it wouldn’t be the first time Apple’s canned marketing interviews were more marketing than interview.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
It absolutely is implied and you certainly are welcome to your opinion the interview was misleading. You are discussing this with multiple people because they disagree with your opinion. IMO, the words of the interview are deliberately being twisted.
sgtaylor5
macrumors 6502a
What? My M2 MacBook Air 16/256 has zero compromises for its price point. Does exactly everything I need it to do and it’s got so much excess horsepower that it’s not even funny.
That’s false logic — by that same thinking, after 23 pages of comments, only some disagree with me — see how that works? Why would anyone continue the conversation if they agree. Once again, the absence of evidence is not evidence.
And yes, they are being twisted — you are adding to them to make a point they didn’t make. I’m not adding to them, or twisting them, I’m taking them at face value. You are choosing to imply something that they had every opportunity to say if they ment to say it and chose not to. Interviews like these are scripted and the publication provides ample opportunity to clarify anything that was said. This — word for word — was what they wanted to say, and I’m sorry it doesn’t align with your opinion.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
It’s not about logic it’s about common sense. There is no way to misconstrue or mischaracterize the quote or to even disagree with it.
You are twisting the intended meaning of the words quoted and it doesn’t align with your opinion.
Logic IS common sense, and you are misappropriating the context I used this in — I said your inference equating multiple people disagreeing with me means I’m wrong, THAT is false logic, because, by that same low bar, I can say all of those who looked at this thread and DIDN’T verbalize their disagreement must then agree with me, which I know isn’t true, so we have to watch that false logic before it undermines our underlying point.
That makes no sense — how can I twist the meaning of something when I use the quote verbatim? How are you not twisting it when you are adding verbiage they never used to support an argument they could have corrected but didn’t?
Dude, have your opinion — I’ve never tried to change your mind — disagree and move on. All I am doing is countering your perspective with legitimate points and a reasonable argument (frankly, more than this topic deserves because it’s so unimportant that someone said a thing in an interview). You can choose to hold on to your opinion in the face of those legitimate point or you can choose to ignore them, but what cannot be done is appear reasonable while countering logic with the extra sauce you are adding. And I don’t know why... your laptop will still be great regardless if they “misspoke” in this interview.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
I do disagree buts it’s so ironic you say disagree and move on-exactly what you haven’t done. It’s difficult to misconstrue and mischaracterize the original quoted words, but dude you’ve done a great job. Multiple people disagreeing with you says to me you are wrong.
At the end of the day if you believe so strongly, it’s yours for the taking.
Detnator
macrumors 6502a
Ok, you appear to be trying hard to be respectful, and you’re succeeding, so I appreciate that. And if nothing else that does make this conversation worth continuing despite how benign the topic is, really, in the grand scheme of things. So…
Absolutely not. What on earth did I say that even remotely suggests “Aluminum shell” is my understanding of industrial design (ID) or that that’s the core of the argument?
I gave a detailed list of what I understand ID to be, much longer than what the shell is made of:
As well as a list of what it isn’t:
So now I think there’s two places we’re tripping up. The first is those last few words “the … things that you … keep saying were compromised”.
Thinking about it, I don’t remember you specifically mentioning things in the second list, in fact I don’t think I remember you mentioning anything specific as to what’s compromised. And you’ve somewhat confirmed that:
But you have repeatedly said “components”, (and I’ve assumed, perhaps falsely it seems, what you meant).
And you’ve argued her statements (that the ID isn’t compromised) were misleading/false because, well, some things in it are compromised, right?
So… maybe we need to get a lot more specific:
Emphasis mine - that part seems like an assumption. In very simple terms, there’s two extremes:
Of course something somewhere near the middle of those two extremes, or some combination of them both, is by far most likely, and it seems from most/all of everything else you’re saying you expect this (a combination, or “marriage” of both) is what it is.
Which leads to the second place I think we’re tripping up: does a marriage of two disciplines redefine what either/each discipline actually is?
Interesting that we’re getting such different explanations, though I’m pretty confident as to why:
My question/prompt was “I’m a laptop, what’s industrial design?”
Yours seems more like what the first line of the response stated, so something like “does industrial design (ID) consider the components inside a device?”
And that’s a very different question.
No argument from me here: Yes of course ID considers the components, ans well ana every other aspect of the device… and vice versa. Same with the software (and let’s come back to that in a sec).
And yes, none of any of the types of design, engineering, or anything else, are considered in isolation.
But that’s not anything to do with what she said.
And so…
Right. So…
All the internals as engineered by the engineers are one thing.
The ID as described by my list above (if it’s even remotely accurate) is another thing.
The software is yet another thing.
Etc.
Each of these things can all be designed, engineered, determined, etc. in concert with each of the others, but their marriage doesn’t redefine what they are.
Yes ID needs to consider the internals, but that consideration doesn’t redefine what ID actually is: “Ergonomics, comfort, size, form, material, port etc. arrangement, …” and not the engineering stuff, or the software, or anything else that ID isn’t.
To hopefully make the point clearer, consider the software engineering. The software has to be written and compiled for (and therefore must consider) the architecture it has to run on. But that doesn’t mean part of software engineering includes chip design.
So for her to say “we didn’t compromise the ID” isn’t false just because she had to (and undoubtedly did) consider every other aspect of the machine as she did her ID.
Yes ok, so I think I can agree you haven’t lost the context.
Where we differ actually appears to be whether the actual definition of ID - the stuff she’s claiming she didn’t compromise - includes everything else as well, just because it has to consider those things, or are those other things just that: considerations - other things she has to factor in as she does her ID.
We may also differ on the answers to those two questions I asked above, (what exactly are “components”, and what exactly is compromised in the Neo), but I won’t presume to know either way on that until I learn your answers to those.
Absolutely not. What on earth did I say that even remotely suggests “Aluminum shell” is my understanding of industrial design (ID) or that that’s the core of the argument?
I gave a detailed list of what I understand ID to be, much longer than what the shell is made of:
As well as a list of what it isn’t:
So now I think there’s two places we’re tripping up. The first is those last few words “the … things that you … keep saying were compromised”.
Thinking about it, I don’t remember you specifically mentioning things in the second list, in fact I don’t think I remember you mentioning anything specific as to what’s compromised. And you’ve somewhat confirmed that:
But you have repeatedly said “components”, (and I’ve assumed, perhaps falsely it seems, what you meant).
And you’ve argued her statements (that the ID isn’t compromised) were misleading/false because, well, some things in it are compromised, right?
So… maybe we need to get a lot more specific:
- What exactly are you referring to with the word “components”?
- What specifics exactly are you saying/thinking are compromised in the Neo, and in what ways?
Emphasis mine - that part seems like an assumption. In very simple terms, there’s two extremes:
- The shell designers direct the engineers with “this is what the shell will be, make the components fit this”.
- The engineers direct the shel designers with “this is what we want in it, make the shell etc. work around this.
Of course something somewhere near the middle of those two extremes, or some combination of them both, is by far most likely, and it seems from most/all of everything else you’re saying you expect this (a combination, or “marriage” of both) is what it is.
Which leads to the second place I think we’re tripping up: does a marriage of two disciplines redefine what either/each discipline actually is?
Interesting that we’re getting such different explanations, though I’m pretty confident as to why:
My question/prompt was “I’m a laptop, what’s industrial design?”
Yours seems more like what the first line of the response stated, so something like “does industrial design (ID) consider the components inside a device?”
And that’s a very different question.
No argument from me here: Yes of course ID considers the components, ans well ana every other aspect of the device… and vice versa. Same with the software (and let’s come back to that in a sec).
And yes, none of any of the types of design, engineering, or anything else, are considered in isolation.
But that’s not anything to do with what she said.
And so…
Right. So…
All the internals as engineered by the engineers are one thing.
The ID as described by my list above (if it’s even remotely accurate) is another thing.
The software is yet another thing.
Etc.
Each of these things can all be designed, engineered, determined, etc. in concert with each of the others, but their marriage doesn’t redefine what they are.
Yes ID needs to consider the internals, but that consideration doesn’t redefine what ID actually is: “Ergonomics, comfort, size, form, material, port etc. arrangement, …” and not the engineering stuff, or the software, or anything else that ID isn’t.
To hopefully make the point clearer, consider the software engineering. The software has to be written and compiled for (and therefore must consider) the architecture it has to run on. But that doesn’t mean part of software engineering includes chip design.
So for her to say “we didn’t compromise the ID” isn’t false just because she had to (and undoubtedly did) consider every other aspect of the machine as she did her ID.
Yes ok, so I think I can agree you haven’t lost the context.
Where we differ actually appears to be whether the actual definition of ID - the stuff she’s claiming she didn’t compromise - includes everything else as well, just because it has to consider those things, or are those other things just that: considerations - other things she has to factor in as she does her ID.
We may also differ on the answers to those two questions I asked above, (what exactly are “components”, and what exactly is compromised in the Neo), but I won’t presume to know either way on that until I learn your answers to those.
Picked up the Neo yesterday. Can confidently say that for someone in my use case (which is I use the computer for basic email, browsing, music, video consumption, spreadsheets etc), the Neo will be a perfect computer.