Well, it was obviously finished first but it's pretty clear they started developing iPad and shelved it, to return to it later after iPhone.
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 to Release New MacBook Pro and Air as Early as October, AMD iMacs and 5K Display With LG Also in Works
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, it was obviously finished first but it's pretty clear they started developing iPad and shelved it, to return to it later after iPhone.
This.
Also this. In their defense, though, this is not 2004 and personal computer no longer sell themselves.
You have to throw in some gimmick to have people upgrade.
I don't disagree with much of what you're saying. However, you're mired in the "that's how things are right now" thinking that has never been the way Apple approached anything. They've always been willing to blow up everything and start over and make something better. And nobody is asking for a cheap Mac (the Mini fills that need well enough.) I'm asking for a decent Mac without a built-in display that isn't a high-end Mac Pro. It's a no-brainer and has been for ages. The components of an iMac put into a box can't be that expensive to make. And how on earth would there be no profit in that? If they can make a profit off a $1000 iMac, knocking off the cost of the screen wouldn't change anything.
Anyway, the reality is that Mac sales are down YOY. If the state of the Mac is so great, why is that happening?
Of course not. Then again, you also don't hear people clamoring for a dumbed down desktop with its design roots in 1998, and Mac sales are faltering. The iMac has been around longer than the damn iPod. That's how old the concept is. Making it thinner and prettier and removing ports doesn't change that. Apple is long overdue for rethinking their desktop offerings.
People buy them, but in decreasing numbers now.
Last edited:
The irony is that Apple thinks that iMac sales are down cause desktop computers are no longer relevant or something along those lines instead of realizing that the sales are down because of the late design and sub par hardware choices. Go figure...
What difference does it make if you need to do it every ten minutes or once every hundred years? They are poorly designed; frequency does not change that. The one time you do need to charge the Magic Mouse 2 in a rush, for example, you will be caught out by the absurd location of the charging port. You cannot even set the thing down gracefully while charging because it's got a bloody cable awkwardly sticking out from underneath it! On its back like some helpless beetle that can't right itself, you can almost picture the little flailing legs. I find it difficult to believe anyone can, in good conscience, defend the design of this thing.
Yes I do. The rMBP is already referred to as the 'MacBook Pro' by Apple, except for marketing.
The 'iPad with retina display' is no longer called that because all iPads have a Retina display, just as the 'iPod Photo' was no longer called that when all iPods had that functionality.
If you think Apple will continue selling 4 and a half year old hardware after 2 redesigns for the sake of the customer saving money, then you're wrong.
As for the marketing name, who knows what will happen I'm just speculating.
It makes a massive difference whether you need to recharge it every ten minutes or once in a hundred years. Haha...You'd make a great designer
If it's once every hundred years then you will never have to charge it in your lifetime and all of your absurd arguements will be even less of an issue than they already are.
If it's every ten minutes then it's a massive problem.
Apple is still selling outdated hardware as of today. Check the store.
Um...PC desktop sales were down over 10% in 2015. That's the largest drop ever.
I suppose somehow you think that Apple is immune to the industry wide move away from desktops?
Waiting to see if the MBA get's some real love, doubt it because if it went retina it would some how effect the sales of the 12" macbook, but with the new processor + retina mite keep the battery life where it is or better.
"You're not the target market" is usually a good answer.
I don't find this to be the case, though.
I'd argue that the target market for "machines that can be powered and connected to something without an unsightly hub" is everybody, since the additional connector and wiring costs probably less than a dollar.
- Ditch the floppy drive in the iMac?
Awesome idea. 3.5" floppies have always been a terrible format even at the time.
- Ditch optical drive in the MBA?
Smart idea, common sense - the optical drive is bulky and weighty and nobody ever uses it while on the move (nor, to be honest, did in the '00s - never understood why built-in drives effectively superseded docking stations at some point circa 1998). Benefits outweigh the cons.
- Ditch removable battery?
Stupid idea, honestly, but I can see how the "target market" would never ever buy a spare battery anyway.
- Ditch a 15 grams, $0.10 a pop female power connector to make the whole machine nicer to the eyes even if completely impractical?
Eh.
It makes a massive difference whether you need to recharge it every ten minutes or once in a hundred years. Haha...You'd make a great designer
Not really.
You see, you position the connector sanely and - 10 minutes of 100 years - you've saved someone a hassle for free.
You haven't compromised anything: in 2016, thanks to human advance, we have the technology to place USB connectors anywhere-but-on-the-bottom-of-the-mouse.
Bam, ROI = infinity.
I can't imagine a reason to do that except some industrial designer with far too much decision power who fancies him/herself a sculptor
*Affect. From afficere. Remember your Latin, kids.
Last edited:
Why are we even talking about the 1060? In the iMac 2012 generation, Apple was using GTX 680M's that were almost as good as the top of the line 680 at the time especially when overclocked. Today, the GTX 1070 uses 10 watts less than the 480 while being 40% faster. AMD doesn't have anything that can touch that performance. The 1080 is an additional 30% faster for just a bit more power. Too bad Vega is still almost a year away and unless AMD suddenly finds a way to significantly reduce their power consumption, it'll be too hot for the iMac anyway.
You would face the same problem regardless of whether the charging port was at the back or underneath the mouse. Either way, you will not be using your mouse (or at least, not using it comfortably) while it is charging.
I am not saying the design of the Magic Mouse is flawless. I myself have never touched the Magic Mouse that came bundled with my iMac because it was so low and heavy that my wrist quickly started to ache when using it. But Apple is a company who is not afraid to think outside the box and come up with creative solutions to existing problems that make me re-evaluate just what compromises I am willing to make in a product, and I respect them for that.
It's possible that Apple simply doesn't think there is anything wrong with the design of their Magic Mouse. I just think it is more meaningful to try and look at things from Apple's perspective and debate why they may have done things the way they did, rather than be too quick to write it off as "Apple screwed up".
Apple at least deserves that much from us.
Well, no - the situation has changed since the "xMac" argument started, but the change is that the market for desktops has declined (especially if you rule out the corporate sector, where Apple has never really had a presence - except with 'Bring Your Own Device' which is mainly iPhones & laptops).
Well, we had that - http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/specs/mac-mini-core-i7-2.3-late-2012-specs.html - and Apple's excuse for killing it off was the lack of a drop-in processor upgrade from Intel, but one suspects that if it had been a big money spinner for Apple they'd have found a way to keep it alive.
You can get that - its called a 2014 Mac Mini. What you're asking for is more like the contents of something like a $2000 5k iMac, without the display, in a box (probably slightly bigger than a Mac Mini). That is going to have exactly the problem I suggested: there's no guarantee that it will bring in new customers, but it will definitely hit sales of iMacs and Mac Pros. The 5k iMac is a stunning machine that will part punters from their money - a silver pizza box, not so impressive.
Multiple reasons:
1. The state of the Mac isn't so great. OK, a lot of critics don't seem to get that Apple can't build machines using Intel processors that are still vapourware, but not updating your flagship MacBook Pro for 18 months is never going to be a marketing win, whoever's fault it is. Ditto the state of the Mac Mini & the Mac Pro . Then the CEO stands up and announces that the only computer you need is an iPad... They teased us with USB-C in 2015, but haven't followed through, while USB-C/TB3 is becoming common in the PC world; their only display product (potentially a great way of using a laptop as a desktop) has withered on the vine for years and now been discontinued, with no sign of a replacement. Now, there are reasons and rationalisations for all of these things (I've argued a few in my time) but, bottom line, whoever is to blame, they're all open goals for competitors and Apple should be big enough and ugly enough to defend them.
2. PC sales, generally, have been tanking for a few years: Apple & Lenovo have been bucking the trend probably because of their focus on high-end laptops & ultrabooks - but that won't last for ever because of the underlying reason:
3. The PC has matured - unless you're working at the bleeding edge of 3D graphics or editing video for Imax, your 5 year old computer is probably good enough. You don't actually need to upgrade every 2 years any more, so there's far more pressure on manufacturers to give you a reason to upgrade. That's why Apple needs to show us something new in the Mac world - but so far their answer has been "get an iPad Pro instead!". I don't buy that: I look around and don't see people using tablets for anything more taxing than email, social media and note-taking - for which they are fantastic - the real work is still done on real computers.
[doublepost=1472651773][/doublepost]
No, you put the charging port on the front of the mouse (where the wire would go on a wired mouse) so while it is charging it is no more inconvenient to use than a regular wired mouse. Logitech have done this for years on their MX Performance and MX Master mice. Apple make a wired mouse that shows its not impossible to combine a plug on the front with their uni-button design... unless, of course, you decide to just kludge a charging socket onto the Mighty Mouse 1 design. Anyhow, the whole unibutton/touch-sensitive concept is an overcomplicated form-over-function mess anyway - like every Apple mouse from the hockey puck onwards. Pretty, though.
Whatever the specs will be, I guess we will have to libve with them for the next 4 years.
This makes me worry.
Apple will not provide any significant updates after October regardless of any improvements that the PC market will see.
This is one of the main reasons I will definitely not buy a MacBook at day one.
First, let's all find out what Apple's idea about throttling performance under load might be.
My guess is that the design will push the machines to their limits even if they look fancy at the keynote.
This makes me worry.
Apple will not provide any significant updates after October regardless of any improvements that the PC market will see.
This is one of the main reasons I will definitely not buy a MacBook at day one.
First, let's all find out what Apple's idea about throttling performance under load might be.
My guess is that the design will push the machines to their limits even if they look fancy at the keynote.
In environment where you are bottlenecked by software - yes it is 40% faster than RX 480. What happens when you lift the software bottlenecks?
Look at the difference between RX 480 and GTX 1070. 10%. Why? Because RX 480 has 5.8 TFLOPs and GTX 1070 has 6.5 TFLOPs of compute power. So it is very close. Yes it is less efficient, but the RX 480 GPU costs 200$ less and gives 90% of performance of GTX 1070.
P.S. You still believe that 150W GPU will be significantly cooler than 155W GPU like RX 480 is? Congratulations. You have proven my point that on this forum, only perception of Nvidia cards is driving the agenda of putting them into Macs.
And one last thing. Computerbase.de in their review tested the voltage reduction affecting the core clocks and temperatures. What happened was that you got stable clocks, so no throttling of the GPU, so therefore, higher overall performance on RX 480, and at the same time, lower power consumption by up to 30W. Currently desktop RX 480 has overdone voltages on the GPU thats why it draws so much power. Apple has long history of downvolting the GPUs in their computers. So they will do this again.
Last edited:
Not saying that that wattage difference is huge, it's that AMD's 480 has almost the same power/performance ratio of Maxwell's 2 year old 28nm process. Look we all want AMD to succeed, OTOH I don't want to pay $3000 for a loaded iMac that has inferior performance only because Apple is getting sweet deals from AMD. Yes the difference comes down to only 10% when factoring in compute, but you're conveniently ignoring the 40% difference in other things like gaming, who cares where the bottlenecking is coming from. If the software is the bottleneck, then it's still AMD's fault for not fixing it when they had pretty much 5 years to prepare for the 14nm 480.
Have you looked at the link I provided. There is 10% difference between RX 480 and GTX 1070 in Doom using Vulkan API. The same API that came out from Mantle, and the same API that is Metal and DX12 based on.
What do you think developers will use? DX11, old, outdated API, that nobody cares about right now, or DX12, Vulkan and Metal APIs? There was plenty of analysis why AMD hardware is 30% slower in DX11 compared to Nvidia counterparts, and jumps in front of Nvidia in DX12, Vulkan, etc. Actually if you consider gaming, using Nvidia hardware for every of modern APIs is choosing the inferior hardware.
Look again at this link: https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/doom-vulkan-benchmarks-amd-nvidia/
I am not deceiving anyone. And whats more, in this particular game, RX 480 is 20% faster than GTX 1060.
If this is such difference between RX 480, and GTX 1060, how big difference will be between small Vega and GTX 1070/GTX 1080, depending on with which one of those Vega will be competing?
That's a bit of a stretch, one game (or several other DX11/DX12 'hybrids') overall doesn't determine the future. Majority of supposedly DX12 games out right now were really designed with DX11 in mind and then had DX12 patched on top of it. I also don't see Vulkan becoming dominant over DX12 in implementation. We'll see if your predictions come true.
Ok, so if only patched render backend, resulted in giving AMD 30% boost to performance, what will happen when you will have fully DX12 designed games? Exactly the same situation as Vulkan.
Vulkan is cross platform, cross system API. It reflects the future, already. Doom has been designed from ground up with it. 90% of upcoming games will have render back-end with DX12, and game like GTA 6 will be fully DX12 designed game.
Uhm... lots and lots of people - a majority - use a mouse with a cord attached daily.
I think all of them would be ready to swear that it's better than no mouse at all, especially if they have actual work to do.
So, in the choice between "no mouse" and "mouse with a cord", "mouse with a cord" wins.
"Mouse with a cord" means enhanced productivity over "no mouse".
Now, Apple could have given you "mouse with a cord", but did not.
Why? Only one possible answer: to make the mouse prettier instead of more useful.
Last edited:
I've worked and do work in marketing for a certain company whose name is synonymous with a fruit. I never stated Cook was a marketing exec, but a CEO. I stated Jobs, Cook, and Ive were a great trio as they balanced each other well.
Forgive me if I'm misreading your tone, it seemed preachy. A suggestion on online etiquette:
It is in bad form to make declarative statements regarding ones knowledge, especially as that persons remarks are on par with your "corrective" reply. Your first remark was presumptuous and seemed condescending.
My post simply discussed one of Jobs' projects and its unforeseen ramifications in technology and communications. I never stated Jobs' tablet project negated or superseded other projects. It was simply an interesting reflection from someone with direct knowledge for those interested (I'm not bound by NDA's regarding now seemingly common knowledge and time statutes).
I hope you understand that we are in agreement.
[doublepost=1472661531][/doublepost]
Got plenty.
Last edited:
Or stop all possibilities of upgrading by using glue and solder, i.e., RAM and Storage...
It would be hugely disappointing if Apple doesn't finally upgrade to edge-to-edge screens with minimal bezels. A number of different companies are implementing it for their laptops so it's no longer a niche technology.
Also, hopefully they drop prices on storage upgrade options. Paying $500 to upgrade from 500GB to 1TB is absurd. The cost of a high quality Samsung NVMe PCIe 1TB SSD on it's own is priced quite a bit lower than this upgrade.
Also, hopefully they drop prices on storage upgrade options. Paying $500 to upgrade from 500GB to 1TB is absurd. The cost of a high quality Samsung NVMe PCIe 1TB SSD on it's own is priced quite a bit lower than this upgrade.
Last edited: