Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
But you consider it similar to a car? Please explain the logic, I'm curious.

Not the poster you're replying to, but there are more parallels, IMO.

A lamp, you throw out when it breaks, normally.

A car, when it breaks, you fix the part that broke, which is generally just one part or a small assembly, not, say, the entire unibody if the fuel tank springs a leak.

And, while this is very uncommon in cars and rather common in computers, you may decide you want a more powerful engine, one that was offered in another version of the same model. In this case, you could find a wrecked parts car, buy it, and swap the engine over. In the iCar, you wouldn't be able to do this practically, as it's welded to the chassis and transmission, and the axle shafts are welded to the transmission and wheel hubs.

Yes, I know, the analogy's flawed - I know people who could do that to this theoretical iCar (and actually do even more complex projects regarding putting engines in cars that they don't belong in), and it's easier to cut something that's welded out and weld something back in than to do BGA rework on a motherboard.) And, there's always forced induction, too. But, the skills to do any of that are more specialized than the normal mechanic skills required to pull off a "normal" engine swap, just like the skills to do BGA rework are far more specialized than the normal computer repair skills.
 
I think your "theory is right on point , i will love the option of retima scree on other models
 
Who knows what technologies lie around the corner? In 2007 we never would have imagined SSDs as a practical solution.

Just a few months ago posters on this board were laughing at anyone who suggested installing 16 g of RAM in the machines (which Apple did NOT support).

Tech changes drastically over the years. That's why it's always nice to be able to slam something new into the box. That's what's kept my old machines running -- the ability to install components that were undreamed of when I first bought the machine. That's an important ability.
 
You're not, but the masses here drink the Kool-Aid so let me point out your flaw: You were 'thinking' and that's is considered poor taste.

I posted a thread and replied to many others with the same thoughts as you but was drowned out by the howling of the fanboys.

I think Apple is a greedy, selfish company with the RMBP:

-Your RMBP cannot grow with you as a user. If you want more memory or a larger SSD later you are just out of luck.

-Putting memory on the LogicBoard was strictly a dick move by them. It serves no 'design' or 'engineering' purpose. They would fit perfectly in the current design.

-"WAIT! Apple redesigned the SSD to bring harmony to the planet!" Well, Apple DID redesign the SSD interface so they could lock others out of it. Way to go Apple!

-"WAIT! You can't fit SO-DIMMs and a normal SSD in the RMBP!!" - See my thread where I give you dimensions of each. They would fit.

-1440 x 900 may look great but it is still 1440 x 900. I'm barely happy with 1680 x 1050. "WAIT!! You can scale it out of 1440 x 900!" Yep, with a performance hit.


Sorry, I still think this is a bad upgrade deal from Apple...


-P

And 100000 Apple fanboys died lol, you make valid points. They don't like people who criticize though.
 
Apple has mass marketing objectives. They will often, as we know, cripple a machine to fit these objectives.

It's nice if you fit their marketing niches. Many of us don't.

Lets not forget that software requirements often change over the years. We're now seeing older iPhones unable to use features of the new iOS.

What Apple is pulling here is called "planned obsolescence." With Detroit cars in the 1960s planned obsolescence was viewed as a bad thing. Our Fearless Leader, Steve Jobs, the former hippy that he was, should have been called on his increasing desire for style and design planned obsolescence.
 
"Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence in industrial design is a policy of planning or designing a product with a limited useful life, so it will become obsolete, that is, unfashionable or no longer functional after a certain period of time. Planned obsolescence has potential benefits for a producer because to obtain continuing use of the product the consumer is under pressure to purchase again, whether from the same manufacturer (a replacement part or a newer model), or from a competitor which might also rely on planned obsolescence."

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

----------

"In 1960, cultural critic Vance Packard published The Waste Makers, promoted as an exposé of "the systematic attempt of business to make us wasteful, debt-ridden, permanently discontented individuals."

Packard divided planned obsolescence into two sub categories: obsolescence of desirability and obsolescence of function. "Obsolescence of desirability", also called "psychological obsolescence", referred to marketers' attempts to wear out a product in the owner's mind. Packard quoted industrial designer George Nelson, who wrote: "Design... is an attempt to make a contribution through change. When no contribution is made or can be made, the only process available for giving the illusion of change is 'styling!'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard
 
honestly, I don't think Steve would have approved of this years Apple plan on the MBP line... When I look at what was announced, I see this:

17" gone
13" and 15" nominal processor upgrades (business as usual)
New Product, 15" Macbook Air (I know, powerful, but basically a bigger MBA)
 
honestly, I don't think Steve would have approved of this years Apple plan on the MBP line... When I look at what was announced, I see this:

17" gone
13" and 15" nominal processor upgrades (business as usual)
New Product, 15" Macbook Air (I know, powerful, but basically a bigger MBA)

I respectfully disagree Mac8867. Steve clearly and repeatedly said the Air was the laptop of the future. With his clever use of style changes, Jobs was undoubtedly the biggest proponent of planned obsolescence of our time.
 
I respectfully disagree Mac8867. Steve clearly and repeatedly said the Air was the laptop of the future. With his clever use of style changes, Jobs was undoubtedly the biggest proponent of planned obsolescence of our time.

I am not sure what you disagree with then... the "retina" 15" is the bigger MBA. I think what you say is exactly correct, and honestly, I would have preferred they market the 15" retina as part of the MBA line.
 
I couldn't pull the switch either, and ended up ordering the MBP 2.6 I7 and upgraded the HD to the 7200 RPM one, and upped the resolution. Still cost enough to buy a Porsche, though.*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, an OLD Porsche with lots of miles. But it's STILL a Porsche. :D
 
I respectfully disagree Mac8867. Steve clearly and repeatedly said the Air was the laptop of the future. With his clever use of style changes, Jobs was undoubtedly the biggest proponent of planned obsolescence of our time.

Very much agreed.

Also, to those that are worried about the ability to upgrade. I wouldn't worry too much.

I'm a business developer, and one of my businesses repair phones, tablets, and macbooks. The parts themselves are so incredibly cheap that any upgrade is worth it.

As far as compatability is concerned, alot of Chinese suppliers out there manufacture Apple parts themselves, as they call it "high copy". When replacing a motherboard, or SSD and paying the "high copy" price, it's really almost always worth it.


My advice, find a local repair shop with good connections and have them upgrade it for you when you need it done. It's really not that bad of a situation.

Moving forward, the only thing I worry about is the screen being built into the unibody. That's alot of work for my technicians to replace a unibody for a broken screen. Much more expensive on our end as well.

Just my thoughts
 
Well said. This more than anything is what is going on, and is certainly not new:

"Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence in industrial design is a policy of planning or designing a product with a limited useful life, so it will become obsolete, that is, unfashionable or no longer functional after a certain period of time. Planned obsolescence has potential benefits for a producer because to obtain continuing use of the product the consumer is under pressure to purchase again, whether from the same manufacturer (a replacement part or a newer model), or from a competitor which might also rely on planned obsolescence."

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

----------

"In 1960, cultural critic Vance Packard published The Waste Makers, promoted as an exposé of "the systematic attempt of business to make us wasteful, debt-ridden, permanently discontented individuals."

Packard divided planned obsolescence into two sub categories: obsolescence of desirability and obsolescence of function. "Obsolescence of desirability", also called "psychological obsolescence", referred to marketers' attempts to wear out a product in the owner's mind. Packard quoted industrial designer George Nelson, who wrote: "Design... is an attempt to make a contribution through change. When no contribution is made or can be made, the only process available for giving the illusion of change is 'styling!'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard
 
honestly, I don't think Steve would have approved of this years Apple plan on the MBP line...
On the contrary. The closed architecture is reminiscent of his stubborn insistence that users stay out of their/his machines (1984 Macs. Which incidentally really pissed off Wozniak).

Apple's goal has always been to control the user experience from the box their devices come in to the content on that device's screen.

Ironic how things come full-circle. I'm waiting for a PC competitor to remake that 1984 commercial that touted anti-conformity and asked us all to rebel against "big brother". :)
 
I was talking about the marketing approach... not arguing about apple's open or closed position --- which, quite frankly, hasn't changed at all... the new 15" MacBook Air is just as extendable as the 13" model --- which is, not at all.
 
I've been saying for a while that the iPad is actually the ultimate incarnation of the Classic Mac, and the Mac is the new Lisa.

Think about it - the Mac is more expensive, more powerful (full multitasking and a full WIMP GUI, versus the iPad's limited multitasking and limited full-screen touch GUI), and is needed to develop iPad apps.

(Granted, the Mac became self-hosting for software development rather quickly (maybe even before the 1984 release?), but...)
 
I know people who think that anyone who criticizes their criticism is just a fan boy but that is just ignorant. You can make your criticisms, others don't have to agree, it just means a difference of opinion.

As someone who is fairly new to Apple products (in ownership, I've used them off and on as a child), I'd say Apple has a marketing goal. I think the current Retina MBP is an evolution they started from nearly the beginning. Abstracting the user from the computer. First it was software and in recent years, hardware. Sure you could find ways around it but they seem to want to tailor to the market that wants thin and light computers. It is really the only reason to get rid of the 17", in that it doesn't fit into that model. The fact that the Mac Pro is still around is surprising as it doesn't fit into their model.

So they have an Apple base and it seems that it is the fan boys, the ones that have been around for a while are the ones that are getting squeezed out in favor of a market and an ideal. Those that have been loyal fans can whine and complain but the truth is that you are not Apple's target market. The target market is those that would compromise upgradeability/fixability for smaller weight and size.

Now it would be nice if they would keep the MacBook Pro line for those that would want to switch out certain components but I don't see it. I think those will be gone within 2 years if not sooner. So then you have a choice to make, stick with Apple through the change or go elsewhere. I know it sounds sucky but it isn't hurting their business even if they may take a hit from those that have been loyal fans for many years.
 
Not the poster you're replying to, but there are more parallels, IMO.

A lamp, you throw out when it breaks, normally.

A car, when it breaks, you fix the part that broke, which is generally just one part or a small assembly, not, say, the entire unibody if the fuel tank springs a leak.

And, while this is very uncommon in cars and rather common in computers, you may decide you want a more powerful engine, one that was offered in another version of the same model. In this case, you could find a wrecked parts car, buy it, and swap the engine over. In the iCar, you wouldn't be able to do this practically, as it's welded to the chassis and transmission, and the axle shafts are welded to the transmission and wheel hubs.

Yes, I know, the analogy's flawed - I know people who could do that to this theoretical iCar (and actually do even more complex projects regarding putting engines in cars that they don't belong in), and it's easier to cut something that's welded out and weld something back in than to do BGA rework on a motherboard.) And, there's always forced induction, too. But, the skills to do any of that are more specialized than the normal mechanic skills required to pull off a "normal" engine swap, just like the skills to do BGA rework are far more specialized than the normal computer repair skills.

The analogy is flawed simply because everyone associates different things with other different things. But no, I don't throw out my lamp when the lightbulb is broken, do you? I buy a new lightbulb and install it in the lamp, I don't buy a whole new lamp. With a computer, it's much the same. If a harddrive fails and is truly broken, you buy a new harddrive and install it.

But it is pointless in trying to draw parallels back and forth since everyone percieve things differently.

However, I disagree that you need special skills to swap a harddrive or add more RAM into a regular MBP. My mother could do it. And she's not that great with technology tbh. And I for one think it's a shame that Apple is limiting the upgradability because of the fact that soon all laptops will be this way since that's the direction we're headed, just for the sake of saving a few millimeters in thickness.

Do you think it's reasonable that in 2 years, you might decide that 8GB is too little RAM. Is it fair that you have to buy a WHOLE NEW computer just because you need some more RAM? People argue that "you should've gotten the 16GB version from the start!" but why should we have to think of what we *might* need in 2 years from our computer? Isn't that something you discover WHILE using the computer?

Don't get me wrong. I love, and much more prefer, the thickness(or rather; thin-ness) of the new MBPr over the regular MBP. But if having upgradable RAM and storage means having it 4mm thicker, I would gladly take that!
 
You think I'm making an argument contrary to yours, I'm not.

I agree, I'd prefer socketed RAM and a standardized storage bay. (I wouldn't even mind if it was 1.8", given that there is a decent selection of 1.8" SSDs out there.)
 
You think I'm making an argument contrary to yours, I'm not.

I agree, I'd prefer socketed RAM and a standardized storage bay. (I wouldn't even mind if it was 1.8", given that there is a decent selection of 1.8" SSDs out there.)

I'm sorry, then I must have misunderstood you.
Glad we're on the same page! :)
 
-"WAIT! You can't fit SO-DIMMs and a normal SSD in the RMBP!!" - See my thread where I give you dimensions of each. They would fit.

No doubt the physical components would fit in the case...that's not the argument though. You're missing the point.

Would they fit in the current case, while having to shrink or restructure anything else? Maybe, but probably not. It's not the physical hardware that's the concern as much as including the interfaces for them on the board. And the board itself would probably have to have been totally redesigned...that design could have been paramount in them accomplishing what they have.

EVERY apple computer has had user upgrade-able and serviceable RAM at least, and HDD as well for most. Except for 2...their thinnest 2.

If you step back from anger and apple hatred, you'd realize that the most rational explanation for this is the physical constraints of the device, not some wild conspiracy theory
 
No doubt the physical components would fit in the case...that's not the argument though. You're missing the point.

Would they fit in the current case, while having to shrink or restructure anything else? Maybe, but probably not. It's not the physical hardware that's the concern as much as including the interfaces for them on the board. And the board itself would probably have to have been totally redesigned...that design could have been paramount in them accomplishing what they have.

EVERY apple computer has had user upgrade-able and serviceable RAM at least, and HDD as well for most. Except for 2...their thinnest 2.

If you step back from anger and apple hatred, you'd realize that the most rational explanation for this is the physical constraints of the device, not some wild conspiracy theory

Yes, physical limitations most likely played a role in creating this new paradigm, however, given the industrial design and technical prowess of Apple engineers I find it hard to believe they could not have made one of the glued on batteries smaller or made other accommodations that would have allowed upgradable disks and ram.

It's not that much of stretch to look at the success of the MBA line and how many people opted for higher cost configs at purchase because there was no way to add anything later and imagine some finance and marketing folks plotting their next big money making scheme.

*** cue the wavy lines and fade to Apple design session...

"Hmmm, Let's create an awesome new piece of tech no one has ever seen and pair it with a closed case whereby all customers must overbuy upfront in order to be relatively assured of 2-3 years of product longevity. Let's also make sure the base unit cannot even select all the options thereby increasing the sell through on even higher options because they are only available on the LE model."

"Outstanding idea, that's a great way to make even more profit per unit than ever and it conditions the buying public that this is the new way to buy a computer."

What some might call a conspiracy, Apple calls progress.

Cheers,
 
On the contrary. The closed architecture is reminiscent of his stubborn insistence that users stay out of their/his machines (1984 Macs. Which incidentally really pissed off Wozniak).

Apple's goal has always been to control the user experience from the box their devices come in to the content on that device's screen.

Ironic how things come full-circle. I'm waiting for a PC competitor to remake that 1984 commercial that touted anti-conformity and asked us all to rebel against "big brother". :)

Thank you for saving me the trouble of typing this out.
 
Laptops are like women, they can never be thin enough!
Jesting aside, I strongly disagree. Over the last ten years or so, laptops have by and large remained the same in terms of their physical dimensions. The only laptops that break the trend are computers like the Macbook Air, which sacrifices quite a few features and ports so it can be as thin and light as possible, while still being competent enough for basic, on-the-go computing. There's a distinct trade-off between capability and portability.

The Retina MBP seems to make a different trade. It gives up repairability, upgradability, and ports like a CD drive, ethernet, firewire, and a standard sized charging port in exchange for... what? A 20% reduction in weight, and a 25% reduction in height (when closed)?

Look, make the comparisons between the three laptops here. I don't think these smaller sizes make the computer a whole lot better when you take them with the drawbacks I listed above, I can't see why they didn't just give the 15-inch MBP a new retina display option and spec bump options.

Maybe it's a marketing ploy... perhaps someone figured a "new" product would generate more buzz than new "options" to a currently existing product. But whatever. As I said before, it's not my kind of computer. I'm perfectly satisfied with my 2011 27" iMac and my late 2009 Macbook. :D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.