Jony Ive Said to Be 'As Connected to Product Design as Ever' Following Speculation About His Role

[dv8r]

are you saying those are examples of 'function over form'? ie- it doesn't matter how it looks as long as it works?

to me, those are horrible examples of you to give.

No it's about balance - the indicator light is a perfect balance between how it looks and how it is implemented. Magsafe is another good example because of the seamless integration in the design itself - both are there because the function is the main driver. When you start to do fake speaker grills, remove plugs or do remotes that people inadvertently turn upside down, then it becomes more about form and design than the actual function.

It would help if you didn't select the most extreme examples - it indicates to me that this is more about being contrarian for You.

 

[melendezest]

No it's about balance - the indicator light is a perfect balance between how it looks and how it is implemented. Magsafe is another good example because of the seamless integration in the design itself - both are there because the function is the main driver. When you start to do fake speaker grills, remove plugs or do remotes that people inadvertently turn upside down, then it becomes more about form and design than the actual function.

It would help if you didn't select the most extreme examples - it indicates to me that this is more about being contrarian for You.

Exactly. There is no reason why function has to be inelegant. MagSafe was an excellent example of that.

So was the simple, single-panel accessibility of 2012 MBPs for RAM, HD/SSD, and other component replacement.

It goes all the way back to the PowerMacs with the components mounted on the side door. The G5s with the slide out tray.

Apple used to think about these things and provide functional, yet elegant solutions to simple problems.

But Apple is completely regressive here, and full-blown, condescendingly, we-make-it-thinner-because-you-don't-know-how-to-upgrade-your-machine consumer oriented.

 

[flat five]

No it's about balance - the indicator light is a perfect balance between how it looks and how it is implemented. Magsafe is another good example because of the seamless integration in the design itself - both are there because the function is the main driver. When you start to do fake speaker grills, remove plugs or do remotes that people inadvertently turn upside down, then it becomes more about form and design than the actual function.

It would help if you didn't select the most extreme examples - it indicates to me that this is more about being contrarian for You.

it's not about being contrarian for the sake of being difficult.. just by the way.

i just feel far too many people make flippant and uninformed remarks, which while fine in and of itself, definitely doesn't lead to any sort of meaningful critique of the design.

if people would first try to understand why the designs are the way they are then these discussions could be a lot more smooth.

'remove plugs' for instance... if i were to believe what i read here, apple removed plugs/ports so they could sell dongles in order to nickel&dime customers, correct?

instead of me telling you why there is one type of port, how about you drop the preconceived notions about dongles and whatnot, clear the head, and see if you can come up with a more plausible explanation of why the ports are of one type.
see if you can come up with a problem apple saw with computing and what they've done to solve the problem.
?

 

[BeSweeet]

Do you understand that all those profits come from a billion satisfied customers too?

Satisfied, or just willing to deal with the compromises because they bought an Apple product and are used to it?

 

[I7guy]

Faster or slower than the current one?



Feels like it...
MacBook Escape
MacBook Emoji

They spend the most part of their touchbar feature presentation focusing on emoji's - who the hell does that for a machine carrying a "pro" moniker?

Under cook and Ive company is going okay. I personally like their products, my family likes their products. It's here on MR where arm chair ceos get paid exactly what their advice is worth.
[doublepost=1480004342][/doublepost]

Satisfied, or just willing to deal with the compromises because they bought an Apple product and are used to it?

Either way it's a good position to be in. Sales generate revenue etc, nobody cares about the motive behind the sales.

 

[flat five]

But Apple is completely regressive here, and full-blown, condescendingly, we-make-it-thinner-because-you-don't-know-how-to-upgrade-your-machine consumer oriented.

you don't know how to upgrade/tinker with newer computers or else you would.
back in the day, basic and required tools of a computer tinkerer were, at the very least, a soldering iron and some wire strippers.

but the components have become far too complex and miniaturized for a typical person to work on without some very specialized tools.

you're taking a position of boasting "i'm not a consumer. i'm technically adept. apple thinks we're all idiots so they permanently attach stuff so smart people like me are forced into buying disposable appliances "

but

what are you really asking for? to me, it sounds like you want apple to provide you with the ability to go buy a packaged component. unplug the component inside the computer.. and plug the new one in. then close the case.

this is entirely a 'consumer' based method. i'm sorry but if you can unplug a hard drive then plug a new one in, i don't think you should be proud of your technical prowess. that requires little to no skill. it's not tinkering. it's super easy and it's entirely consumer based 'computer building for dummies' type of stuff.

like, if you wish apple to make computers that you can plug in additional components inside the casing then fine, wish for that.
but don't go kidding yourself that you're wishing for anything but apple to provide you with a simple/consumer minded solution to allow you to do this.

they've made it even more simple for you.. plug stuff into a port on the outside. virtually the same thing only more useful and simple.

 

[dv8r]

it's not about being contrarian for the sake of being difficult.. just by the way.

i just feel far too many people make flippant and uninformed remarks, which while fine in and of itself, definitely doesn't lead to any sort of meaningful critique of the design.

What, in Your view, is meaningful critique of the design then?

Many have been arguing that the overall thinness obsession, leads to worse functionality. My personal gripes with the Macbook Escape/Emoji are that this leads to an obscene amount of dongles (we'll get to that) and that the keyboard becomes outright useless for everyday use. Add to this the weird gap on the left side of the touchbar and the fake speaker grills. In my mind this speaks in volumes about a machine that's more about form (how it looks and feels) than function (what somebody would or could use it for).

I would assume that critique of a computer should be focused on how useful said computer is?

I see all kinds of excuses made by the loyal fan-base: "pro" doesn't mean the same for Apple than the rest of the world (Gruber said something along those lines), You don't know Apple, Apple likes thinness... all kinds of excuses made when somebody can't explain what's directly in front them.

Yeah, I know it looks odd, but what You have to know is that...

Seriously?

if people would first try to understand why the designs are the way they are then these discussions could be a lot more smooth.

Well thank good there are books about the subject and that I have read some of them.

'remove plugs' for instance... if i were to believe what i read here, apple removed plugs/ports so they could sell dongles in order to nickel&dime customers, correct?

Some say, but most may not know much about math.

instead of me telling you why there is one type of port, how about you drop the preconceived notions about dongles and whatnot, clear the head, and see if you can come up with a more plausible explanation of why the ports are of one type.
see if you can come up with a problem apple saw with computing and what they've done to solve the problem.
?

I don't give a about dongles, I'm not buying the machine because the keyboard annoys me.

My personal opinion is that dongles are the worst idea - it makes your product look unfinished because the dongles (in this instance) will be a fixed part of what you see when this computer is spotted in the wild. Switching to Thunderbolt 3/USB3.1 does not make me angry.

That said, when users find themselves with 2-4 dongles because Apple solved a technical problem that nobody asked them to solve (or that wasn't a problem at all) this is hardly great engineering or design for that matter.

 

[rp2011]

I'm pretty sure the inherent ugliness of the 6 series isn't really the antenna band's fault fully. The placement of the camera is to blame too. It's too offset to the right and no longer symmetrically placed like the 4/4s. Even the 5/5s was starting to get offset to the right but only ever so slightly. The 6/6s brought it to a whole new level.

Me as a perfectionist see it as a design flaw. I'm surprised Jony let that slipped through.

Thankfully the 7 series brought the symmetry back and now it looks much better.

I completely agree about the position of the camera. It just feels so wrong not being on center of the radius.
I work in interior design and when you walk into a room it all has to feel like it all belongs. When things like the antenna lines where they are, the out of center camera with tacky ring it makes something as simple and beautiful as the basic geometry look ugly. Which seems hard to do. But Apple certainly did it! It seems impossible but they did. And coupled with their chintzy color offerings for those models without a basic black or jet black.
The new Google Pixel is also a design nightmare. Again how can you screw up a basic geometric shape?
And Samsung got it right with their non explosive Galaxy Phones. ..design wise.

But I for one love the little changes in the 7. I own the 7 Plus in black and I admire the hardware as much as I do my iPhone SE. Something I can't say about the 6 series which I completely skipped over.

 

[dv8r]

Under cook and Ive company is going okay. I personally like their products, my family likes their products. It's here on MR where arm chair ceos get paid exactly what their advice is worth.

You like the products, therefore everybody else must be wrong... check.

 

[I7guy]

You like the products, therefore everybody else must be wrong... check.

Yes, I like the products. It seems because you don't like the products everybody shouldn't.

 

[canonical]

Head of design ... must have designed the new LG monitor. How could they?

 

[dv8r]

Yes, I like the products. It seems because you don't like the products everybody shouldn't.

I actually wrote that I was a big fan of Ive and considered him one of the best designers of all time - but You must have overlooked that while hurling feces in all directions.

 

[Arran]

'Twill be a sad day when Ive does leave.

Twill indeed. He's the very fabric of Apple.

 

[I7guy]

I actually wrote that I was a big fan of Ive and considered him one of the best designers of all time - but You must have overlooked that while hurling feces in all directions.

You like the products, therefore everybody else must be wrong... check.

Seems to be a basic disconnect here from one post to the next.

 

[melendezest]

you don't know how to upgrade/tinker with newer computers or else you would.
back in the day, basic and required tools of a computer tinkerer were, at the very least, a soldering iron and some wire strippers.

but the components have become far too complex and miniaturized for a typical person to work on without some very specialized tools.

you're taking a position of boasting "i'm not a consumer. i'm technically adept. apple thinks we're all idiots so they permanently attach stuff so smart people like me are forced into buying disposable appliances "

but

what are you really asking for? to me, it sounds like you want apple to provide you with the ability to go buy a packaged component. unplug the component inside the computer.. and plug the new one in. then close the case.

this is entirely a 'consumer' based method. i'm sorry but if you can unplug a hard drive then plug a new one in, i don't think you should be proud of your technical prowess. that requires little to no skill. it's not tinkering. it's super easy and it's entirely consumer based 'computer building for dummies' type of stuff.

like, if you wish apple to make computers that you can plug in additional components inside the casing then fine, wish for that.
but don't go kidding yourself that you're wishing for anything but apple to provide you with a simple/consumer minded solution to allow you to do this.

they've made it even more simple for you.. plug stuff into a port on the outside. virtually the same thing only more useful and simple.

Interesting take, but this has nothing to do with my skills as a repairman. Sounds like an apologist response. Here's why:

The truth is, there is good design and bad. I spent 15 years in the US Air Force as an aircraft mechanic. A crucial component of well-designed aircraft is its repairability; how quickly and effectively it can be repaired and brought back into service. Some aircraft made repairs difficult. In others it was obvious that the designers were concerned with the fact that functionality must extend all the way to how the machine is repaired.

For several decades Apple understood and applied this concept, all the way until the 2012 cMBP.

They have thus gradually abandoned it, in favor of non-repairable, disposable machines.

RAM, SSDs, and batteries are consumables. These are things that are very likely to require maintenance and repair. There is no excuse for the lack of easy repairability (that Apple used to provide and other manufacturers still do). Well, other than making sure you have to buy a whole new device every couple of years. It makes great business sense in a way. But it screws us (who keep machines longer than AppleCare lasts) over.

This article explains my position best:

https://www.wired.com/2012/06/opinion-apple-retina-displa/

 

[citysnaps]

Interesting take, but this has nothing to do with my skills as a repairman. Sounds like an apologist response. Here's why:

The truth is, there is good design and bad. I spent 15 years in the US Air Force as an aircraft mechanic. A crucial component of well-designed aircraft is its repairability; how quickly and effectively it can be repaired and brought back into service. Some aircraft made repairs difficult. In others it was obvious that the designers were concerned with the fact that functionality must extend all the way to how the machine is repaired.

For several decades Apple understood and applied this concept, all the way until the 2012 cMBP.

They have thus gradually abandoned it, in favor of non-repairable, disposable machines.

RAM, SSDs, and batteries are consumables. These are things that are very likely to require maintenance and repair. There is no excuse for the lack of easy repairability (that Apple used to provide and other manufacturers still do). Well, other than making sure you have to buy a whole new device every couple of years. It makes great business sense in a way. But it screws us (who keep machines longer than AppleCare lasts) over.

This article explains my position best:

https://www.wired.com/2012/06/opinion-apple-retina-displa/

Curious...

Going forward, are you going to instead vote with your wallet making your voice heard and purchase other manufacturers' laptop and desktop computers?

 

[flat five]

What, in Your view, is meaningful critique of the design then?

it would include the first step of trying to understand why design decisions were made and a lot less of 'they did this for greed'.. i would certainly consider apple to be greedy in various aspects but i don't make the mistake of saying anything i don't like about their products is based around greed.

Many have been arguing that the overall thinness obsession,

is it really an obsession with thinness? or are people just making the mistake of basing everything off of what they've seen in the past instead of looking towards the future.

like, try to imagine 30 years from now and look back on computers from this era.. do you think you'd be like 'holy crap, those apples sure are thin'.. -or- 'holy crap, look at those freaking bricks people used to lug around?'

reality is, today's computers are far more fat & cumbersome & heavy & invasive than tomorrow's computers will be.

apple isn't 'obsessed' with thinness.. they're (and other computer designers as well) taking the designs to the next obvious steps towards the future.. i suppose for many people, the steps aren't obvious in present timeframes.. however, once we get to the future then the people who only know how to look backwards will then be able to realize 'oh, right, that made sense'.. just that it will of taken them 25yrs to realize this and they'll then be complaining about how "apple should make fat computers like they did back in 2016".

leads to worse functionality.

i don't know about you but i've never bought a new computer that performed worse than the ones it replaced.. the computers always perform better (and more importantly, the software does too).
worse functionality? hmm, i'm just not seeing that.
i suppose for some, functionality of a computer might mean something different. for me, it's how well/smooth my software runs and how enjoyable(?) it is to use.. and this is always improving in my experience compared to my previous model computers.

and that the keyboard becomes outright useless for everyday use.

i haven't tried one of these new keyboards as i'm not due for a new laptop until next summer.. if the keyboard is useless then that will certainly affect me as my main software (Rhino) is very much reliant on the keyboard / command line.
if the keyboard is useless then yeah, i'll be bummed and definitely won't be buying a computer with such a keyboard.
we'll see.

Add to this the weird gap on the left side of the touchbar and the fake speaker grills. I my mind this speaks in volumes about a machine that's more about form (how it looks and feels) than function (what somebody would or could use it for).

i don't know.. look at the teardowns.. there's a reason why the touchbar has the 'empty' space on left as i've already tried to show you.. fwiw, that's not the actual controller of the touchbar.. it's a secondary driver that ifixit couldn't explain.. but point is, it's there and i'm 99% sure there's a reason for it being there.. and i'm very hesitant to say things like "since i don't know what it's doing there, it's probably useless and they could of placed that thing anywhere else in the computer and it would of fit and worked just fine"

also, assuming you're talking about the 13" model with the fake grills, ifixit amended their initial report to say some of those holes are actually through holes and they're coinciding with tweeters which went undiscovered upon first look.

I would assume that critique of a computer should be focused on how useful said computer is?

yep, that's exactly would it should be.
instead, we see an awful lot of specs and numbers being thrown around with very (very!) little usage cases used as examples.

That said, when users find themselves with 2-4 dongles because Apple solved a technical problem that nobody asked them to solve (or that wasn't a problem at all) this is hardly great engineering or design for that matter.

i think the problem they've tackled is a much simpler to understand problem than some technomumbojumbo stuff.

the fact that dongles need to be used in the interim only outlines the problem.. it's definitely not a new problem that apple has created.


let's say you were going to design a computing system right now from a clean slate.. say you needed to provide a few peripheral components as well that a particular user may need to customize to their specific usage.. like, a display or a printer or a mouse or an audio control or a power plug or - whatever.

again, from a clean slate, would you make the computer then the peripherals -- then, for each individual component, design a different plug and a different corresponding port on the computer? or, if technically possible, would you make one plug that can be used interchangeably amongst all the various components?

would you rather have:

• plug
* port

-- or --

• printer plug
• display plug
• disk plug
• audio plug
• power plug
* printer port
* display port
* disk port
* audio port
* power port


???

what do you think is the better solution there?
one plug and one port or a whole bunch of different plugs and ports?

to me, this answer is pretty freaking obvious and we've finally come to a point in technology where all this stuff can happen via one plug.

that you're likely using legacy hardware is a problem, sure.. and yes, you have to probably use dongles/adapters/new plugs until everything gets replaced to a unified system.

but, once you're up to date, I'm about 100% positive you'll find the single plug style to be far superior than the multitude of ports/plugs required last decade.

 

[melendezest]

Curious...

Going forward, are you going to instead vote with your wallet making your voice heard and purchase other manufacturers' laptop and desktop computers?

I have been voting with my wallet, kinda.

My Macs consist of a 2011 17", a 2012 15" hi-res matte, and a 2011 iMac 27".

I used to upgrade yearly, since 2001.

That cycle ground to a halt then.

That said, my 2011/2012 machines are the best machines Apple has made, repair wise:

I've already upgraded the MBPs to 16GB of RAM (came with 4GB, I believe), and have dual 1TB 7200RPM HDDs in RAID 0 (took the optical drive out). Currently waiting for Black Friday to see about SSD-ing them up.

The iMac screen is held in place by magnets. I've already (and easily) taken it apart, and am working on putting 2 SSDs in there, also RAID 0.

Those upgrades will hold me off for at least 3 years, or until Apple gets its head out.

If that doesn't pan out, Razer is looking like my first choice for the 17" replacement, and maybe a 2nd-gen Surface Studio for the iMac, or even a decent Sammy Tablet as a daily-driver will do (my needs for power are diminishing, but flexibility must remain).

So yes, I've taken a newfound interest in what Apple's competition is doing, thanks to Apple itself. And surprisingly, I like what I see.

But I still wish Apple got off its high horse and gave us a 2-in-one, a Surface Studio iMac, an Android-level-of-freedom iPad, and CMBPs back (along with what makes everyone else happy).

 

[flat five]

Interesting take, but this has nothing to do with my skills as a repairman. Sounds like an apologist response. Here's why:

The truth is, there is good design and bad. I spent 15 years in the US Air Force as an aircraft mechanic. A crucial component of well-designed aircraft is its repairability; how quickly and effectively it can be repaired and brought back into service. Some aircraft made repairs difficult. In others it was obvious that the designers were concerned with the fact that functionality must extend all the way to how the machine is repaired.

For several decades Apple understood and applied this concept, all the way until the 2012 cMBP.

They have thus gradually abandoned it, in favor of non-repairable, disposable machines.

RAM, SSDs, and batteries are consumables. These are things that are very likely to require maintenance and repair. There is no excuse for the lack of easy repairability (that Apple used to provide and other manufacturers still do). Well, other than making sure you have to buy a whole new device every couple of years. It makes great business sense in a way. But it screws us (who keep machines longer than AppleCare lasts) over.

This article explains my position best:

huh? the computers are repairable. like, if my macs were to break, i could take it to a repair shop (not an apple store) and they'd fix it.. because they know how and they have the tools to do it.

just like you can learn how to fix them too.

i mean, it's cool that you spent 15 years as an aircraft mechanic because you should certainly understand this then.
what you're asking for in the computer would be like me saying "i should be able to watch a 4 minute youtube video and fix that stupid F-15 out there.."
it's crazy..

if the wright bros. plane broke, i could probably fix it relatively easily.. but i can't fix an air force jet because it's far too complex and requires specialized training/tools.. you see what i'm saying? same thing happened in computers. (and cars and most other products)

but if you're really concerned with being able to quickly and easily repair a mac if it happens to crap out then go for it.. learn how.. it's entirely possible and plenty of people do it.

RAM, SSDs, and batteries are consumables.

maybe so.. but -- they always have been.. there's never a time when you could buy an upgradeable computer.. if there were, you'd be happy to buy my mp1,1 for $200 and bring it up to todays standards.. guess what, you can't.. it's disposable.
so, while you're correct that personal computers are more-or-less disposable consumer goods, you're not correct in implying that they ever were anything but disposable goods.

 

[melendezest]

huh? the computers are repairable. like, if my mac were to break, i could take it to a repair shop (not an apple store) and they'd fix it.. because they know how and they have the tools to do it.

just like you can learn how to fix them too.

i mean, it's cool that you spent 15 years as an aircraft mechanic because you should certainly understand this then.
what you're asking for in the computer would be like me saying "i should be able to watch a 4 minute youtube video and fix that stupid F-15 out there.."
it's crazy..

if the wright bros. plane broke, i could probably fix it relatively easily.. but i can't fix an air force jet because it's far too complex and requires specialized training/tools.. you see what i'm saying? same thing happened in computers. (and cars and most other products)

but if you're really concerned with being able to quickly and easily repair a mac if it happens to crap out then go for it.. learn how.. it's entirely possible and plenty of people do it.

Again, you defend Apple and miss the point.

Whether or not I can repair a current machine is irrelevant (I know how, just to get that out of the way).

The issue is that Apple made it nigh-impossible, when they used to go out of their way to make it easy.

That's what made Apple (think) different from Windows platforms. You didn't need to be a full-blown mechanic to fix things. You could repair and replace things easily, in the field (where it matters). They made things accessible, and easily replaceable where it made sense. As a full blown mechanic myself, I appreciated the attention to detail in that regard.

The point of it all is to return the machine back into service as quickly as possible, with the least amount of modifications.

As it stands, any, ANY issue with an MBP requiring repair will result in downtime related to data-restoration. Depending on the amount of said data, we could be talking an entire workday or more. This is unacceptable, in my mind at least.

 

[Rob_2811]

On the subject of Macs being user upgradeable, I cannot believe that the 27 inch iMac still have user swappable RAM. Its like its been overlooked! Amazed that hasn't been sealed up yet.

 

[-hh]

it would include the first step of trying to understand why design decisions were made and a lot less of 'they did this for greed'.. i would certainly consider apple to be greedy in various aspects but i don't make the mistake of saying anything i don't like about their products is based around greed.

Well, their recent moves may not be literal greed, but they are indicative of a deliberate deafness to customer feedback and needs.

is it really an obsession with thinness? or are people just making the mistake of basing everything off of what they've seen in the past instead of looking towards the future.

No, it isn't exclusive to "thin": there's also reduced parts counts & similar cost metrics (design for assembly/manufacture). It usually costs more for a product design to also be maintainable over its lifecycle, and when these expenses aren't incurred under warranty, it is all too tempting to cut these corners.

like, try to imagine 30 years from now and look back on computers from this era.. do you think you'd be like 'holy crap, those apples sure are thin'.. -or- 'holy crap, look at those freaking bricks people used to lug around?'

Neither: it's going to be, "gosh, what a great company they were before they screwed up and lost it all"

reality is, today's computers are far more fat & cumbersome & heavy & invasive than tomorrow's computers will be.

Yeah...So what? Computers from 30 years ago were already more powerful than the original UNIVAC and didn't take up an entire room...and the iPhone ... the ORIGINAL iPhone ... had higher performance & specs than the 1984 Macintosh and fit in a shirt pocket.

apple isn't 'obsessed' with thinness.. they're (and other computer designers as well) taking the designs to the next obvious steps towards the future.. i suppose for many people, the steps aren't obvious in present timeframes.. however, once we get to the future then the people who only know how to look backwards will then be able to realize 'oh, right, that made sense'.. just that it will of taken them 25yrs to realize this and they'll then be complaining about how "apple should make fat computers like they did back in 2016".

Nice spin...but if that actually were the case, the 'thin' trend would have ended by now, at least as a deliberate talking point in every launch.

i don't know about you but i've never bought a new computer that performed worse than the ones it replaced.. the computers always perform better (and more importantly, the software does too).

I have, because it depends on ones definition of "worse": for example, a laptop has less horsepower than a desktop, but it is much more portable. And even within laptops, one which lacks an optical drive is a "worse" than one which does have an optical, but weighs less, so it may be an acceptable trade for some use cases.

worse functionality? hmm, i'm just not seeing that.
i suppose for some, functionality of a computer might mean something different. for me, it's how well/smooth my software runs and how enjoyable(?) it is to use.. and this is always improving in my experience compared to my previous model computers.

My old rule of thumb for personal upgrades was that the new iron should have 4x more oomph than the system it was replacing. That's why I've not bought a 2013 Mac Pro to replace my 2012 or 2009 MacPro. Similarly, the reduced use case needs on the notebook side are still with a 2009 MacBook Pro.

i haven't tried one of these new keyboards ...

Glad you mentioned that: can you articulate just what was so wrong about the prior one (which was very well received by customers) which motivated its replacement? Pay particular attention to how Apple's marketing pitch has essentially been "Doesn't suck as bad as last year's cheap MacBook one which you hate". That's damning with faint praise. So then, just what was the design goal here? Thinner? Cheaper? Both?

also, assuming you're talking about the 13" model with the fake grills, ifixit amended their initial report to say some of those holes are actually through holes and they're coinciding with tweeters which went undiscovered upon first look.

But some isn't all. As such, it is that evil of sudomorhphism. /S

the fact that dongles need to be used in the interim only outlines the problem.. it's definitely not a new problem that apple has created.

Created? No. Exasperated? Yes.

The problem is that this "interim" for which dongles are going to be used is going to last for not days or weeks, but for years. See what follows below.

let's say you were going to design a computing system right now from a clean slate.. say you needed to provide a few peripheral components as well that a particular user may need to customize to their specific usage.. like, a display or a printer or a mouse or an audio control or a power plug or - whatever.

again, from a clean slate, would you make the computer then the peripherals -- then, for each individual component, design a different plug and a different corresponding port on the computer? or, if technically possible, would you make one plug that can be used interchangeably amongst all the various components?

would you rather have:

• plug
* port

-- or --

• printer plug
• display plug
• disk plug
• audio plug
• power plug
* printer port
* display port
* disk port
* audio port
* power port


???

what do you think is the better solution there?
one plug and one port or a whole bunch of different plugs and ports?

The answer is trivially simple: it depends on the context of the overall workflow ecosystem.

If one is dropping $20K for a brand new everything ... computer, printer, scanner, storage, servers, card readers, film scanners, keyboards, mice, displays, Wacom tablet, etc, etc ... then one MIGHT be able to have just one I/O port **if** the maturity of all of these interfaces have already been updated to USB-C. Otherwise, you benefit from a variety of ports.

FYI! even if all of the gear was on USB-C, they don't all benefit from having that much bandwidth available, so it is grossly inefficient for a CPU (which today are very much lane-constrained) to allocate thst to them. That's a deoptimized design.

Finally, the reality is that's the is rare for us to replace everything at once, so each new piece does need to "play nice" with the legacy systems which are currently in use. This is why Apple royally screwed up.

to me, this answer is pretty freaking obvious and we've finally come to a point in technology where all this stuff can happen via one plug.

Only if you're willing to throw out perfectly good legacy hardware that lacks the new plug.

that you're likely using legacy hardware is a problem, sure.. and yes, you have to probably use dongles/adapters/new plugs until everything gets replaced to a unified system.

Which wouldn't be so bad if the dongles were at a fair market price, which is closer to $2 each instead of $25.

but, once you're up to date, I'm about 100% positive you'll find the single plug style to be far superior than the multitude of ports/plugs required last decade.

Until the next "better" plug comes along and the cycle starts all over again. Now wasn't this called "Thunderbolt" and which only was introduced four (4) years or so ago? How did that work out for its adopters, now rthat it has already been obsoleted?

-hh

 

[flat five]

Again, you defend Apple and miss the point.

hmm. i'm not really talking about apple alone and instead talking about how all technology generally moves forward.. it's not only apple who are 'closing up' computers.. often times, apple might make this type of move first but others follow shortly thereafter (and other times, vice versa).. but see where i mentioned cars and planes and most other products.. that should be a sign that i'm not talking about apple specifically (unless i say apple specifically) or even talking about computers.. just technology in general.. it all follows a similar path.

That's what made Apple (think) different from Windows platforms. You didn't need to be a full-blown mechanic to fix things. You could repair and replace things easily, in the field (where it matters). They made things accessible, and easily replaceable where it made sense. As a full blown mechanic myself, I appreciated the attention to detail in that regard.

this is entirely arguable. i can't think of a time when mac was considered to be more repairable than PC. ever.
maybe it's just your perceptions that have changed over time.

The point of it all is to return the machine back into service as quickly as possible, with the least amount of modifications.

As it stands, any, ANY issue with an MBP requiring repair will result in downtime related to data-restoration. Depending on the amount of said data, we could be talking an entire workday or more. This is unacceptable, in my mind at least.

i can only say this:
you're seemingly entirely missing out on some modern capabilities of macOS, particularly with Sierra.. my laptop could literally explode right now and i get a new one, do about 5 mins worth of pref setup / app install, and be exactly at the point in work where i was on the exploded model..

a less catastrophic example, whatever i do on my laptop is also syncing to my desktop.. automatically and nearly seamlessly.. i move from one computer to another throughout the day in different locations.. i work on the same project without doing anything regarding moving data and what happens on one computer happens on the other.. i can just as easily add a new computer to the mix and pick up right where i left off on the other.

data restoration / data loss is all but nonexistent these days if you're set up properly.

 

[LordVic]

I

Curious...

Going forward, are you going to instead vote with your wallet making your voice heard and purchase other manufacturers' laptop and desktop computers?

I know I am

I won't be replacing my aging Mac with a new one. I have the money set aside, but the new MBP does not any longer meet my idea of value.

I'm just one consumer, but what happens if there are a lot more like me?

 

[dv8r]

it would include the first step of trying to understand why design decisions were made and a lot less of 'they did this for greed'.. i would certainly consider apple to be greedy in various aspects but i don't make the mistake of saying anything i don't like about their products is based around greed.

Don't think I did - but there is a definite trend towards financial engineering within Apple also, Horace Dediu once mentioned the general theory of riding on the back of Excel over the cliff. And the Steve Jobs clip (when speaking about Xerox Parc) also mentions what can happen within a company. The question is, can that happen within Apple? Of course. Is this happening within Apple? Don't know, don't hope so, but it certainly seems like they are stuck in the mud.

is it really an obsession with thinness? or are people just making the mistake of basing everything off of what they've seen in the past instead of looking towards the future.

Of course it is - have You noticed how much time Apple dedicates to the "thin and lighter" part of their presentations? It's an obsession so bad that major products bend, get bad keyboards or loose useful ports to saw off half a millimeter or so - this kind of behavior is obsessive by definition.

like, try to imagine 30 years from now and look back on computers from this era.. do you think you'd be like 'holy crap, those apples sure are thin'.. -or- 'holy crap, look at those freaking bricks people used to lug around?'

reality is, today's computers are far more fat & cumbersome & heavy & invasive than tomorrow's computers will be.

Of course I'm not saying that things shouldn't be smaller or lighter if it makes sense. The argument is kind of a trap in my view. Instead of trying to make me argue against progress let's debate the speed of it and the consequences of that speed.

apple isn't 'obsessed' with thinness.. they're (and other computer designers as well) taking the designs to the next obvious steps towards the future.. i suppose for many people, the steps aren't obvious in present timeframes.. however, once we get to the future then the people who only know how to look backwards will then be able to realize 'oh, right, that made sense'.. just that it will of taken them 25yrs to realize this and they'll then be complaining about how "apple should make fat computers like they did back in 2016".

25 years? for consumer products that last a fraction of that? Why not argue that Apple makes more slick computers than the IBM System/370's - kinda odd.

i don't know about you but i've never bought a new computer that performed worse than the ones it replaced.. the computers always perform better (and more importantly, the software does too).
worse functionality? hmm, i'm just not seeing that.
i suppose for some, functionality of a computer might mean something different. for me, it's how well/smooth my software runs and how enjoyable(?) it is to use.. and this is always improving in my experience compared to my previous model computers.

That's one way to look at it - in my view functionality is the machine itself, what it can do/be used for and the various use cases that can be applied to it. How well the software runs have no impact on the way the shell of the computer is designed - Apple could put exactly the same hardware inside the former MBP shell without problems. In that case I would have slightly better hardware, a good keyboard, lot's of ports, Magsafe and maybe a better thermal performance. The current MBP denies me the good keyboard and lot's of ports [can be mitigated with dongles galore], Magsafe (which have saved my budget at least 8 times). This means that for me this current design (because it has nothing to do with the internals) limits the usability of the machine for me.

i haven't tried one of these new keyboards as i'm not due for a new laptop until next summer.. if the keyboard is useless then that will certainly affect me as my main software (Rhino) is very much reliant on the keyboard / command line.
if the keyboard is useless then yeah, i'll be bummed and definitely won't be buying a computer with such a keyboard.
we'll see.

I get that people have different views on this - but I find that it slows down my rate of typing significantly and also makes my fingers a little sore.

i don't know.. look at the teardowns.. there's a reason why the touchbar has the 'empty' space on left as i've already tried to show you.. fwiw, that's not the actual controller of the touchbar.. it's a secondary driver that ifixit couldn't explain.. but point is, it's there and i'm 99% sure there's a reason for it being there.. and i'm very hesitant to say things like "since i don't know what it's doing there, it's probably useless and they could of placed that thing anywhere else in the computer and it would of fit and worked just fine"

It's electronics, there's no reason it has to be right there unless it has a function that is related to that very corner. It does not look like it does anything - but we do know that Ive hates asymmetrical things.

also, assuming you're talking about the 13" model with the fake grills, ifixit amended their initial report to say some of those holes are actually through holes and they're coinciding with tweeters which went undiscovered upon first look.

If it's only tweeters is a hell of a tweeter - my point is that we do know who also has a weakness for laser-drilled speakerholes.

yep, that's exactly would it should be.
instead, we see an awful lot of specs and numbers being thrown around with very (very!) little usage cases used as examples.

We're still on the form versus function - my point is still that the Apple of late tends to lean too much towards form and by doing that cripples important functions in their products.

i think the problem they've tackled is a much simpler to understand problem than some technomumbojumbo stuff.

the fact that dongles need to be used in the interim only outlines the problem.. it's definitely not a new problem that apple has created.

let's say you were going to design a computing system right now from a clean slate.. say you needed to provide a few peripheral components as well that a particular user may need to customize to their specific usage.. like, a display or a printer or a mouse or an audio control or a power plug or - whatever.

again, from a clean slate, would you make the computer then the peripherals -- then, for each individual component, design a different plug and a different corresponding port on the computer? or, if technically possible, would you make one plug that can be used interchangeably amongst all the various components?

would you rather have:

• plug
* port

-- or --

• printer plug
• display plug
• disk plug
• audio plug
• power plug
* printer port
* display port
* disk port
* audio port
* power port


???

what do you think is the better solution there?
one plug and one port or a whole bunch of different plugs and ports?

to me, this answer is pretty freaking obvious and we've finally come to a point in technology where all this stuff can happen via one plug.

that you're likely using legacy hardware is a problem, sure.. and yes, you have to probably use dongles/adapters/new plugs until everything gets replaced to a unified system.

but, once you're up to date, I'm about 100% positive you'll find the single plug style to be far superior than the multitude of ports/plugs required last decade.

As said before - the dongles bother me other than it looks ugly as hell when hanging from a laptop, the switch to Thunderbolt 3 doesn't bother me at all - I'm all displayports at home anyway. The point is though - when traveling when a "pro" machine one should not have to rely on a $29 dongle to be productive. Most of the current standards will go wireless, the rest will eventually be USB3.1, but I'll bet that exactly when that time comes, Apple will switch the ports to something else...

So about the being "up to date" - theoretically it's all good and fine, but standards and plugs tend to stay around much longer than the actual machine itself. The perfect world of one port/one united standard is a pie in the sky - how many runs have we had on this? Firewire, USB, SCSI, Serial, PS/2, e-Sata... why do You think USB3.1 is the one that is going to stay with us?