What's puzzling to me is where he arrived at the conclusion you feel Apple and Jony Ive should be held accountable for the damage to your Mac Pro. I don't recall your ever having expected Apple to do so. I didn't see one post where you expected Apple to repair the system on their dime.
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.
Mac Pro design (2013) - Thanks Jony!
- Thread starter 11201ny
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's pretty much open on the entire front and back. I have mine on may desk, so a cup could get knocked over and spill into/on it. Or, if it's on the floor, you drop a cup of something and it splashes into it. A spill *on top* of it, not as open, but it could definitely flow down on the from an back top edges or maybe into the seams (though I will refrain from testing the seams to find out).
[doublepost=1516839009][/doublepost]
No, I understand how bad the cat vomit could be if it gets in there, but despite the hole in the top, the ergonomics of cat vs. Mac Pro are such that the cat vomit really only can easily get in there if you have a shelf above the Mac Pro for the cat to puke off of, which maybe not so many people have. If a cat is next to the machine, it will not throw up into it, as cats usually puke at their feet, in my experience. Though there could possibly be something of a risk then, as well, if it is very liquidy?
[doublepost=1516839756][/doublepost]This guy spilled "turkey juice" in his cMP, (though it's possible he might just be covering up a raw turkey incident).
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...key-juice-into-mac-pro.1494618/#post-16579711
ActionableMango
macrumors G3
Yes, the cMP is open front and back. So how does this translate into liquids entering the case? If I have a big gulp sitting next to the cMP and I knock it over how does the liquid enter the system? There's the possibility small amounts may but the majority of the liquid won't. The liquid that does is unlikely to come into contact with the motherboard because it's mounted vertically along the side and not the front of the back.
Then there's the floor scenario. Fair enough...the top of the cMP, for the most part, is solid which will prohibit the introduction of liquid into the system. However, as you said, there are a few areas on the top where liquid can enter. However they're not above the motherboard so the liquid will have a limited electrical area upon which to affect. Contrast this to the nMP which almost guarantees liquid spill in the top is going to hit the primary components.
All said and done the cMP case, under any normal use case scenario, is much more resistant to liquid damage than the nMP. The nMP almost acts as a funnel directing any liquid onto the electronics. The cMP is just the opposite. The case design provides a lot of protection to the primary components of the system. It's not fool proof but I'd take it over the nMP design any day if this were the deciding factor.
Specifically with a Big Gulp, the cup is very high, so when it tips, it hits the cMP at an angle and liquid could spill in it.
But in general this doesn't seem to be a frequent problem for *any* Mac Pro, even if the cMP is more spill-resistant than the nMP. It is a more common issue with laptops; maybe they have a design flaw because they are so small, it is easy for people to use them while eating. And their electronics are very close to the surface that you can spill liquids on, so it is easy for them to get fried. Clearly Apple needs to change the design.
hfg
macrumors 68040
I’m not trying to “win”. Just sharing a different opinion. I would love to see how the statements I made were wrong. Especially those factual ones about you allowing your nMP to be used as a cat heater.
I don’t think you have read my posts as I never said it was a good design. On numerous occasions I said it is not the best design.
All I said was that I believe your argument that it is a bad design because cat vomit got in it is a weak argument. There are many more better reasons. You let a cat sit on an expensive computer. The computer is not made to have cats sit on it. Cat vomit entered the computer because of user error.
Key word there is "could". Even if it did how much is going to enter the system and what is it going to come into contact with? The motherboard is mounted horizontally along the side of the case so the liquid is unlikely to come into contact with it. Any that might is likely to be a small amount which significantly reduces the potential for damage. Perhaps it would get on the processor card, heat sinks, RAM. But the amount is unlikely to cause damage. Perhaps an expansion card which are located in the back?
My point isn't that liquid can't accidently get into the cMP enclosure. My point is that it's less likely to happen compared to an open top design such as that used in the nMP and, if it should, it's significantly less likely to cause any damage. See hfg's post as an example. I suspect had the coffee spilled into the top of a nMP he'd be looking to repair it.
[doublepost=1516885131][/doublepost]
Your argument is built on a number of "facts" which aren't true:
- He "let" the cats sit on top of it. Two things wrong here: 1) A cat cannot sit on the top of the nMP while it is in operation. Doing so would surely kill the Mac due to overheating. 2) One does not let a cat do many things. They just do things. He even highlighted this with his use of quotation marks around the word let in post number 60. You say you've lived with cats but it doesn't seem you have. My family has cats and one thing I've learned is they just kind of do things.
- The sole focus is on a cat puking in the system. He clearly said in his first post "liquids, food, cat puke, etc." Any reasonable person would see the open top design is susceptible to things accidently falling into it.
- He's blaming Apple and Jony Ive for the damage and expects them to do something about it. He is doing no such thing. All he did was point out a problem in the design of the nMP.
- He's calling this issue out as the sole problem with the design of the nMP. He is doing no such thing but rather providing another weakness in its design.
On another note should I infer, through the lack of response to my question in post number 70, your acknowledgement there are designs which are better suited to minimizing the potential for accidental issues than others?
MarkJames68
macrumors 6502
chrono1081
macrumors G3
(while you resort to name calling)
[doublepost=1516898783][/doublepost]
GrossMove on already, Dell is calling you.
This is getting ridiculous. First the OP mocks my username (post 75) and now you are insinuating I am a liar.
I did not answer your question because, as I stated in post #69, I do not believe you make a fair comparison. I also do not appreciate the condescending tone that appears to come across.
Anyway, to my understanding these forums are a medium to share different points of view. Apologies if my observations have dragged this conversation on too long (and too much discussion about cats). And again, as I said before I feel bad this happened to the OP and carry no ill will.
- Three things wrong here:
1) You’re right, the cats were not sitting with their entire bodies directly on the OP’s nMP. My mistake. But as you can see in OP’s post below they were putting their top front legs on top of the nMP so the front half of their bodies were on top of the nMP. The nMP is not meant for a cat to sit on with all or half of their bodies. OP knew this wasn’t a good situation but was unable to, or did not want to, do something to deter the cats’ behavior.
2) I don’t think this should become a thread about cats. Yes, cats may do things, but as an owner of a cat you can stop them from doing things. Cats can be disciplined and learn what they can and cannot do. It is up to the cat owner to let the cats do whatever they want, but the owner then must take responsibility for the consequences. Like cat vomit inside an nMP.
3) Thank you for insinuating I am a liar. That is real classy. I grew up with cats, inside and out, as well as dogs and other house pets. I had cats in the house until I was 20. Our cats knew where they could and could not go in the house and what they could and could not sit on because we disciplined them. It’s not that hard.
- You stated “any reasonable person would see the open top design is susceptible to things falling into it.” I agree. Just like any reasonable person who owns the nMP would know it is not a good idea to let cats put half of their bodies on top of the nMP. Given the design of the system, is it bad design that caused the computer to fail because of cat vomit entering the system due to the owner of the nMP allowing their cats to put half of their bodies on top of the computer? Or is it carelessness/user error on the part of the owner?
Most notebook computers are not made to survive liquid being poured on their keyboards. If I accidentally spill a drink on the keyboard of my MBP and it fries the logic board, is this because of bad design? Or user error/carelessness? My argument is simply that it is the latter.
- OP insinuates it is Apple’s fault (such as the post title) and directly says that Apple and its design team must be held accountable for allowing this situation to happen. By this logic, most notebook computer manufacturers must be held accountable for allowing their computers to be broken from liquid entering under the keyboard and ruining the computer.
I did not answer your question because, as I stated in post #69, I do not believe you make a fair comparison. I also do not appreciate the condescending tone that appears to come across.
Anyway, to my understanding these forums are a medium to share different points of view. Apologies if my observations have dragged this conversation on too long (and too much discussion about cats). And again, as I said before I feel bad this happened to the OP and carry no ill will.
Flint Ironstag
macrumors 68000
You did not answer the question because you have recognized no matter which answer you provide you will have proven the point that the way something is designed can be a factor in whether something is more susceptible to damage, injury, or death (the fact the consequences are more severe in my example are irrelevant, however I did choose that example ti highlight my point).
So apparently now you can read my mind while calling me a liar. Stop with the condescending tone and accusations.
I have not called you a liar and I'm sorry if you do not like the conclusion I have drawn from your lack of answer. If you feel my conclusion is in error then I am happy to listen to your position. Until such time I have no other choice but to conclude as I have.
You called me a liar when you said you didn’t believe I had cats before. Then you claim to have known what I recognized in your question. Reread your posts.
I did not answer your question because I did not want this thread to degrade into the level it has, unfortunately. I knew there would be a back and forth that I did not want to get into.
You shouldn’t be coming to conclusions with inadequate information.
By all means let's bring it back on track. I will do so by ignoring everything but the discussion of the design. You can do this by answering the question in post number 70. Answering that question shouldn't degrade the thread, should it?
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Friendly tip - please take this bickering to private messages, before the mods put you in timeout for bickering.
We had fights for AMD, NVIDIA, GPUs, CPUs, MacVidCards, PCIe, Thunderbolt, Dell, HP and a lot others.
But for a cat? and its gastric issues?
This is incredible! 🙂🙂
The most used word in this page is liar! 😵 Come on people, take it easy.
I hope that no user here keeps iguanas (or whatever) over their EIZOs and NECs... This would be the thread!!!
But for a cat? and its gastric issues?
This is incredible! 🙂🙂
The most used word in this page is liar! 😵 Come on people, take it easy.
I hope that no user here keeps iguanas (or whatever) over their EIZOs and NECs... This would be the thread!!!
This isn't, or shouldn't be, about a cat and its gastric issues but rather a design which funnels a cats gastric issues, or any number of other things into the core of the system. It's my opinion the OP was pointing it out as yet another weakness of the design.
Personally I like the nMP enough so I bought one. I think Apple did a great job with its design but I do recognize this as a weakness. Do I think Apple is responsible? Certainly not. But accidents do happen and, as my electric outlet example illustrates, designs can be made which reduce potential problems.
Who knows...maybe someone at Apple will read this thread and factor in potential cats puking into the mMP. 🙂
AlexMaximus
macrumors 65816
Here is an anecdote:
From my experience as a professional Industrial computer technician for high precision optic inspection equipment (about fifteen years ago), we always had one rule:
There is standard and then there is extra hazard condition. I remember one customer like it was today. This company did manufacture hardened cutting tool inserts for CNC machines. They basically did metal grinding the whole day. The control computer that time (an Intel Pentium2 box) died because it was not shielded properly against that environment, till we fitted it in an extra box with filters and air condition system from www.rittal.com. Imagine an extremely dusty coal mine and you get the picture. It was extra expensive but it did the trick back in the day. The customer had to pay extra for that.
What can we learn from this and my own story here? Pets in working environments should be categorised as an extra hazard condition. Jony did not design that box for an extra hazard condition. Statistically you have a higher risk situation of machine failure with an extra hazard condition. You can proof that with SixSigma.
This valuable blog and the unfortunate experience of the OP proves exactly that.
So the relevant question to Mr Jony Ive would be this: Did Apple's Six Sigma Quality Officer put Pets into account as a significant influence in risk management on unit failure, and would the ppm number (parts per million) be large enough to impact critical design changes on the 2013 model ?
Thats about the only intelligent question you can ask Sir Jonathan Ive, Knight Commander of the Britisch Empire and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. And you know what, he would say "sure we did". The number is too small, we can live with that. And that would be the end of it.
However this unfortunate case may be, -my advice for the OP, give Apple another call on Apple Care. Call ten times, and you will most likely hit two people that are willing to take this case to the next supervisor. Get a service ticket. I think you should have a chance on a gift reimbursement or something. Don't stop, Apple can afford it.
From my experience as a professional Industrial computer technician for high precision optic inspection equipment (about fifteen years ago), we always had one rule:
There is standard and then there is extra hazard condition. I remember one customer like it was today. This company did manufacture hardened cutting tool inserts for CNC machines. They basically did metal grinding the whole day. The control computer that time (an Intel Pentium2 box) died because it was not shielded properly against that environment, till we fitted it in an extra box with filters and air condition system from www.rittal.com. Imagine an extremely dusty coal mine and you get the picture. It was extra expensive but it did the trick back in the day. The customer had to pay extra for that.
What can we learn from this and my own story here? Pets in working environments should be categorised as an extra hazard condition. Jony did not design that box for an extra hazard condition. Statistically you have a higher risk situation of machine failure with an extra hazard condition. You can proof that with SixSigma.
This valuable blog and the unfortunate experience of the OP proves exactly that.
So the relevant question to Mr Jony Ive would be this: Did Apple's Six Sigma Quality Officer put Pets into account as a significant influence in risk management on unit failure, and would the ppm number (parts per million) be large enough to impact critical design changes on the 2013 model ?
Thats about the only intelligent question you can ask Sir Jonathan Ive, Knight Commander of the Britisch Empire and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. And you know what, he would say "sure we did". The number is too small, we can live with that. And that would be the end of it.
However this unfortunate case may be, -my advice for the OP, give Apple another call on Apple Care. Call ten times, and you will most likely hit two people that are willing to take this case to the next supervisor. Get a service ticket. I think you should have a chance on a gift reimbursement or something. Don't stop, Apple can afford it.