Marco Arment Argues the 2012—2015 MacBook Pro is 'Best Laptop That Has Ever Existed'

[SteveW928]

While the paraphrase you quote may not be 100% accurate, it is accurate in a practical sense. Corporations have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and the shareholders. "Best interests" includes maximizing revenue and profit. They can spend money to make money (e.g. on R & D, employee benefits to attract top talent, even charitable giving if the PR boost will drive higher revenues), but ultimately they are legally bound to make decisions that will continue to make more and more money. So, no, it's not baloney.

As noted by Namifan, no. If I could find it, I was involved in another discussion a few weeks back where someone linked to a detailed article to show where the myth comes from and how it caught on in business thought.

It's a horrible and destructive concept that we need to irradicate. The sooner the better.

And the principle applies to Apple in the sense that producing the highest quality, best hardware and software for a core group of devoted creative professionals and enthusiasts does not lead to the maximum profit potential. Producing mass-market consumer products for non-discerning mall dwellers DOES deliver a huge market and huge profits. These customers will love whatever they are told to love - "if it's thinner, it's better", and probably don't know or care what processor is in their phone or what ports are best for their laptop. Pursuit of this market means Apple has changed as it continue to focus (correctly, for the shareholders) on growing profits. I don't see a return to quality design or engineering ever happening for Apple - they simply can't turn away from the market expectations they've created.

It depends. As I've said before, why does Ford make the GT40 or Chevy the Corvette? They don't make their money there. But, it contributes to the product lineup, pushes their technological development, and impacts their image.

There is a *********LOT********* more going on with business than shows up on typical balance sheets. This profit maximization and only selling the most high-volume stuff is just insanely oversimplified business thinking (which ends up being bad and shortsighted thinking).

 

[scoobydoo99]

Wrong.

There is no such legal requirement.

See, e.g., https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/

Again, the fiduciary requirement is to always act in Shareholders' best interest. There is considerable academic literature and legal precedent on the topic, so I'll leave that to you to reference, but it is generally accepted that increasing profits is in Shareholders' best interest.

 

[Naimfan]

Again, the fiduciary requirement is to always act in Shareholders' best interest. There is considerable academic literature and legal precedent on the topic, so I'll leave that to you to reference, but it is generally accepted that increasing profits is in Shareholders' best interest.

Sigh.

Let me say it slowly: There is no legal requirement to maximize profit. If you would care to enlighten my corporate attorney colleagues I'm sure they'd be astonished to learn that there is any such constitutional/statutory/regulatory requirement.

 

[scoobydoo99]

As noted by Namifan, no. If I could find it, I was involved in another discussion a few weeks back where someone linked to a detailed article to show where the myth comes from and how it caught on in business thought.

It's a horrible and destructive concept that we need to irradicate. The sooner the better.



It depends. As I've said before, why does Ford make the GT40 or Chevy the Corvette? They don't make their money there. But, it contributes to the product lineup, pushes their technological development, and impacts their image.

There is a *********LOT********* more going on with business than shows up on typical balance sheets. This profit maximization and only selling the most high-volume stuff is just insanely oversimplified business thinking (which ends up being bad and shortsighted thinking).

I think your sentiment is right, if I can paraphrase...business decisions are complex and beyond any all-purpose "rule" we could devise. However, in general, I think there is a widely held misconception that companies consider their customers' best interest in their decisions. I think that what they consider first and foremost is -> what will maximize revenue and profits. Now, we could look at Tim Cook's avowed concern for privacy of an example of a corporation holding some core value or ideal that is in their customer's best interest, and I think that is valid in some cases. I believe that Elon Musk is truly interested in climate change and helping humanity's long term chance for survival, too. But ultimately, when Apple's executives look at a product roadmap, they are trying to capture the largest market segment they can, at the highest profit margin, for the least capital expenditure. It then comes down to - "What can be marketed most effectively?" "What will drive sales and profit?", NOT, what is the absolute best, most useful product. A good example is size and weight of products. Marketing tells us that "thinner and lighter" has a positive correlation with consumer desire and, ultimately, sales. If a substandard keyboard design on the new MacBook Pro allows shaving a bit off the thickness, that is where they prefer to make the trade, because the broader consumer demographic won't really notice or care about the new keyboard, but "thinner" or even "thinnest" are great marketing gimmicks. I don't think we're going to eradicate corporate drive for profits - a "half gallon" of milk doesn't exist for many brands anymore - it's 52 oz. - Not because consumers wanted it, but because it drives growhth on the balance sheet for shareholders.

 

[SteveW928]

I think your sentiment is right, if I can paraphrase...business decisions are complex and beyond any all-purpose "rule" we could devise. However, in general, I think there is a widely held misconception that companies consider their customers' best interest in their decisions. I think that what they consider first and foremost is -> what will maximize revenue and profits. Now, we could look at Tim Cook's avowed concern for privacy of an example of a corporation holding some core value or ideal that is in their customer's best interest, and I think that is valid in some cases. I believe that Elon Musk is truly interested in climate change and helping humanity's long term chance for survival, too. But ultimately, when Apple's executives look at a product roadmap, they are trying to capture the largest market segment they can, at the highest profit margin, for the least capital expenditure. It then comes down to - "What can be marketed most effectively?" "What will drive sales and profit?", NOT, what is the absolute best, most useful product. A good example is size and weight of products. Marketing tells us that "thinner and lighter" has a positive correlation with consumer desire and, ultimately, sales. If a substandard keyboard design on the new MacBook Pro allows shaving a bit off the thickness, that is where they prefer to make the trade, because the broader consumer demographic won't really notice or care about the new keyboard, but "thinner" or even "thinnest" are great marketing gimmicks. I don't think we're going to eradicate corporate drive for profits - a "half gallon" of milk doesn't exist for many brands anymore - it's 52 oz. - Not because consumers wanted it, but because it drives growhth on the balance sheet for shareholders.

Well, I consider my customer's best interest in my business decisions. It's not an all or nothing thing, as yes, I have to make money. So, my product offering is aimed at a clientele that gets this and for which my product is a right-fit. When a potential customer comes along for which some competing service is better, I explain that and send them that way.

In the short term, this hurts my profitability. In the long term, it increases my brand and trust. What is integrity and trust worth on the balance sheet? How much would that be worth to my investors if I had those? It depends on whether they are *investors* or day-traders. The problem with big business and anything connected to Wall Street, is that it has mostly become the latter. It's basically Vegas dressed up in respectable clothing and termed 'investment.'

I'd also argue that while Apple certainly has always cared about profitability and profit margin, what got them to where they are at was building exceptional products and providing an excellent customer experience. Their present success is more an outworking of that than being marketing and profit-maximization driven (that's mostly what their competitors do... Apple was different, which differentiated them in the market).

Can this go too far? Sure. As I said above, you *on the whole* have to be profitable. You can't just make the ideal product and then price it at a loss. You also can't just make a - no holds barred - absolute best product unless you're in a market where you can price it accordingly. Apple has only made a few such products over the years. Most of their products are aimed more at the high end of some market segment.

Yet, having that 'no compromise' product, as noted above about the GT40, etc. can have benefits beyond profit-margin. But, when I'm talking about best, I, of course, mean within reason. This is something Apple has historically done quite well.

I will also certainly admit that Apple's ability with iOS to appeal to a different, wider market has contributed greatly to their success. I'm not opposed to this at all. The problem comes in when you start saying that because this new 'optimum' market segment exists, the rest aren't also strategically crucial.

There is ***ZERO*** reason Apple can't serve several markets quite well at the same time, unless there is some fundamental silly business thinking going that is driven by short-sighted marketing or bean-counting.

The MacBook Pro keyboard is a perfect example of pushing things too far. It's OK to do such a thing in a more consumer-focused product like the MacBook (so long as quality doesn't suffer too much, for an expected Apple quality level). But, in a Pro product, quality and typing experience should absolutely outweigh a thinness spec the marketing dept might love to achieve.

Also, when you say 'capture the largest market segment'... you have to define that. For example, if I simply wanted to capture the largest market segment for my website design business... I'd throw 1000 sites on some cheap hosting and crank out average, useless websites. I'm actually differentiating my services by aiming at a smaller market segment of higher-quality clientele who want more.

Or, to the car analogy, take BMW (one of Steve Jobs favorite analogies too). They obviously aren't aiming their products towards the largest possible market segment. They have identified a different, much smaller, market segment to serve. Of course, within that market segment, they design their products to the biggest number. And, that means compromises, of course. But, their products have higher quality and manufacturing costs than if they simply aimed at maximum market and profit margins.

Ultimately, it is actually in the best interests of shareholders (on the whole, actual investors... sans day-traders) to do the right thing, and not just blindly maximize something as simplistic as profit or market-share. Corporations don't exist in a vacuum, especially in the Internet age. The classic example is that it's certainly cheaper to dump your toxic waste sludge in the river, on the overly simplistic books. But in the long run, this has very real, wide-reaching costs. Doing the right thing is going to win out in the long-term, especially since companies can't hide things as easily (and this includes more mild things like corporate-image).

And, as your Musk example indicates (and I'd argue Jobs' driving principals, or Apple's new focus on privacy), doing things simply to create a better world often create new thriving markets and critical product differentiation. And, while I'm sure they think about such things in marketing departments, this often happens regardless or maybe in spite of their efforts.

 

[scoobydoo99]

Sigh.

Let me say it slowly: There is no legal requirement to maximize profit. If you would care to enlighten my corporate attorney colleagues I'm sure they'd be astonished to learn that there is any such constitutional/statutory/regulatory requirement.

OK. Last try. I explicitly stated that the legal requirement is a fiduciary responsibility. I said there are generally accepted means of promoting shareholder interests, one of which is measured by profits. But, to simplify, let's say Tim Cook suddenly became wildly philanthropic and decided to give away Apple's cash warchest of over $250BN to charity. He couldn't legally do that, because it would harm shareholders. There is no sound business reason that could possibly justify doing that, even though it might be very generous. He would be violating his legal fiduciary responsibility and would be acting unlawfully. If you know attorneys who are astonished to learn of fiduciary responsibility, I would question where they got their law degrees and ask if they came in the mail.
[doublepost=1512868250][/doublepost]

Well, I consider my customer's best interest in my business decisions. It's not an all or nothing thing, as yes, I have to make money. So, my product offering is aimed at a clientele that gets this and for which my product is a right-fit. When a potential customer comes along for which some competing service is better, I explain that and send them that way.

In the short term, this hurts my profitability. In the long term, it increases my brand and trust. What is integrity and trust worth on the balance sheet? How much would that be worth to my investors if I had those? It depends on whether they are *investors* or day-traders. The problem with big business and anything connected to Wall Street, is that it has mostly become the latter. It's basically Vegas dressed up in respectable clothing and termed 'investment.'

I'd also argue that while Apple certainly has always cared about profitability and profit margin, what got them to where they are at was building exceptional products and providing an excellent customer experience. Their present success is more an outworking of that than being marketing and profit-maximization driven (that's mostly what their competitors do... Apple was different, which differentiated them in the market).

Can this go too far? Sure. As I said above, you *on the whole* have to be profitable. You can't just make the ideal product and then price it at a loss. You also can't just make a - no holds barred - absolute best product unless you're in a market where you can price it accordingly. Apple has only made a few such products over the years. Most of their products are aimed more at the high end of some market segment.

Yet, having that 'no compromise' product, as noted above about the GT40, etc. can have benefits beyond profit-margin. But, when I'm talking about best, I, of course, mean within reason. This is something Apple has historically done quite well.

I will also certainly admit that Apple's ability with iOS to appeal to a different, wider market has contributed greatly to their success. I'm not opposed to this at all. The problem comes in when you start saying that because this new 'optimum' market segment exists, the rest aren't also strategically crucial.

There is ***ZERO*** reason Apple can't serve several markets quite well at the same time, unless there is some fundamental silly business thinking going that is driven by short-sighted marketing or bean-counting.

The MacBook Pro keyboard is a perfect example of pushing things too far. It's OK to do such a thing in a more consumer-focused product like the MacBook (so long as quality doesn't suffer too much, for an expected Apple quality level). But, in a Pro product, quality and typing experience should absolutely outweigh a thinness spec the marketing dept might love to achieve.

Also, when you say 'capture the largest market segment'... you have to define that. For example, if I simply wanted to capture the largest market segment for my website design business... I'd throw 1000 sites on some cheap hosting and crank out average, useless websites. I'm actually differentiating my services by aiming at a smaller market segment of higher-quality clientele who want more.

Or, to the car analogy, take BMW (one of Steve Jobs favorite analogies too). They obviously aren't aiming their products towards the largest possible market segment. They have identified a different, much smaller, market segment to serve. Of course, within that market segment, they design their products to the biggest number. And, that means compromises, of course. But, their products have higher quality and manufacturing costs than if they simply aimed at maximum market and profit margins.

Ultimately, it is actually in the best interests of shareholders (on the whole, actual investors... sans day-traders) to do the right thing, and not just blindly maximize something as simplistic as profit or market-share. Corporations don't exist in a vacuum, especially in the Internet age. The classic example is that it's certainly cheaper to dump your toxic waste sludge in the river, on the overly simplistic books. But in the long run, this has very real, wide-reaching costs. Doing the right thing is going to win out in the long-term, especially since companies can't hide things as easily (and this includes more mild things like corporate-image).

And, as your Musk example indicates (and I'd argue Jobs' driving principals, or Apple's new focus on privacy), doing things simply to create a better world often create new thriving markets and critical product differentiation. And, while I'm sure they think about such things in marketing departments, this often happens regardless or maybe in spite of their efforts.

I think we agree on many areas. In fact my point IS exactly that Apple's long-time focus on quality and extraordinary customer experience were expenses that provided increased returns. And shareholders understand that. No one _needs_ fancy boxes and bags and packing materials with sublimely fitted inserts, and the "Designed by Apple in California" imprint placed just-so, but it creates amazing brand loyalty and makes customers feel great about the product, which (and here's my point) drives sales and profits. We completely agree - investment in brand image, quality, customer experience, even (as I mentioned before) charitable giving all provide returns _in the form of profits_. That's why it's a great investment. Ultimately, the deterioration in customer service that we see across almost all sectors is driven by "how low can we go without losing customers" or, more accurately, "how low can we go without losing enough customers to offset the savings". Apple currently has call centers in the U.S. That's expensive, but (in my view) worth it. But most other companies have learned that they can outsource the call center to an international location, increase phone hold times, and use representatives without English proficiency, and guess what? It saves them money because customers don't abandon them in large numbers.

But I really wanted to comment on your BMW analogy, because it was PERFECT for my point. I had a 2000 3-series, and a 2007 3-series. The 2007 was my last BMW. The "ultimate driving experience" that BMW was known for is no more. (And this opinion is echoed in the mainstream automotive press). They're still fine cars, but BMW has done exactly as Apple - they've moved from the devoted enthusiast to the broader consumer market. There was a time when driving a BMW meant that you were an enthusiast about driving, that you noticed all the little sensory feedback and performance traits in the BMW that made it an exceptional driving experience. But BMW learned that they could crank out huge numbers of mediocre SUVs and lots of suburbanites would buy them in droves regardless of how performance-oriented they were (or weren't). So, do you keep serving the devoted pro market, or go where the profits are? I don't think they have a choice.

I loved Apple (and BMW). I was their biggest fanboy and advocate back in the day (let's say 1998-2007). I still use Apple products because even as they deteriorate, they are often better than the alternatives. But I think we have to realistically look at the product they are cranking out today (both hardware and software) and not be influenced by our memory or perception of the "old" Apple that drew us in in the first place!

 

[SteveW928]

... I explicitly stated that the legal requirement is a fiduciary responsibility. ... But, to simplify, let's say Tim Cook suddenly became wildly philanthropic and decided to give away Apple's cash warchest of over $250BN to charity. He couldn't legally do that ...

I don't know about legality, but it would certainly get him fired. I also imagine there are limits to a CEOs power where they'd have to authorize certain moves with the board of directors. But, I wanted to jump in on this, as this seems a bit different than the inital idea you proposed about profit maximization.

I don't think fiduciary responsibility = profit maximization.

I think we agree on many areas. In fact my point IS exactly that Apple's long-time focus on quality and extraordinary customer experience were expenses that provided increased returns. And shareholders understand that. No one _needs_ fancy boxes and bags and packing materials with sublimely fitted inserts, and the "Designed by Apple in California" imprint placed just-so, but it creates amazing brand loyalty and makes customers feel great about the product, which (and here's my point) drives sales and profits. We completely agree - investment in brand image, quality, customer experience, even (as I mentioned before) charitable giving all provide returns _in the form of profits_. That's why it's a great investment. Ultimately, the deterioration in customer service that we see across almost all sectors is driven by "how low can we go without losing customers" or, more accurately, "how low can we go without losing enough customers to offset the savings". Apple currently has call centers in the U.S. That's expensive, but (in my view) worth it. But most other companies have learned that they can outsource the call center to an international location, increase phone hold times, and use representatives without English proficiency, and guess what? It saves them money because customers don't abandon them in large numbers.

But I really wanted to comment on your BMW analogy, because it was PERFECT for my point. I had a 2000 3-series, and a 2007 3-series. The 2007 was my last BMW. The "ultimate driving experience" that BMW was known for is no more. (And this opinion is echoed in the mainstream automotive press). They're still fine cars, but BMW has done exactly as Apple - they've moved from the devoted enthusiast to the broader consumer market. There was a time when driving a BMW meant that you were an enthusiast about driving, that you noticed all the little sensory feedback and performance traits in the BMW that made it an exceptional driving experience. But BMW learned that they could crank out huge numbers of mediocre SUVs and lots of suburbanites would buy them in droves regardless of how performance-oriented they were (or weren't). So, do you keep serving the devoted pro market, or go where the profits are? I don't think they have a choice.

I loved Apple (and BMW). I was their biggest fanboy and advocate back in the day (let's say 1998-2007). I still use Apple products because even as they deteriorate, they are often better than the alternatives. But I think we have to realistically look at the product they are cranking out today (both hardware and software) and not be influenced by our memory or perception of the "old" Apple that drew us in in the first place!

I hear what you're saying, though I think it can be a both-and. When I try to provide the best solution I can for a customer (or present that to a potential customer), I'm motivated by actually helping that client achieve their goals AND the profit I'll gain from doing so. If I were focused only on maximizing profit, I'd make other choices.

And, in fact, I'd argue that working in the best interests of the customer is always going to win out, long-term, because it builds intangibles (ie: trust, integrity, loyalty) and such that you can't truly get in other ways, and they are more important than various marketing tactics that only work short-term. Now, obviously, this ALSO has to be built on top of sound business principals so I'm not losing money in the process... at least on the whole (I could certainly lose money on one of the services, if I make up for it elsewhere).

re: BMW - I agree somewhat with what you're saying... but doesn't it make my point? BMW seems to be trying to 'profit-maximize' by appealing to a broader audience at the expense of diluting the brand. But, as they lose their 'ultimate driving machine' image, they'll have to drop their prices to compete with other vehicles that provide the same thing at a lower price. At that point, all they'll have is a fashion badge, which could very easily get tarnished and fail.

This is similar to what we both seem to be fearing happening to Apple. So, if this truly is what 'profit maximization' does, then I'd argue they need to get back to their roots and focus on making the best products. Being the BMW of compuers is what got them where they are, not profit maximization.

BTW, I owned a (I think) '79 320 that I bought for $50 and brought back to nearly street-legal before getting sick and selling it. I also had a '89 325i that was one of the best value cars I've ever owned (bought for $4200, drove a ton with very few repairs, and sold for $3800 when we moved to SF and didn't have a place to park it). I now have a '07 328xi which I love and is easily the nicest of them. I think it drives quite well... though I guess I never owned some of the super-purist models to compare with. So, I'm still a fan, but I do fear for their future with some of the directions they seem to be headed.

But, same there... why do they have to dumb-down the purist models, just because they entered a broader market with the SUVs? I don't think there is a good reason.

 

[scoobydoo99]

I hear what you're saying, though I think it can be a both-and. When I try to provide the best solution I can for a customer (or present that to a potential customer), I'm motivated by actually helping that client achieve their goals AND the profit I'll gain from doing so. If I were focused only on maximizing profit, I'd make other choices.

And, in fact, I'd argue that working in the best interests of the customer is always going to win out, long-term, because it builds intangibles (ie: trust, integrity, loyalty) and such that you can't truly get in other ways, and they are more important than various marketing tactics that only work short-term. Now, obviously, this ALSO has to be built on top of sound business principals so I'm not losing money in the process... at least on the whole (I could certainly lose money on one of the services, if I make up for it elsewhere).

re: BMW - I agree somewhat with what you're saying... but doesn't it make my point? BMW seems to be trying to 'profit-maximize' by appealing to a broader audience at the expense of diluting the brand. But, as they lose their 'ultimate driving machine' image, they'll have to drop their prices to compete with other vehicles that provide the same thing at a lower price. At that point, all they'll have is a fashion badge, which could very easily get tarnished and fail.

This is similar to what we both seem to be fearing happening to Apple. So, if this truly is what 'profit maximization' does, then I'd argue they need to get back to their roots and focus on making the best products. Being the BMW of compuers is what got them where they are, not profit maximization.

BTW, I owned a (I think) '79 320 that I bought for $50 and brought back to nearly street-legal before getting sick and selling it. I also had a '89 325i that was one of the best value cars I've ever owned (bought for $4200, drove a ton with very few repairs, and sold for $3800 when we moved to SF and didn't have a place to park it). I now have a '07 328xi which I love and is easily the nicest of them. I think it drives quite well... though I guess I never owned some of the super-purist models to compare with. So, I'm still a fan, but I do fear for their future with some of the directions they seem to be headed.

But, same there... why do they have to dumb-down the purist models, just because they entered a broader market with the SUVs? I don't think there is a good reason.

[doublepost=1512944267][/doublepost]

I hear what you're saying, though I think it can be a both-and. When I try to provide the best solution I can for a customer (or present that to a potential customer), I'm motivated by actually helping that client achieve their goals AND the profit I'll gain from doing so. If I were focused only on maximizing profit, I'd make other choices.

And, in fact, I'd argue that working in the best interests of the customer is always going to win out, long-term, because it builds intangibles (ie: trust, integrity, loyalty) and such that you can't truly get in other ways, and they are more important than various marketing tactics that only work short-term. Now, obviously, this ALSO has to be built on top of sound business principals so I'm not losing money in the process... at least on the whole (I could certainly lose money on one of the services, if I make up for it elsewhere).

re: BMW - I agree somewhat with what you're saying... but doesn't it make my point? BMW seems to be trying to 'profit-maximize' by appealing to a broader audience at the expense of diluting the brand. But, as they lose their 'ultimate driving machine' image, they'll have to drop their prices to compete with other vehicles that provide the same thing at a lower price. At that point, all they'll have is a fashion badge, which could very easily get tarnished and fail.

This is similar to what we both seem to be fearing happening to Apple. So, if this truly is what 'profit maximization' does, then I'd argue they need to get back to their roots and focus on making the best products. Being the BMW of compuers is what got them where they are, not profit maximization.

BTW, I owned a (I think) '79 320 that I bought for $50 and brought back to nearly street-legal before getting sick and selling it. I also had a '89 325i that was one of the best value cars I've ever owned (bought for $4200, drove a ton with very few repairs, and sold for $3800 when we moved to SF and didn't have a place to park it). I now have a '07 328xi which I love and is easily the nicest of them. I think it drives quite well... though I guess I never owned some of the super-purist models to compare with. So, I'm still a fan, but I do fear for their future with some of the directions they seem to be headed.

But, same there... why do they have to dumb-down the purist models, just because they entered a broader market with the SUVs? I don't think there is a good reason.

Believe me, I agree that ideally, Apple and BMW could serve their core enthusiast audience and still tap the larger market. I think the pressure comes when Apple achieves such phenomenal success and high-profile, that Wall Street has ever-higher expectations that they must meet. Each iPhone release must out-perform the last or the stock takes a hit, etc. The next version is expected in September, ready or not. They need to update the form factor and come up with new gimmicks (3D Touch, Face ID) to satisfy the investors. While I think they do make some useful improvements, the extreme pressure to deliver for investors pushes them to do things that I don't think are always well-designed or well-executed. As far as BMW being able to do SUVs and ultimate driving machines, again, I agree, they should be able to. But I have actually read interviews with BMW engineers that said they "softened" the ride due to customer feedback. Well, the vast number of their customers now are SUV drivers who just want to look good pulling up to soccer practice, so they want a nice, cushy ride and none of the harsh "sports car" feel. Not only do they not understand or appreciate the amazing response and control that sports-tuned suspensions provide, but they want it removed!

I hope that you are right that they can get back to what made them great in the first place. Until then, I've moved on from BMW in cars, but for computers and consumer electronics, I'm still with Apple because even Apple's worst is usually better than the Microsoft/Google/Samsung alternatives (although I'm still with my 2015 MacBook Pro and 2016 iPhone SE...I am having trouble finding replacements in today's Apple lineup. (sigh)

 

[Hanson Eigilson]

It seems to me that Apple's new way of serving shareholders interest is designing things like the gimmickbar, things that are easily hyped in stores and on paper but of very little practical value. Yes it will sell well short term, but being a prisoner of an ecosystem like that might not be fun in the long run.

 

[SteveW928]

I think the pressure comes when Apple achieves such phenomenal success and high-profile, that Wall Street has ever-higher expectations that they must meet. Each iPhone release must out-perform the last or the stock takes a hit, etc.

Exactly! I think part of Steve's brilliance and success is that he could pull off doing something that typically wouldn't excite Wall Street, but he could sell it. And/or, he would thumb his nose at Wall Street and do it anyway.

Apple's stock took a bunch of hits under Jobs, but he did it anyway, and knew better than Wall Street.

They need to update the form factor and come up with new gimmicks (3D Touch, Face ID) to satisfy the investors. While I think they do make some useful improvements, the extreme pressure to deliver for investors pushes them to do things that I don't think are always well-designed or well-executed.

Agreed.

As far as BMW being able to do SUVs and ultimate driving machines, again, I agree, they should be able to. But I have actually read interviews with BMW engineers that said they "softened" the ride due to customer feedback. Well, the vast number of their customers now are SUV drivers who just want to look good pulling up to soccer practice, so they want a nice, cushy ride and none of the harsh "sports car" feel. Not only do they not understand or appreciate the amazing response and control that sports-tuned suspensions provide, but they want it removed!

Yes, though they should *minimally* always keep a few purist models around. But, even then, I think it damages the brand.

I hope that you are right that they can get back to what made them great in the first place. Until then, I've moved on from BMW in cars, but for computers and consumer electronics, I'm still with Apple because even Apple's worst is usually better than the Microsoft/Google/Samsung alternatives (although I'm still with my 2015 MacBook Pro and 2016 iPhone SE...I am having trouble finding replacements in today's Apple lineup. (sigh)

Yes. We're on the same page then. I guess you were just pointing out the way things are, rather than how they should be.

re: BMW - I don't know what I'll get next (especially if it becomes hard to find a good E90). But, I *only* have like 180k miles, so unless something really bad happens, I've got a good number of years left. (I know people heading towards 400k miles.)

re: Apple - Yea, same problem here. It's like the first time in like 30 years that I don't know what Apple product to buy. I'm hoping Apple brings out either a new MBP that fixes some of the issues next year, or we get to see what the new Mac Pro entails (though not sure I'll want to afford it... if the iMac Pro starts at $5k, where does the Mac Pro start?).

 

[scoobydoo99]

re: BMW - I don't know what I'll get next (especially if it becomes hard to find a good E90). But, I *only* have like 180k miles, so unless something really bad happens, I've got a good number of years left. (I know people heading towards 400k miles.)

Hey, I just got the January 2018 issue of Car & Driver and found this:

"BMW is in crisis. Not on the sales front; this is an identity crisis. [BMW] is trading its brand-defining tactility and dynamic excellence for what feels like someone else's ideas of luxury and comfort."

Sounds like we're not alone!

(And to stay on topic...) Apple may be on a parallel trajectory. Cheers.

 

[Macyourdayy]

so in 2019 he will say the same thing about 2016-2019

Uh, no. The 2015s have the biggest (aircraft permitted) battery and can run harder and longer than the consumer grade 2016s with their self destructing keyboards that require almost the entire computer changed to swap out.
If you wanted a thinner, or smaller computer you could get the MacBook or 13" Pro.
Have you heard of keyboard issues with MacBook Pros before these that weren't caused by stupidity? The new ones might have (finally) new i7s and the super expensive, compatibility and reliability challenged TB3 ports, but the battery will run out or it'll melt down before the encode finishes, just like the stoopid Tubes. And, why the hell would you take out the amazing MagSafe ports? So that all the little holes look the same? Never mind the useless distracting Touch bar that took away the effing esc key and essentially repeats controls that you could do with the touch pad, F keys and menus.
Soldered on ram was bad enough, but soldering the most unreliable part, the storage, seems not only insane, but belligerent, in a machine that costs 20-50% more than the model it's replacing. It would be questionable in a cheaper consumer laptop that could be considered disposable, but unforgivable in such an expensive device. Once they start failing after the warranty period they'll all be worthless, even if the new thinner displays haven't succumbed to some new issue like the more robust ones often did.
[doublepost=1513775469][/doublepost]

I’m partial to the 2011 MacBook Pro. Last one you could put two hard drives in.

Even in the 13", and you can keep putting in bigger/faster ones and even RAID them for far less money than single drives even on the 2013-15 series. The only thing I miss is a Retina display, but apparently it's possible to run a 4K with an eGPU. So, 4TB at over 1 gig speeds on a SATA III bus. How much does that cost on the 2017s?

 

[potatis]

I assume it will be removed with the next MBP update, like the 13" is already gone. Considering that it is the older Haswell unlike the 13" which was Broadwell, how does it hold its value considering being 2-3 years old? The price is the same but the newer ones are even higher. No dGPU though. Or would it be better to dream for Apple to slim the next redesign even further to be able to put the older keyboard back within the same dimensions (+quadcore cpu's in a similarly priced 13")?

 

[Hanson Eigilson]

I assume it will be removed with the next MBP update, like the 13" is already gone. Considering that it is the older Haswell unlike the 13" which was Broadwell, how does it hold its value considering being 2-3 years old? The price is the same but the newer ones are even higher. No dGPU though. Or would it be better to dream for Apple to slim the next redesign even further to be able to put the older keyboard back within the same dimensions (+quadcore cpu's in a similarly priced 13")?

not sure about the resell value, but i swapped my 2017 rx560 mbp with a coworkers 2015 with m370x and i'm much happier now, it benches around the same in geekbench, and the thermals are drastically better with no throtteling or other odd behaviour, and the battery life seems a good deal longer for me. (new one might be better with games even with the throtteling?)

 

[KJL3000]

I really miss the fact that both RAM and SSD are SOLDERED in the new MacBook Pros. I’m still running a 2010 MacBook Pro with a 1.2 TB Fusion drive, and it’s still performing pretty well. If the original Hard Drive (Not SSD) would have been soldered, it wouldn’t have survived until today. So what’s the logic behind this? Is it to reduce lifespan? Is it to make more money by people maxing out their machines at insane costs when buying them? Even if a soldered SSD brings some technical benefits like saving some space (which I actually don’t care about at all), all it is telling me is: “F*** you and give us your money. And please stop upgrading your machine to extend its lifetime or repair it yourself when out of warranty and buy a new one instead. Oh and while you’re spending money, here are some dongles you will definitely need to be able to use your new computer.” This is how I feel about buying the new MacBook Pro ... (I could go on complaining about soldered ram, lack of MagSafe, HDMI, SD CARD Reader, USB-A, the giant trackpad, keyboard, no IR, no status LED, no lit Apple logo (ok, that’s a gimmick), glued battery etc.)

So this is why I’m stuck with my good old 2010 MacBook Pro, not because of the almost doubled cost for a MacBook Pro, not because I can’t let go the multiple ports and buy a bunch of dongles, not because of breaking my MacBook because of a missing MagSafe port... just because Apple is just being obviously greedy without getting ashamed and removing tons of features instead of providing some real innovation except for a stupid touchbar no Pro ever asked for that is mostly promoted for quick emoji access...

I think this is working fine for Apple NOW, but in the long run only being Apple will not be enough to sell overpriced technology.

 

[illadee]

Also got my 2010 mid and still be happy...

But one point is that in apple iphoto, and now also in apple photos the most hd videos are lagging - Has this anyone here?

I want to edit some video again, but thats not so funny, beachballs are there so often

 

[SteveW928]

Also got my 2010 mid and still be happy...

But one point is in apple iphoto, and now also in apple photos the most hd videos are lagging - has this anyone here?

I want to edit some video again, but thats not so funny, beachballs are there so often

Unfortunately, welcome to newer Apple software. Photos, aside from missing features, pretty much sucks compared to iPhoto. That seems to be Apple's general trend these days with software.

 

[n-evo]

Unfortunately, welcome to newer Apple software. Photos, aside from missing features, pretty much sucks compared to iPhoto. That seems to be Apple's general trend these days with software.

Or maybe it's just the 8-year old hardware he's still using. At some point it's just too slow to cope with modern software.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Or maybe it's just the 8-year old hardware he's still using. At some point it's just too slow to cope with modern software.

I agree and tend to think that is more of a hardware issue. I think that 2010 MBP runs a pre-Sandy Bridge professor. Is it a Core 2 Duo?

 

[SteveW928]

Or maybe it's just the 8-year old hardware he's still using. At some point it's just too slow to cope with modern software.

Yeah, it's possible speed issues are due to hardware, as I don't know the specs or SSD or such, but the design, interface, and functionality is so poor that I can't imagine the performance aspects of it are well designed either.

I also heard a discussion about it a while back on ATP podcast, and I think it's using a more web-based type interface like Slack or other such low-performing apps. I could be wrong on that, but there was some discussion as to why it doesn't perform well... so I'm guessing it doesn't perform well in comparison.

Personally, I hardly use it anymore. I've gone to just storing photos again in a directory structure, awaiting some real solution again. Google seems to be the best if you're willing to share your life with the world. I had hoped Dropbox Carousel would be a solution (which is when I started going the directory structure route again).

If anyone knows of a good photo-management solution, I'd love to know.

 

[jgbr]

I loved my 2013 but by the end of 2017 it was showing its age and struggling. 3/4 years for laptop is a good cycle I feel now.

I detect a reluctance to move with the times, Apple has so often dropped things first, Floppy. CD etc and its worked out well to keep up to date. If you don't know the history of Apple, do some research, your machine is not going to stay the same forever.

USB C is perfectly logical step, power, high bandwidth and easier to plug in. It seems so odd that people don't understand tech is all about change. Move with the times.

PS: I seem to remember somewhere a customer satisfaction survey and I think you'll find most people are happy with the newer MBPs.

 

[SteveW928]

I loved my 2013 but by the end of 2017 it was showing its age and struggling. 3/4 years for laptop is a good cycle I feel now.

I detect a reluctance to move with the times, Apple has so often dropped things first, Floppy. CD etc and its worked out well to keep up to date. If you don't know the history of Apple, do some research, your machine is not going to stay the same forever.

USB C is perfectly logical step, power, high bandwidth and easier to plug in. It seems so odd that people don't understand tech is all about change. Move with the times.

PS: I seem to remember somewhere a customer satisfaction survey and I think you'll find most people are happy with the newer MBPs.

Yea, it's not about moving with the times. In fact, I sold my iMac (I have a MacBook Air) anticipating buying a new MacBook Pro in 2016. But, I wasn't happy with what Apple introduced, yet I hate to not have TB3 for future expandability (like an eGPU).

The keyboard quality (both feel and actual reliability) are a very tough pill to swallow. While I often use my laptop plugged into a monitor with external keyboard, I often keep laptops for at least 5 years and that's an expensive repair.

The trackpad is way to big, as it actually gets in the way. To get the good models, you have to take on the Track Bar, which I'd rather not have in terms of expense, but also I've read people are having trouble with accidentally brushing it while typing numbers (which sends the machine off doing whatever you've happened to brush). It's something I don't need, and don't want, especially if it might cause me trouble.

I can deal with USB-C, but I'd rather just have built-in ports and a slightly larger machine, than carry around a bag of dongles and/or docks. Maybe in a couple years, USB-C will be everywhere, but it isn't right now. That's why you can't buy a USB-C dock, because there is no need for one. No-one has a bunch of USB-C devices they need to plug in... it's all USB-C to a bunch of other connection types, or USB-A type ports.... because that's what everyone has to connect.

It's also somewhat confusing, as the same looking port (or cable) often has different capabilities. Some are higher speed, some not. Some carry more power, others not. Some are TB3, some just USB-C. It's kind of a mess right now.

So, I'm hoping Apple fixes this mess with a new 2018 model, but we'll have to wait and see.

 

[yegon]

Yes, it's reductive to say it's down to a reluctance to move with the times.

Ones next laptop should feel like an improvement on your previous one in almost all regards, ideally a huge improvement. It's entirely subjective, but if you can present a laundry list of well reasoned complaints - of varying validity admittedly - and a comparatively small list of benefits to you personally, it's far too dismissive to say it's due to a reluctance to move with the times.

Citing customer sat scores is absolutely meaningless if you fundamentally do not like the newer models. These scores may mean the market has spoken, but an unwillingness to buy one of these models in its current form means something too.

 

[SteveW928]

Yes, it's reductive to say it's down to a reluctance to move with the times.

Ones next laptop should feel like an improvement on your previous one in almost all regards, ideally a huge improvement. It's entirely subjective, but if you can present a laundry list of well reasoned complaints - of varying validity admittedly - and a comparatively small list of benefits to you personally, it's far too dismissive to say it's due to a reluctance to move with the times.

Citing customer sat scores is absolutely meaningless if you fundamentally do not like the newer models. These scores may mean the market has spoken, but an unwillingness to buy one of these models in its current form means something too.

Yes, and the problem is that Apple is moving the target market. That means some might like it (a particular model) more, while others like it less (who loved it in the past). Another factor, is that MacBook Pros have now become almost standard-issue for software development, technical customer support, etc.

So, growth *might* just be indicating a growth in those industries, not that Apple really made the right design decisions (i.e.: people like them more now than before... it might just be a matter of industry growth, but people like the new designs less).

While I'm 'locked' into the Apple platform, there's also only so much I can do to 'speak with my wallet' as well. I could just go buy a Dell XPS laptop, but then I'd have to leave the Apple platform, along with my whole family, etc. That means quite a bit of new software, and some infrastructure re-configuration. That's a pretty big move to teach Apple a lesson.

But, if Apple doesn't hear us, and continues down this path, my next Mac purchase might be the last. Apple might not care, as they'll just sell a few dozen iPhones to replace any lost revenue from me. And, maybe they'll even be happy to have one less Mac user (if the true plan is to move everything to iOS). But, in the end, if Apple loses all the creatives and 'think different' people... they'll eventually just be a phone and services company catering to the fashionable. And, we all know how fashion goes...

 

[Macyourdayy]

Yes, and the problem is that Apple is moving the target market. That means some might like it (a particular model) more, while others like it less (who loved it in the past). Another factor, is that MacBook Pros have now become almost standard-issue for software development, technical customer support, etc.

So, growth *might* just be indicating a growth in those industries, not that Apple really made the right design decisions (i.e.: people like them more now than before... it might just be a matter of industry growth, but people like the new designs less).

While I'm 'locked' into the Apple platform, there's also only so much I can do to 'speak with my wallet' as well. I could just go buy a Dell XPS laptop, but then I'd have to leave the Apple platform, along with my whole family, etc. That means quite a bit of new software, and some infrastructure re-configuration. That's a pretty big move to teach Apple a lesson.

But, if Apple doesn't hear us, and continues down this path, my next Mac purchase might be the last. Apple might not care, as they'll just sell a few dozen iPhones to replace any lost revenue from me. And, maybe they'll even be happy to have one less Mac user (if the true plan is to move everything to iOS). But, in the end, if Apple loses all the creatives and 'think different' people... they'll eventually just be a phone and services company catering to the fashionable. And, we all know how fashion goes...

It's so frustrating. I was tentatively looking forward to the revivsion of the Retina MBPs, expecting (hoping) for a more flexible solution than the 2013-15 series. Hah. This is after waiting for an update to the 17" in 2012 when I grabbed one new off ebay after I missed out on the refurbs. After upgrades, that was/is a fabulous machine, apart from the non retina display, that I've been happily using since, while debating the merits of a 1TB 15" with discrete graphics.
After missing out several refurb opportunities, they finally reappeared on the Aus refurb store and I jumped, even though with our dollar crash it's 50% more than my fully specced 17" was in 2012, but with 50% more BenchMark (and USB3/TB2).
The screen is great, no idiotic TouchBar, ESC key, largely bulletproof and repairable keyboard, MagSafe, big battery, sensible touchpad and upgradeable drive. Too bad they didn't stick a couple of TB3 ports on it - and the battery actually runs for hours on regular apps, unlike the 17" that maybe gets an hour even though it's 90% + capacity.
Maybe the mid 2015 with discrete graphics is still the best choice till they actually make a pro laptop again, especially since it can run multiple resolutions (including a non scaled 2880x1800) and a 5K screen @60Hz).
They must still be building some of these to test response since there's no way new ones could still be available in the real world.