Right? I mean, look at it another way... companies like Dell who have very little margin in their products and much lower profit levels, have something like 10 models of laptops vs 2 or 3 -- and they manage to update them once every 6 months or a year.
You say that like it's a
good thing.
Those companies aren't really
Updating Anything. They are simply doing VERY incremental changes that essentially put the same hardware into new plastic, and calling it an "Update".
Now, I won't say that Apple hasn't had to do some of the same at some points along the way. Everyone is bound by the same Intel, Nvidia and AMD Roadmaps; but at least Apple is trying to innovate, with 5k displays, the hands-down world's fastest SSDs, 80 Gbps worth of multifunction I/O that can be easily and cheaply adapted to almost any legacy I/O, while being very future-proof, and their unique-in-the-industry Touch Bar. And all that is just in one model-year to the next.
Sorry, but that is just a
bit more innovative than the typical HP/Lenovo/Dell "speed-bump" "Updates" (which Apple also does fairly often, and with little to no fanfare).
[doublepost=1482706001][/doublepost]
This is sooooo much it.
Undersized battery, masked by extreme power saving features. When you need CPU/GPU there just is no way to save energy and the battery should have been designed for that use case. They didn't, because they wanted a thin machine more than they wanted the battery to last.
So their bizarre focus on thinness actually now makes the machine less portable, 'cause there isn't power enough to keep the machine running for very long. Funny how that worked out.
Look, dude; although I agree that most power-savings functions won't help much in flat-out operation, they only reduced the battery capacity by 17%, not 50%. So, all things being equal, the most that that should have reduced the balls-to-the-walls battery life would be approximately 17%. 17% of 10 hours (600 mins) is 102 minutes, or a battery life of about 8 1/2 hours. That's not nothing; but it isn't the difference between 10 hours and 3 hours.
[doublepost=1482706071][/doublepost]
Thank god that the public magazines and CR are testing these devices. If no one would do it all customers would get flawed devices from Apple - where is the quality assurance and control from Apple? It is non-existent at all or on a very low level?
So, Ars Technica and others are just Shilling for Apple, then?
[doublepost=1482706199][/doublepost]
The real Mac Pro from 2012 was already great. An beautiful tower with lot of expansion capabilities. They only needed new chips inside the logic board - instead Apple gave us this black trashcan no one was asking about... a joke.
Apple just mis-calculated their and Intel's ability to push the adoption of Thunderbolt. It was an idea who's time is just now beginning to come true.
[doublepost=1482706847][/doublepost]
In the meantime, drop the price Phil!
you promised a Ferrari but you delivered a Toyota at the same price.
And be advice you and you buddy Tim, you are neglecting the Mac because
is not as much profitable as iOS devices, but you are making a huge mistake.
I have a lot and all sort of Apple devices because I like the ecosystem,
as soon I see that is not advantageous to buy a Mac, I stop buying everything is branded Apple.
Does a 5k Display sound like "neglect"?
Does the only laptop that can drive TWO external 4k displays sound like "neglect"?
Does 4 identical, future-proof USB-C/TB3 Ports with 80 Gbps I/O Bandwidth (more than ANY other laptop) that you can use in a wide variety of ways sound like "neglect"?
Does an industry-leading SSD design with nearly THREE TIMES the performance of ANY other SSDs sound like "neglect"?
Does a Unique-in-the-Industry multifunction OLED Touch interface sound like "neglect"?
Does a Best-In-Breed Trackpad nearly the size of an iPad mini sound like "neglect"?
...And ALL of those improvements are since last year's model!
Yeah, it's too bad that the Mac is only receiving more REAL innovations than the rest of the other OEM's laptops COMBINED. It's just being neglected...
[doublepost=1482707047][/doublepost]
And he's pretty much the only one out seeing Apple's POV.
Ahem.
I've been preaching the innovation of the USB-C/TB3 and the Touch Bar, etc. since the product debuted. Look at my posting history.
[doublepost=1482707545][/doublepost]
If everyone is saying the same thing, I would certainly believe the communities crowd sourced feedback based on real world usage over marketing text on the manufacturers site. At minimum all of the negative feedback should at least make you skeptical.
Why?
There was a Metric Buttload of "Negative Feedback" on the 2016 MBP ALL over the Internet
weeks before the first one shipped. And ya know what? People on the internet like to bitch. A lot.
A
LOT.
[doublepost=1482707701][/doublepost]
but my results aren't "anecdotal" as I've actually posted screen shots of my results,
LOL!
That's the very definition of "Anectdotal" (face palm)
[doublepost=1482707952][/doublepost]
I'm sure that apple can replicate the results if CR can and thousands of their users . They have countless reports of poor battery life
And countless reports of great battery life.
Now what?
[doublepost=1482708526][/doublepost]
Apple's obsession with thinness has led to decline in battery. Not everything has to be razor thin.
It's not just Apple. Take a look at ads for the HP Spectre, for example. They look like the original ads for the MacBook Air, minus the envelope. All the camera-angles emphasize thin, thin, thin.
Who can blame Apple for giving the majority of people what they want? After all, do you realize how the ads for the Spectre, etc. would read if the MacBook Pro was twice as thick (or even 1 stinking millimeter thicker) than their offerings?
They are called "Competitors" for a reason.
