Popular Mac Developer Slams Apple for 'Sad State of Macintosh Hardware'

[extrachrispy]

I can't believe that apple are on the verge of becoming the most valuable company in the world, the first trillion dollar company, and even with all that wealth they still have the nerve to release an AIO desktop with 1 inch thick bezels in 2018. Where is the R&D money going!?!?! The iMac shares the same design going way back to 2012, a desktop with the same chassis for SIX YEARS!! But that's not all, the most valuable computer company in the world have the nerve to put a 5.4k spinning disk in the 4K iMac priced at $1299. Great value! I could go on the same war path but it's all been said before.

It's not the bezels that bother me. It's the lack of user-upgradeable/replaceable RAM in a desktop, the difficulty in getting the thing open for a drive swap, and yes, to echo you: the fact that they put spinning disks in these computers at ALL, in 2018, is utterly ridiculous. SSDs have gotten cheap enough that there is no excuse for cheaping out here on a premium-priced machine (and doubly so given the fact that your HDD will fail and need replacing at some point; whereas, unless you're doing a write-heavy workload on MLC or TLC NAND, your SSD will merrily last and last and last unless and until the controller fails).

 

[weup togo]

Tim Cook is a beancounter. He cares whether any given product in the lineup is still profitable. The longer a piece of hardware is shipped, the more profitable it becomes. The tooling for manufacture is amortized and paid for. Component costs tend to drop as they become more outdated.

Tim doesn't give a **** about how good or competitive any given product in the lineup is. He never has and never will. He will keep blowing smoke up everyone's asses and continue to ship wildly outdated products as long as the cash rolls in and CUSTOMERSAT is the right number.

Tim Cook is the worst decision SJ ever made.

 

[Mal Blackadder]

A couple of weeks ago I was actually wondering whether the time is right to open source MacOS. Apple doesn't seem to care enough about it anymore, and with some of the weird bugs of late it might be beneficial to let more developers in there.

I totally agree with you, there would be benefits in getting MacOS to a wider audience, if Apple did that they could put a huge dent in MS Windows within a short time period, and as you need MacOS to develop for IOS devices it would have a positive effect for the IOS device market too, it would also have benefits for kids in school too because its good that they can learn to code in schools on Apple systems, but most cannot then go home and continue studying coding because the cost of a Mac is out of reach for a lot of blue collar families.

Slightly off topic, but as lots of creatives bemoan the lack of hardware upgrades for Macs, I sometimes wonder why Adobe have never produced a Linux version of Creative Cloud apps and maybe produced a Linux distribution, or teamed up with an existing distributor of Linux such as Ubuntu to develop a OS certified to run those apps and then offering that distribution to hardware makers such as Dell, HP, Lenovo etc, People might say that goes against the open principles of Linux, but lots of Linux distros offer closed source drivers/etc anyway.

 

[Altis]

Replaced desktop and recently laptop with PCs.

Both are far better for their respective purposes for me and nowhere near the cost.

I didn't want it to be this way but alas, here we are.

 

[loby]

I have no problem with upgrade cycles that are every 12 months, 18 months, heck, even 24 months.

4 years? 5 years? Apple, give me a break, yo.

Macrumors now is known for the site that complains about Apple, especially the Mac.

This is understandable....but....

The fact remains: Apple is driven by marketing and numbers now (or at least completely now), not product pride, especially the Mac line-up.

Face the facts: there is no profit in spending time or R&D funding, manufacturing redesign or updating costs on the Mac line-up.

Stocks are high, money and profits continue, no need to put effort into creating macs that “wow” the world when it is a “small” market now compared to their flagship, high profit making iphone.

From a marketing business decision, they can update the Mac line-up every year, two, three years (or more) and it will still sell. This is fact. The marketing numbers don’t lie. People will complain, but it does not matter anymore.

Apple has enough money to not be concerned about what users say. Their pockets reflect what drives them.

They are in business to make money and please stock holders, not cater to a small potion or product niche now that brings small profits in like the Mac line-up. They focus on what makes the money, then after on occasion (or when they are scrolling on their iphone while on their gold plated toilet) think about their other product offerings.

Unless their profits depreciate on their “toys” (which does not look like will happen for some time), we who still buy Macs should be appreciative when every year or two (or three..) they update the old once glorious Mac.

The days of Mac focus is over, times have changed. Get use to it. Long live Timmy’s new Apple “Toys R Us” !

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

By Apple's normal lifespan terms of hardware, the current Mac Pro will be "unsupported/obsolete" by Apple before it's replaced. And Apple has already obsoleted the only Mac Pro people still want, the cheese graters. Their attention to the pro and prosumer market seriously sucks. Sad.

 

[Sasparilla]

Excellent article.

If Apple just completely stops development of Mac hardware they'll save so much money! /s

They need to take those profits and get back on the yearly update schedule of the Mac. But the current situation after what happened regarding the iMac update and Mac Pro stuff makes it seem like not much has changed.

 

[iSRS]

Is it a RANT when the only option to an update of my 2008 Mac Pro is a 4+ year old Mac Pro with electronics that are at least that old?


But that's not any real update, is it!

The Mac Pro Black Cylinder is NOT an acceptable update for a Mac Pro that houses 4 internal drive bays that can be loaded with HDDs or SSDs - no cables to connect external drives.
My 23" ACD is still functioning as it did when new. All I want is a NEW Mac Pro, but I'll have to upgrade with an old Mac Pro since Apple development has dragged their feet on the new Mac Pro.

I am NOT looking for a super-speed (compared to my 10-year-old Mac Pro) upgrade, just a reliable, capable Mac Pro.

If Apple hadn’t admitted the cylinder Mac Pro was a mistake, it would have been updated by now, as would the mini. I firmly believe that. Once they course correct the Mac Pro line, everything else will fall into place.

As for the “I’m just going to Windows” camp? Go for it. I know 2 people who did this. Know what they ultimately use now, the “outdated” Macs they were replacing. Not saying this would be the case for everyone, but it is for the two people I know that said it and did it.

 

[luvbug]

Agree or disagree, Mac value holds up extremely well and lifespan are increasingly pushing the boundaries...Look at MacBook Air from 10 years ago still fetching over $100 dollars on eBay. People are keeping their devices longer and longer no need for product refreshes every year. IMO.

I agree. I think Carnicelli's comments are overblown, to say the least. Some here say: "Why can't we at least get a speed bump?". I'd say: "Why bother with a speed bump?" The amount of system performance gained by anything Intel has put out in the last 2 years is, for all practical purposes, nearly imperceptible. Just because PC manufacturers routinely release "new models" that are nothing much more than a change in the plastic housing, the model name/number, and some marketing BS, does not oblige Apple to follow suit. I actually appreciate the fact that Apple does *not* do that, because it's basically deceptive, marketing-based BS that tries to take advantage of the fact that the average PC user doesn't have a clue how a computer works or what constitutes a substantive upgrade/update. Intel is the problem here, not Apple, who, like all PC manufacturers, is at Intels mercy (God help us!). Apple's Mac product line has benefited much more, performance-wise, from MacOS updates, e.g. APFS, than from hardware, and we should all be thankful for that IMO.

I will say, however, that Apple should sh*t or get off the pot with regard to the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. Commit or go home, but at least communicate the roadmap loud and clear, otherwise it is/has been a major disservice to customers.

 

[fairuz]

Apple should just start licensing/selling Mac OS on standard PC hardware and stop fooling themselves and everyone else with hardware. No reasonable person would buy a brand new Mac mini today and think to themselves that they made a smart purchase.

Their laptop hardware is great, just not the desktops.

 

[Peace]

This whole thing should be embarrassing for Apple.

 

[Altis]

I agree. I think Carnicelli's comments are overblown, to say the least. Some here say: "Why can't we at least get a speed bump?". I'd say: "Why bother with a speed bump?" The amount of system performance gained by anything Intel has put out in the last 2 years is, for all practical purposes, nearly imperceptible. Just because PC manufacturers routinely release "new models" that are nothing much more than a change in the plastic housing, the model name/number, and some marketing BS, does not oblige Apple to follow suit. I actually appreciate the fact that Apple does *not* do that, because it's basically deceptive, marketing-based BS that tries to take advantage of the fact that the average PC user doesn't have a clue how a computer works or what constitutes a substantive upgrade/update. Intel is the problem here, not Apple, who, like all PC manufacturers, is at Intels mercy (God help us!). Apple's Mac product line has benefited much more, performance-wise, from MacOS updates, e.g. APFS, than from hardware, and we should all be thankful for that IMO.

I will say, however, that Apple should sh*t or get off the pot with regard to the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. Commit or go home.

I don't know... Everyone else managed to very quickly offer quad-core ultrabook CPUs and 6-core workstation CPUs. There is a substantial improvement in performance in many applications as a result.

It's also really pathetic to charge full price for years-old computers.

 

[fairuz]

They shouldn't underestimate the Mac just because of worldwide marketshare. Everyone in American colleges and everyone working in tech in the Bay Area uses a MacBook Air/Pro. The two demographics that can be used to predict the future market.

 

[ActionableMango]

The amount of system performance gained by anything Intel has put out in the last 2 years is, for all practical purposes, nearly imperceptible.

First of all, some Mac models are more than 2 years old. Secondly, not everything in a speed bump is the CPU. Third, some of the stuff that's still in current model macs is ridiculously old, 5400RPM spinners for example, and HD5000 graphics.

 

[fairuz]

I agree. I think Carnicelli's comments are overblown, to say the least. Some here say: "Why can't we at least get a speed bump?". I'd say: "Why bother with a speed bump?" The amount of system performance gained by anything Intel has put out in the last 2 years is, for all practical purposes, nearly imperceptible. Just because PC manufacturers routinely release "new models" that are nothing much more than a change in the plastic housing, the model name/number, and some marketing BS, does not oblige Apple to follow suit. I actually appreciate the fact that Apple does *not* do that, because it's basically deceptive, marketing-based BS that tries to take advantage of the fact that the average PC user doesn't have a clue how a computer works or what constitutes a substantive upgrade/update. Intel is the problem here, not Apple, who, like all PC manufacturers, is at Intels mercy (God help us!). Apple's Mac product line has benefited much more, performance-wise, from MacOS updates, e.g. APFS, than from hardware, and we should all be thankful for that IMO.

I will say, however, that Apple should sh*t or get off the pot with regard to the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. Commit or go home.

The improvements aren't marginal, unless CPU speed is the only thing you look at. For example, laptop CPUs have been getting big integrated graphics boosts. And even if they are marginal, so what? I'm still not buying 2-year-old hardware if it's not at a discount.

It's apparent that Apple always tries to sell old hardware for as long as they can. Their margins are huge.

 

[Nueve]

Beefier GPU, higher refresh rate display/thinner bezels, 6core mCPU,1080p camera, and improved keyboard. Razer can fit an undervolted desktop 1070 GPU and with almost everything I mentioned above in small form factor 15 inch laptop yet Apple can't? They're also the same price, the only thing going for Apple's computers is the software.

 

[buckwheet]

Their laptop hardware is great, just not the desktops.

I would have said that a couple of years ago. After 7 months with my 2016 MacBook Pro 15" I can no longer say that, which is genuinely unfortunate.

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

Tim Cook is a beancounter. He cares whether any given product in the lineup is still profitable. The longer a piece of hardware is shipped, the more profitable it becomes. The tooling for manufacture is amortized and paid for. Component costs tend to drop as they become more outdated.

Tim doesn't give a **** about how good or competitive any given product in the lineup is. He never has and never will. He will keep blowing smoke up everyone's asses and continue to ship wildly outdated products as long as the cash rolls in and CUSTOMERSAT is the right number.

Tim Cook is the worst decision SJ ever made.

I think the only reason that Steve Jobs picked Tim Cook is because he thought he most closely knew everything that Jobs wanted to do at the time or ideas he was floating around. I really think that's the only reason or at least the only reason I can think of. Cook is capable of not sinking a ship, but hardly a visionary on his own. I think Steve Jobs was too selfish to think someone else could even have a vision for Apple like he did. He simply knew Cook would abide by all his current ideas and plans already in the works without cancelling projects Steve was interested in. Although I wonder if Cook canceled Jobs vision for TV as Apple TV has languished since.

 

[fairuz]

I would have said that a couple of years ago. After 7 months with my 2016 MacBook Pro 15" I can no longer say that, which is genuinely unfortunate.

Yeah, I forgot that exists. Ugh. I never see those around here, as if everyone stopped at 2015, lol. Well my base 2015 rMBP is still way preferable over anything the other PC-makers release now. Display, trackpad, keyboard, and shell make it the best, and it's got decent internals, including a high-end SSD, and all the ports I need except ethernet.

 

[lec0rsaire]

The controller costs like 10, 20 USD at most. Even if they charged 50 for it, they would have a nice margin. I admit they use the best nVMe SSDs and better CPUs with much better IGP, but that does not mean that EU/GB has to pay 20 % more than the US (I am comparing prices without taxes). Still, 400 EUR is too much IMO. The price needs to be cut by 100 - 200 EUR in the EU.

I agree that prices in € are really high. This is why most Europeans by Apple products like crazy every time they come to America. It’s 2489€ for the best base 13” TB with 16GB RAM/512 SSD. This is $2900. If these were the prices in America you would only see MacBook airs around. They ask $5752 for the fully loaded 2TB 15” model. Nearly $6k for a notebook is really ridiculous. I wonder how many of these they’ve actually sold over there. There are always people who can afford to throw money away, but I can’t see many people paying these prices when you can build a true full ATX enthusiast PC with the latest stuff and still have money for a high-end PC notebook.

 

[rixax]

As long you can have the latest emoji, run Instagram and use filters for my narcissistic lifestyle... all good.

My cynical statement exactly. Now that I can stick my tongue out, who needs 32 gig of ram on a MBP?

 

[Dave-Z]

Prices are pretty fair. The retina iMac 5K is really not expensive considering the I/O and amazing display. The iMac Pro is reasonably priced and the MacBooks as well except for the 12” which costs $1949 for the fully loaded config. $2-3k is a reasonable price for a modern, well-built aluminum machine. Besides they can be picked up used in great condition for much less or refurbished through Apple.

You have some good points.

The laptops are ridiculously priced for what one gets. Plus they added the touch bar and raised the price hundreds of dollars. (Personally, I use the function keys and escape key all the time; having those be virtual keys would be horrible for me. Other users' milage may vary.)

The desktop machines are better. Certainly the 5K machine is priced fine. The 4K and less I'm not so sure about.

At the end of the day, I paid close to half the cost of an iMac. I got a i5 Kaby Lake, 4x250 GB SSDs (RAID 10), 16 GB of RAM with the option to move up to 64 should I need to. No dedicated graphics card because integrated is fine for me. I saved money by not having to buy a keyboard, mouse, or monitor. When it's time to upgrade I also get to keep my drives, power supply, chassis; which will further reduce my upgrade costs. I admit it's not the seamless Mac experience (setting up 4 EFI partitions to ensure if a drive fails I can still boot, for example, is not for the novice), but I'm tech-inclined and this works for me for substatially less cost.

Truth be told, the machine is only for when I need a desktop. I'm mostly iOS now, but I need a machine for reading blurays, encoding video, visiting sites that puke on an iPad, etc. I waited two years for Apple but in the end just wasn't happy with what they offer. Still love my 12" iPad, just the Mac lineup I'm not a fan of. This may change, but for now I'm happy with what I paid and what I got. I don't think I'd recommend it for everyone, obviously, but for me it works.

 

[fairuz]

Couldn't agree me.

Also frustrating is the pricing for the current lineup.

Not to start a war, but I actually just built a custom Linux machine because I needed to upgrade after holding out for years and couldn't justify the prices for the hardware Apple delivers. Debian isn't as pretty as macOS, but it's just as functional and works for my uses.

As a longtime and current Linux user, I can't imagine Debian being anywhere near as suitable for personal use as macOS or even Windows. If you count the time you spend setting up replacements for basic things like for Messages and iCal/Calendar, or system setup (wifi on a non-personal network is a nightmare)... Also, the terminal emulators ironically all suck.

I've got a laptop running Ubuntu for small tasks. It's fine for that but no way can be my main PC.

 

[GtrDude]

...and to shove it even harder at their faithful koolaid followers Apple sells this stuff at prices as if they had come out today with all the latest and greatest hardware when in fact much of it was already a year old, or more, when the 2016 and 2017 MBPs came out for example.

 

[meme1255]

My cynical statement exactly. Now that I can stick my tongue out, who needs 32 gig of ram on a MBP?

AI. Machine learning. Big data. Large databases. Several VMs... I can think of so many use cases...