Professional Mac Users' Complaints List Grows After 'Disappointing' Apple Event

[dallegre]

There's no way you could ever convince me to buy a Dell again. Stock Dell XPS15 is $1649 with an i5, 8gb RAM, 256 SSD. My 2012 MBP has similar specs...

I'm not a huge fan of Dell either, but the business side has better support available (which is worth it, imho). Instead of an XPS, I would recommend anyone look at the 5000 (same chassis as XPS) or 7000 series precision workstations (qualifier: I buy lots of Dells for my work).

$2429 (base) - Xeon E3-1505M 2.8GHz, 32GB DDR4, 512GB NVMe SSD, Quadro M1000M
RAM and SSD are serviceable and there is an extra SSD slot, lots of port options
http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/p...1015us_4&model_id=precision-m5510-workstation

Compare that to:

$2399 - 2.6GHz, 16GB DDR3, 256GB SSD, Radeon 450
Touch bar and 1 port option (x4)
http://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/15-inch

 

[Essenar]

Are you a hardware engineer? Did you read about WHY they didn't include 32gb of RAM? It's not just a matter of some person at Apple deciding whether or not to offer it.
[doublepost=1478116693][/doublepost]

There's no way you could ever convince me to buy a Dell again. Stock Dell XPS15 is $1649 with an i5, 8gb RAM, 256 SSD. My 2012 MBP has similar specs...

I did read it.
They're trying to blame Intel but that's bull crap.
They chose to fit the 15" macBook Pro with an LPDDR3 memory controller so they can fit their "thin light" agenda. But we never asked for that. It being 4 mm thinner does NOTHING for us.
They should've kept the same width, gave it a DDR4 memory controller and a slightly larger battery capacity.
Same weight, 32GB of memory, similar battery life.
Intel didn't design the LPDDR3 memory controller on Skylake for it to be used on a flagship 15" notebook. That memory controller is for ultrabooks like a Zen 12". Apple was like "OH IT"S SO TINY, let's put it in our flagship 15" workstation" and that's Intel's fault? No.
That's like putting a Prius engine inside of a Dodge Viper to make the hood shorter.
If they went with the DDR4 memory controller, and stopped obsessing over being thinner, we'd have similar battery life and the option for 32GB.

 

[Komiidian]

I've been also whining about how disappointed I have been with apple and it seems that I'm not alone. I honestly hope people won't buy these machines (unless they really have to), because they are not worth it. If I want a machine that is worth it (regardless of the os) I would say get anything from lenovo's thinkpad line or a surface pro 4 or surface book. They've got the nice WQHD's and the pixel sense displays now that can compete with the good old retina display and they just simply cost less, have more ports and are usually better expandable. The macbook will probably sell ok at the beginning, but sales will start slowing down already before christmas. I also find Schiller comment that "We care about what they love and what they are worried about" laughable. If they cared, they'd've churned out a new sub 1000€ mac, they wouldn't've alianted the pro-users, they would update their machines more regulardly, and they wouldn't over charge us to able to get powerful machines - something that is nowadays very important for 4k, VR, and many other upcoming technology to be developed.

Apple's CEO's are grey headed business men, something their pro-users most likely aren't. Apple just needs new people to streer the company forward. I also think Jony Ive or his mac-team is pretty much tapped out of fresh ideas. I would've considered it as a joke if someone said five years ago that in five years microsoft will be more innovative than apple. Now, however, no one's laughing anymore.

I'm just waiting for the stock-market to react to this. The reaction will, however, come only after the initial shopping spree is over in a month or two.

 

[TrueBlou]

785 comments and counting. There may be something to this...

Oh there's definitely something to it, of that's there's absolutely no doubt. Granted it's mostly that we like to have a good old rant about, oh, anything

 

[Pootmatoot]

There's no way you could ever convince me to buy a Dell again. Stock Dell XPS15 is $1649 with an i5, 8gb RAM, 256 SSD. My 2012 MBP has similar specs...

What do you mean by stock? There are 6 or 7 base models. Whatever you're talking about doesn't exist.

The $1649 model has:

• 6th Generation Intel® Core™ i7-6700HQ Quad Core

• 16GB

• 512GB PCIe Solid State Drive

• NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 960M

That's not only better than your 2012 MBP, it outspecs a $4000 bells-and-whistles 2016 MBP...

 

[anson42]

Aside from video and number crunching science applications, running (multiple) virtual machines is HUGELY dependent on RAM. If you're a developer, VMs are a big deal if you want to ensure your code works on differently configured platforms. Why doesn't Apple realize this?

I certainly do that, too, but so far I've been ok with 16GB, running a lot of servers and staying under 13GB. Realistically, if you do any database work at all, and don't want to connect to a remote DB, a VM is the only way to run Oracle and other Linux-based servers. While I'd like to be a bit more carefree with resource settings if I manage my VM resources well I can actually run quite a few in 16GB.

[As an aside, anyone remember when Oracle 10g was running ok on Leopard and Snow Leopard? That was great until Oracle dropped MacOS support. Hello Ubuntu VM after that.]

 

[SteveW928]

I'm not sure I agree with the complaints in this article. Yes, there are some 'pros' who want all the ports, or a mega-laptop with top notch GPU, etc. while on the go...

But, for many Pros, it's not like they do most of their pro work on a 13 or 15" screen. They want the same computer mobile that they use at the desk. But, when at the desk, they can easily plug into a dock (in fact it's more convenient than plugging in a bunch-o-cables each time) and solve the GPU problem with an eGPU. It's kind of where the Mac Pro was headed, but finally viable (i.e. bus speed of TB3 up to the task).

It seems to have the power needed to get most pro jobs done on the road (with constraints, yes, but the screen size is already one), while expandable enough on the desk. The biggest problem I see, is the limit to 16GB of RAM (that was a dumb trade-off IMO), but I think the previous models maxed out at 16GB, correct? That's really my only concern with this machine, but 16GB is probably OK for most pros. (Oh, also how good the cooling is... if it can't take on heavy CPU/GPU utilization on a regular basis, w/o damaging internal components, then it's not Pro. Older MBPs couldn't take it... hopefully this one can better with such low-power chips.)

My beefs are more around how long this took, and what about the other Macs? But, even more problematic is the OS (especially UI changes, both for macOS and iOS) and many of Apple's marketing-driven (vs UX-driven) moves in recent years. Those things are at the core of what makes Apple, Apple. Without them, the productivity goes and it doesn't matter much what nifty new hardware they produce.

 

[wallysb01]

If you're happy with 16GB of ram and you're not even in the market for a 15" MacBook, you're not even a part of the solution so stop being a part of the problem.
I'm a developer and today, right now, just running XCode, my browsers, my Git client, Spotify and running a Node server to test end points, I'm bumping into 13GB of memory.
This might not be a big deal now, but on a machine I can NOT physically upgrade? I need a 32GB memory option.
And stop telling me I should use a desktop for my uses. In 2014, a 13" with 16GB was powerful enough to fit my needs, a 15" was for powerful computing on the go. If what you're saying is true, the 15" shouldn't even exist since anything that requires more than 16GB of memory should just be done on a desktop.
How the hell is that innovative?
Let's be clear... If what people can accomplish on your flagship notebook actually LESSENS when you build a new one, you're a pathetic failure of a computer company. Simple, end of story.
I wasn't anchored to a desktop when I bought my Early 2013 15" Retina, why should I be anchored to my desktop in 2016 when I spend $2400 on a notebook?
The answer for us is simple: it's called the Dell XPS 15.

This is the thing for me too. I could probably squeeze things in to 16GB as data gets bigger by shutting down certain programs while I do other things. But that's a total PITA and when spending $2400+ why the heck would I want to put myself through that? Because courage? That's absurd.

And this idea that anytime we do something computationally intensive we should just SSH or what have you into a server/cluster is silly. A) not everyone has that option and to create that option means spending an additional I don't know $5000, just so you can get >16GB RAM. B) Its yet another pain in the butt if every time I need to work I need to depend on an internet connection to a remote machine. Many of us already have these clusters/servers working on the truly huge data, but we still need >16GB of RAM to do some of the finer scale analysis of processed data and I'm willing to spend, oh I don't know, $2-3K to not have to do it on a server.

 

[simon lefisch]

I have no prob with the MBP's only having 16GB. My prob is the lack of ports.

I use my MBP for music production and light video editing. That fact that I have to have all these dongles to connect my audio equipment up is ridiculous. They really should keep the consumer line and pro line separated. For example, the Pro line should be a little thicker to accommodate ports (like my late 2011 MBP). I have no prob with it being thicker cuz I have all the ports I need to connect my equipment when I'm in the studio. Now some might say, "Buy a desktop. It'll have all the ports you need", but I like having a MBP for mobility. It's powerful enough so that I can create on-the-go, and do final mixing in the studio with all my equipment connected. Again that's just my opinion....but what do I know, in just some guy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[d0ntask]

Everyone keeps talking about these mythical "Pro" users who are disappointed in the new MacBook Pros. But let's break down who those people are:

1) People whose software development practices require "multiple virtual machines" and remote servers.

2) People who edit "intensive" 4K videos.

For the first group, I would say they should use a desktop. Seriously, a portable form factor is absolutely stupid for this type of work. They could use the Mac Pro, but that hasn't been updated in a while. Why? Because these people are such a small niche that it's not in Apple's best interests to update it.

For the second group, I don't know what to say. I don't get them, because people edit 4K videos just fine on far inferior laptops. Yeah, it's slower and a little laggy but, again, the MacBook Pro is a MOBILE solution. Here again the Mac Pro would suit this niche better, but it's too small a niche to justify that machine.

You want to tell me how to wash my hands and wipe my *ss too?

 

[err404]

I am barely a professional, and I need this horsepower for PS, AE, PR, 3DS among others.
I can't imagine what other people might need like say, pro animators, colorists, scientists, software/app/game developers etc etc

apparently you are the sample size of 1 who doesn't produce anything on a computer other than spreadsheets, which in your case, you could do that with a chromebook, or an ipad pro...

Actually I do need a powerful machine for my needs. But I do not considered my needs mainstream. And the elitist tone of your reply suggests that you also consider yourself needs niche.
My reply was not about the lack of a need for powerful machines, rather that powerful machines target a smaller and smaller audience.

 

[zhenya]

Typically history has shown that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of uproar a new Apple product causes and how successful it is.

I predict that the new MBP's will be successful beyond anyone's expectations.

 

[dpinchot]

Look, lets get this straight. For the slow people out there (you know who you are), the current state of technology does not support more than 16GB of ram on intel chips, without using desktop DDR4 ram. If DDR4 chips were used in a laptop, the battery life decreases by half. To get more batter life, you need a bigger battery. That adds weight. And, you are limited to the size of the battery you can have in a device if you want to bring it on a plane or ship it.

And no, DDR3 and DDR4 ram chips are not interchangeable, so there would need to be different motherboards.

So, if you need 32GB of ram you can:
A) Get a desktop (I have a Mac Pro with 64 GB of ram)
B) Get a Dell XPS 15 that weighs 5 pounds and gets 5 hours

As a developer, I use my Mac Pro in the office and my MacBook Pro when traveling. I can do everything on my MacBook Pro that I can do on my Mac Pro, just not at the same time. There are tradeoff in any product. You as the purchaser must decide what's important for your task.

 

[TrueBlou]

Are you a hardware engineer? Did you read about WHY they didn't include 32gb of RAM? It's not just a matter of some person at Apple deciding whether or not to offer it.
[doublepost=1478116693][/doublepost]

There's no way you could ever convince me to buy a Dell again. Stock Dell XPS15 is $1649 with an i5, 8gb RAM, 256 SSD. My 2012 MBP has similar specs...

Thing is though Apple are mainly blaiming the lack of more RAM on power constraints. Maybe if they didn't keep slimmming the chassis down unnecessarily they wouldn't have a battery in there that's half the capacity than it was a few years ago and there would be no power constraints.

It's all very well them blaming Intel, many people will just go along with that and say it's Intel not Apple who are to blame. But it wasn't Intel who chose to make the "Pro" an overpriced fashion computer for people to look good in Starbucks, it was Apple. They've made a next gen MacBook Air and called it a Pro. The blame for the lack of expansion falls squarely at Apples feet no-one else's.

 

[sarge]

Ha ha ha. OMG! The failure that isn't on any Windows laptop and has no developer support whatsoever? I challenge you to find anyone who will remember it in three years. It will be out of the tech news and forgotten in three months.

LOL whatever. It looked intriguing as demonstrated. But then again this was the day after I was presented with a touch bar that was even more laughable to me so maybe I'm tripping over the bar of low expectations.

 

[campyguy]

Its just not creatives that are upset/disappointed. I think many long standing mac fans who stuck by Apple for years are voicing their displeasure.

The new MBPs are not bad, per say, but the update is just rather mediocre, but the price is anything but mediocre

I posted somewhere here that IMHO someone's head at Intel has rolled and that Apple likely wasn't happy with sticking in last year's engine in this year's hot rod. I can only imagine that at least one head rolled at Intel...

Years ago, when Apple was still using Moto processors I was dating an electrical engineer who was a blue tag at Intel (a consultant), who knew I was using Macs. She dished on work she was collaborating on with overclocking their current processor and a project that Apple was part of, and that my next Mac would have an Intel processor inside - and we all know the rest of that story... IMHO Apple and Intel/Micron are really going to blow us away soon.

So, yeah the new laptops are a bit underwhelming to some. What I see is a new display, the fastest ports and on-board storage in any laptop, a neat add-on in that interactive strip (which I also called out months ago here somewhere...). I see a hot rod that's hampered by some parts that came from the bin, when Apple really wants that new Optane and Kaby Lake stuff that hasn't hit the street yet.

I recall the cheers a few years ago when Apple dropped prices $300-$400 for the refresh of the rMBP, and I still have a BTO version of that bad boy. I run a company, and I have to revisit my billing rates periodically too - we're holding on to our Macs longer, too (guilty). All I see is Apple returning their prices to previous levels and offering a much, much faster product. I'm waiting for the Kaby Lake (or next chip) refresh while realizing Intel and Micron are putting something out soon that's going to really make our next Mac something special. Cheers!

 

[wallysb01]

Look, lets get this straight. For the slow people out there (you know who you are), the current state of technology does not support more than 16GB of ram on intel chips, without using desktop DDR4 ram. If DDR4 chips were used in a laptop, the battery life decreases by half. To get more batter life, you need a bigger battery. That adds weight. And, you are limited to the size of the battery you can have in a device if you want to bring it on a plane or ship it.

And no, DDR3 and DDR4 ram chips are not interchangeable, so there would need to be different motherboards.

So, if you need 32GB of ram you can:
A) Get a desktop (I have a Mac Pro with 64 GB of ram)
B) Get a Dell XPS 15 that weighs 5 pounds and gets 5 hours

As a developer, I use my Mac Pro in the office and my MacBook Pro when traveling. I can do everything on my MacBook Pro that I can do on my Mac Pro, just not at the same time. There are tradeoff in any product. You as the purchaser must decide what's important for your task.

Um, no. You don't need desktop, 288 pin RAM. Intel supports 64GB of laptop 260 pin RAM on the skylake processors in the 15 MacBook Pros.

And while I don't have the exact data, and you don't either, I am highly suspicious of the "battery life decreases by half" statement you made. Maybe a little, but 50%... you do realize DDR4 is more power efficient than DDR3, right? I understand that higher capacities, different controls, what ever, can make important differences too, but the actually chips themselves are better. And given that most of the system's power usage is from the screen/CPU/GPU, I can't for a second believe changing the RAM would mean anywhere near a 50% drop in battery life.

 

[Gudi]

LOL whatever. It looked intriguing as demonstrated. But then again this was the day after I was presented with a touch bar that was even more laughable to me so maybe I'm tripping over the bar of low expectations.

ROFL — Microsoft was always good at demoing stuff that never ships as advertised.

From the guys who made Windows Vista™​

 

[dennysanders]

I'm not a huge fan of Dell either, but the business side has better support available (which is worth it, imho). Instead of an XPS, I would recommend anyone look at the 5000 (same chassis as XPS) or 7000 series precision workstations (qualifier: I buy lots of Dells for my work).

$2429 (base) - Xeon E3-1505M 2.8GHz, 32GB DDR4, 512GB NVMe SSD, Quadro M1000M
RAM and SSD are serviceable and there is an extra SSD slot, lots of port options
http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/p...1015us_4&model_id=precision-m5510-workstation

Compare that to:

$2399 - 2.6GHz, 16GB DDR3, 256GB SSD, Radeon 450
Touch bar and 1 port option (x4)
http://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/15-inch

not sure what happened, but i definitely didn't post that

 

[iShater]

The new MacBook Pros are incredibly powerful machines. Could they be even more powerful with some compromises on portability and battery life? Yes. But Apple is not willing to make these compromises, and that is nothing new.

You are talking almost as if Apple just released MacBook Pros with the same low watt processors they put in the MacBook one port edition.

I am talking as if Apple just release MBP where instead of packing more punch in the same factor, decided to obsess with thinness that doesn't really make that much of a difference. And they are charging more hundred more for it, and out of the box doesn't connect with anything that we currently use.

 

[sleepydinosaur]

It's always Intel that is at fault. I still remember how Apple was one year late (compared to other vendors) with USB 3 because "Intel chipset did not support it". Everyone else was using NEC controller which cost $4 but Apple would not do it because it would reduce their profits. As others said, there are plenty of laptops with more than 16GB of RAM - just not from Apple.

Realistically though it does not look like Apple's business model is ever going to work for professional users. These days Apple is all about volume and inventory management. That's why they have so few models. While PC vendors will offer you dozens of models for all sorts of customers, Apple offers basically one model (in a couple of sizes). This model is seemingly optimized for college students (and, perhaps some executive types) and is absolutely not suitable for regular home users (too expensive) or the professional ones (performance is too poor).

How's your billion dollar computer company doing? You are obviously so much better at it than they are. I figured you be here crowing about how YOUR company doesn't have those "Intel" limitations.
[doublepost=1478120235][/doublepost]

You do know it was John Sculley's decision to go with a CPU other than Intel (Power PC), which ended up costing Apple, and ultimately led to him getting shown the door...right? Going with anything other than Intel CPU's for the Mac line would be a huge mistake.

I have no idea where you are going with this. You do know that Apple designs its own mobile chips right?
[doublepost=1478120309][/doublepost]

You raised the issue of Intel delays. You are obviously placing the blame on Intel.

It's perfectly acceptable to ask if other Macs have also been subject to Intel delays to test this theory.

This thread is regarding MacBook Pro's. I wouldn't know anything about the desktop Macs. And neither would you. Until they are released that is.
[doublepost=1478120390][/doublepost]

You can find many laptops supporting 32GiB, starting at around $500.

Not with that processor. Nice try though.

 

[AdonisSMU]

All things considered 2 years from now, the new MBP design will be one of the best on the market. Intel's new processors will support low power RAM up to 32GB. USB-C will become ubiquitous, and AMD will have released Vega/Polaris 11 based graphics that will be efficient enough for this form factor.

This feels like a good design for the next 10 years, but there are pain points now while both the technology (RAM/GPU) and market (USB-C) are not quite ready.

The thing I don't think I will ever like is the keyboard from the MacBook.

The keyboard from the MacBook is the best I've ever used.
[doublepost=1478120547][/doublepost]

I see a few issues here that some are Apples faults and others are out of there reach. Intel has really been lagging behind on the chip delivery hence the minimal increase in performance. Also what is an actual Pro user to Apple? Most Pro users dont care about how thin or thick the laptop is, instead they care about performance. In this sense Apple has failed but to a greater sense its an Intel issue.
Ok so you cant stand out on performance because of Intel then do something to stand out. The Oled touch bar is a start but honestly most Pros wont care and this is more of a feature every day people will use. Touch ID, great but honestly why did it take this long to implement? What else can Apple do to stand out since chip performance will be the same thanks to Intel.

I care about how portable a device is. I want to be able to carry my laptop with me and write code at a moments notice. I get ideas and I generally want to execute them right away.

 

[Abazigal]

What do you people think are the odds of cameras eventually switching to data transfer over USB C as a response.

People complaining about the lack of a sd card slot seem to be assuming that the storage medium of cameras will remain constraint for all eternity, without considering how it too can evolve as a response to a change in the new normal.

 

[TrueBlou]

i just wanna see a side-by-side comparison; that's all. i'm very skeptical that it would make that much of a difference. somebody make a video and show me i'm wrong.

It depends on your use of the system, while you and millions of others will be perfectly happy with 16GB or less, not everyone will be. Does it make a difference having 32 or 64 or more in there? Yes if you have the kind of workload that will take advantage of it. There's a huge difference between having something in memory and having something cached to the drive, even a drive as fast as in the new MacBook.

Just because not everyone needs or wants more than 16GB doesn't mean no-one does. The main argument isn't that the MacBook Pro is a terrible machine, just that it could have been better with one simple addition. That addition is choice. Choice for a person to expand beyond the standard 16GB, it would have no impact on anyone else, it would just give greater choice. But that's not important to Apple any more, not at the expense of their mission to get everything paper thin anyway.

I really can't be bothered doing a video, I don't have the time. But here's just a little glimpse as to why some of us would like as much memory as possible crammed into our systems. Sure we could limit our workflow, do less, compromise and so on. But in this day and age and for a system costing, well in my case, over £3000 for the one I'd buy if it weren't for the lack of memory, we shouldn't have to make that compromise.

Yes these are mobile systems not desktops, but in that price range I expect a system that can cope with my workload almost as well when I'm away for extended periods.

 

[Gudi]

What do you people think are the odds of cameras eventually switching to data transfer over USB C as a response.

That's not even necessary, all you need is a new cable or adapter for your existing camera.