Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs on Lack of Firewire in MacBooks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I seem to have implied before, an argument that is invalidated by its own premise is not suddenly valid, simply because one chooses to ignore what invalidates the argument.
Please don't give them silly consumer unfriendly ideas
Apple already has 15 (count them 15) different video adaptors for their hardware in the Apple store, they're soon gonna be earning more profit on these silly dongles than everything else
I'm not really sure what all the going round and round is for. Apple removed FW from the MB and in a supposed e-mail from Steve Jobs he said that the reason for that was because USB video cameras took over the consumer camera market years ago (which is wrong, but whatever). So, basically, Apple seemed to say that FW was dead to them in the consumer space. But the updated Mini and iMac have FW (FW800 at that). So either Apple suddenly switched direction and decided that FW wasn't a dead I/O in their consumer products, or that was just a BS excuse to try and explain why the pulled FW out of the MB. My money is that it's just a BS excuse because they needed better 'separation' between the MB and MBP.
There comes a point where things are 'fast enough' so you have to look at other factors to separate your product lines. MBs are as fast or faster than most G5s which means they are completely capable of handling video formats like DV, HDV, AIC, DVCPro50, DVCProHD, XDCAM, XDCAM HD, XDCAM EX, etc., as long as you have FW connectivity. The price, size, and functionality of the MB hit a sweet spot in the market place. Take away FW and all that goes away.
Lethal
There comes a point where things are 'fast enough' so you have to look at other factors to separate your product lines. MBs are as fast or faster than most G5s which means they are completely capable of handling video formats like DV, HDV, AIC, DVCPro50, DVCProHD, XDCAM, XDCAM HD, XDCAM EX, etc., as long as you have FW connectivity. The price, size, and functionality of the MB hit a sweet spot in the market place. Take away FW and all that goes away.
Lethal
Yep, that makes the most sense to me. I think there's a production cost that was cut, or they made a marketing mistake......or we're mistaken in thinking that the majority of MB users (who are casual, I would imagine) really need FW.
I don't understand why he can't argue that desktop macs are a different line and mentality than portable macs, thus have different standards as to whether or not they are seen as pro in the eyes of Apple. Please explain.
Because if the argument is that FW=Pro, then FW should NOT be on ANY consumer product. You cannot say that FW=Pro and then go "Oh, and even though the Mac Mini proves the notion wrong, I'm still right, because I simply won't allow the Mac Mini to enter into my equation".
If, on the other hand, the argument is simply "It's to try to make people buy the more expensive product", then that's fine, but that argument is not the argument "FW=Pro".
I was not kidding when I examplified the argument with a line from Erasmus Montanus:
"Mother cannot fly. A stone cannot fly. Ergo: Mother is a stone". That sort of argumentation may find similarities, but it's flawed logic, because the premises of comparisons are utterly flawed.
Yikes. I have never made the argument that I believe that "FW=Pro." If that's what you think then you have misunderstood me from the start. I said that by taking FW off the MB, Apple's implied reason was that FW=Pro. And I also said that by leaving it on the mini, that implication is inconsistent (since the mini cannot be considered a "pro" system by any standard). The conclusion is that the original assumption is correct, FW was dropped from the MB for marketing purposes, to differentiate it from the MBP.
It all makes perfect sense, at least to me.
LOL, that's hardly any better of an argument. That's a thinly veiled strawman argument. First you make an assumption (you imply that it's Apple that's doing the "FW=Pro"-argument. Then you shoot down that argument by saying that's inconsistent.
The reality is, it's still you manufacturing the first argument, namely "FW=Pro". It doesn't matter how many layers you put on it: The basic premise is flawed.
Perhaps, but not because Firewire equalled a Pro product.
It also made a lot of sense to Rasmus Berg (i.e. Erasmus Montanus).
Right. So in the context of laptops, Apple seems to be implying that FW is a feature to be found in their "pro" computer. Therefore, according to Apple, FW=Pro in the laptop line. Makes sense to me too.
Although "Mother cannot fly. A stone cannot fly. Ergo: Mother is a stone" is a really cool line (and one that I may use in the future) because it show flaws in logic when not all of the evidence is considered, I think a simpler and more widely known phrase applies here.
That one about apples and oranges.
Well, if you limit the "FW=Pro" to the laptop line, of course it will fly. Just like the non-flight of Mother.
I guess that would apply in a sense. It might be down to frame of reference though (I'm danish, so ...).
pffft here we go again. Whenever you don't get something you always pull the Danish card.
Keep in mind that the majority of us here are nerds, NEVER understimate the fury of a computer nerd
Lulz. You're totally right. I forgot.
Oh Mother!
Comparing the Mac Mini to the Macbook Pro is like comparing apples to oranges. Although they are both computers with fw800, you can't hold them to the same standard because they so different in other ways.
Mother would be proud!
Comparing the Mac Mini to the Macbook Pro is like comparing apples to oranges. Although they are both computers with fw800, you can't hold them to the same standard because they so different in other ways.
Mother would be proud!
What's wrong with that? at last the guy is being straight and saying he doesnt get it.....but I've read this fellas posts all over the forum and he is usually correct and straight forward though sometimes has a sarcasm side, which is good imo...maybe this is sarcasm maybe just being straight with us >shrugs<pffft here we go again. Whenever you don't get something you always pull the Danish card.
pffft here we go again. Whenever you don't get something you always pull the Danish card.
LOL, no I don't
Sigh, not again!
You guys still don't get it, do you?
You cannot claim that inclusion of FW means it's a Pro product, while at the same time, and when facts prove you wrong, then move the goal post, and make up some other explanation to make up for the flawed logic. That kind of pseudo logic is the exact same logic used by religious nuts and conspirationists (no comparison otherwise, btw).
"Milk comes from cows"
"But what about goat milk or Mother's Milk?"
"Oh, I'm right, because milk comes from cows, IF the milk is taken from cows. Ergo: Milk comes from cows".
Indeed.
Thanks, I was being straight. However, I think he was just having a friendly jab at me
Edit:
I remember this guy I discussed philosophy with about a decade ago. I was traveling, and out of boredom and what happened to be on the shelf of the hostel we stayed, we decided to play Scrabble. After a while I had to give up, because my lack of vocabulary. At one point I was sure he made up words. The word he "made up"?
"Nub". I kid you not. Pretty embarrassing, not knowing a word that is included in sentences like "A nub of butter" ...
After all this time you still don't understand the reasoning, or at least you act like you don't.
Sheesh! I perfectly understand what you're trying to say. What I do is point out the flaws in the logic you use. That is not a lack of understanding.
What you imply by that statement is that unless I take what you say to heart, it is my "understanding" that is lacking, not your flawed logic.
After, I don't know, twenty posts, you still haven't recognised I'm attacking the logic, the argument's premises themselves? That it's not about "understanding" your argument?
The thing is, when it comes to argumentation, it's not about "understanding" which implies some emotional or empathic reasoning, instead of logical deduction.
I have shown, time and time again, exactly why your argument is flawed. When I do so, you either ignore it completely, invent some strawman argumentation, move the goal post, or, as you do now, pretend it is down to a lack of understanding (I guess that's what I get from admitting I'm not a native english speaker *some people will jump on that in an instant).
If you continue to state that the premise is "FW=pro" then you either don't understand it or else you want to change the debate to some other argument.
Are you serious? You claimed that it was Apple's argument (made from a marketing point of view). That notion still comes from you (and others on fora like these), even though you remove yourself by a step.
If I go "Well Peter Pelvis is taking a shower because he wants to be sure to get some action tonight", then that doesn't mean that that is the reasoning behind it, or that Peter changed his mind becaus he went to visit his mother. It simply means that my premise, my argument was invalid from the get-go.
You're doing exactly the same. First you pretend it was Apple's decision, driven by marketing, to go "FW=Pro" and that by incorporating FW800 in the Mac Mini they're being inconsistent with their marketing decisions. Not once has it occurred to you that it might be your premise, your partial conclusion that just isn't correct from the beginning.
The only premise is that FW was dropped from the MB to differentiate it from the MBP. The fact that Apple implied "FW=pro" is not a premise; it's part of the supporting argument. For all the "philosophy" you like to quote, I'm surprised that this simple reasoning escapes you. I repeat, I never once claimed that I believe "FW=pro."
Yes, that's what you and likeminded say.
No, that's merely wrapping a flawed argument in more flawed wrapping.
Nothing about your argument escapes me. What I do find funny, though, is how basic logic simply doesn't cut it, or why you have to pretend I quote a lot of "philosophy".
The play Erasmus Montanus is a very funny play written by Ludvig Holberg in 1722. It's not philosophy by a long-shot.
I'm with you on this one Eric - seems obvious doesn't it? I've tried making this point a few times but it's like trying to explain the game of snooker to someone who is colour blind. Just not worth the trouble IMHO.
I'm with you on this one Eric - seems obvious doesn't it? I've tried making this point a few times but it's like trying to explain the game of snooker to someone who is colour blind. Just not worth the trouble IMHO.
You realise that although he never claim to have said it, he went "Apple has decided that FW=Pro". That is as good as it gets.
But, anyway, I see that there is no winning an argument when arguing with someone who refuses to acknowledge logic.
So is it "your thing" on these forums? TELLING people what they think/said, when they make no such claims?
Just because your twisted sense of logic puts words in the mouths of others doesn't mean we all partake in that flawed debating tactic.