A lot of the reported reasoning sounds like excuses. I agree that there seems to be a shift in the priorities from Apple. There is no doubt that they are focused on the iPhone, perhaps too much. As a shareholder, this concerns me, as being so dependent on a single product line is a recipe for disaster. As a user, this frustrates me, as I continue to wait for a decent option so I can upgrade three laptops and several desktop units (we already purchased two 2017 tbMBPs, but only because we absolutely couldn't wait any longer.) It's telling when the kids, who have grown up in the Apple ecosystem, are starting to look at alternatives for both the computers and the phones.
Programmers don’t need much processing power anymore.
I have a problem with this, as it is circular reasoning - programmers don't have the power, so they work around it. You can't tell me that programmers wouldn't be happier with faster compile times, and greater power on the user device (thus the ability to do more, and do it faster). It's not like Xcode has suddenly gotten more efficient and now requires less RAM and can compile faster.
Two very VERY small groups need processing power: video makers and people using a Mac as a server (not counting gamers since they’re not on our platform).
Right. If you don't have the power to run high end games, then nobody will make those games.
On the other hand, give people the power to run those games, and they will do so.
It's not like Mac users don't enjoy gaming...
As for those using it as a server, it's hard to believe that they are focusing on those, as they have essentially killed the whole server line.
Apple is at the mercy of intels slow release cycle. Graphics chips are expensive due to miners. Also, have there been new advances in graphics cards? Not my expertise but I bet it’s as slow as intels cycle.
They may be at the mercy of Intel, but only to a certain extent. There have been several generations that have passed since the introduction of the Mac Mini; does anyone really believe that Apple couldn't have at least done a minor upgrade to use the newer chipsets and processors?
As for the graphics cards, this may not be overly relevant, as many of their products use integrated graphics, thus upgrading the processor and chipset would also upgrade the graphics. For those that use discrete graphics units, I'm sure that AMD would be happy to spool up one of their foundries to supply the parts needed. It's not like Apple was known for using cutting edge graphics units anyhow - typically, the graphics chipset used is a balance of power and heat.
Apple products are in a state that, other than the iMac Pro, they can't be used for functional VR systems. Tim Cook has indicated that AR is the future, but how does he expect users to build these systems without the proper hardware? (I recognize that basic AR apps are appearing on the App Store, however I have not seen too many that provide true utility; I'm also willing to bet that much of the programming for those apps was not actually done on Macs.)
SSD’s and RAM are all basically the same now (newer generations) in terms of speed. Sure some gains here some there but not enough for most people. The gains Apple gets from generation to generation are not enough for some users.
This might be relevant if they actually used SSDs in all their products. They are still selling units with 5400rpm spinners. At the very least, those could be updated to 7200rpm, or SSD.
As for the RAM, this is a bit more reasonable. The tbMBP is GB due to the Intel's delay in supporting LPDDR4. Nonetheless, there is no reason they couldn't give the user the option of putting in 32GB with the understanding that it will cut the battery life significantly. They have so many other SKUs that this wouldn't make a difference, other than giving the user the option of choosing battery life or more RAM.
PC’s are slowing down since hardware has slowed down. We need innovations in hardware. If quantum computing takes off there will be lots of new and exciting things. Right now there isn’t.
This is true, partially. The incremental improvements may be about the same, but perception makes them seem smaller. For example, a jump from 1GHz to 1.2GHz seems much more dramatic to the user as compared to a jump from 2.9GHz to 3.1GHz. That doesn't negate the benefits of the improvement, though. As I noted above, give a bit more power to the user, and the developers are likely to find a way to take advantage, thus the user benefits.
One perfect example of this is Siri. Apple has made a decision to keep information locked down, which is commendable. It does, however impose a greater processing load on the user device. We have seen that improvements in the A-series processors on the iPhones has improved Siri functionality (admittedly very slightly...) If Apple intends to bring a functional virtual assistant to the macOS, then there will need to be a whole lot more processing power locally. The OS itself has become more demanding over time as well, thus slowly decreasing the available CPU processing power available to the user. At the very least, the systems should be upgraded (to the amount possible) to eliminate the impact of increased OS demands.
As for quantum computing, current technology is in its infancy, however everything points to quantum computers requiring extensive cooling systems and high-cost infrastructure, thus making them a long way off for consumers, other than via shared computing systems (like IBM's). While this tech is promising, it is not a reason to ditch the current technology. We don't have ubiquitous high-speed and low-cost internet access, so in general, processing will have to be done locally.
tl;dr -
Apple is highly focused on the iPhones, perhaps to the detriment of the other products.
There have been many opportunities to upgrade several of their product lines (of which there are too many) however Apple has chosen not to take advantage of those opportunities. On the contrary, they have increased demands on the system without upgrading the CPU and graphics systems to keep up with those demands.
Like many users, I am rapidly approaching the point at which a wholesale change in our home and office computer ecosystem is being considered; as a shareholder in Apple, this is concerning.
[doublepost=1523048198][/doublepost]
iPad Mini's are sold in significant quantities to med schools and hospital organizations. They fit perfectly inside a Dr's lab coat. Nearsighted Macrumors comments will not detract from the significance of this product in the enterprise.
This is true, however I suspect that the newest iPhones have similar if not greater computing power than the 2014 Mac Minis. And they are marginally more portable, with greater functionality (I no longer carry a pager -- if someone wants me, they simply call, and if I can answer then I do, otherwise I get a proper message instead of just a number). For me, carrying a large-screen iPhone eliminates the need to carry two devices.
