The Verge: The MacBook Pro is a lie

[blackberrycubed]

They are still MBP just the Pro has been changed to Pro(fit). Thats all guys... nothing wrong with that by apple standards.

"Give less and charge more." -Tim Crook.

 

[leman]

Those preferring to use OSX, and requiring truly capable laptops, have every reason to be upset. This is no accident and Apple has clearly forsaken them.

Apple never targeted them in the first place. Apple is using fastest available consumer CPUs and fast mid-range GPU, as it always has been, in every MacBook Pro ever released. Its silly to talk about 'forsaking someone' if you never ever offered them a product in the first place. Need a desktop replacement? Get a gaming laptop.

 

[xmonkey]

lol. The Verge is one of the biggest cheerleaders for Apple.

What does that have to do with the point I'm making?

Nevermind that they've actually been pretty critical of Apple lately.

 

[neteng101]

They designed for professional use...

Oh please... they are designed to be as thin as possible - everything else is secondary. You can see it all in the design video on .com

 

[jackoatmon]

Tech review sites generally get the products before the public for review purposes.

They are under NDA right now.

Ah! Fair point.

I read that article and I think my biggest takeaway from it (and something I've been really searching for in all the naysaying here and elsewhere) was an actual critique: There's a developer cited in the article that points out how the use in web development of multiple VM machines for testing on browsers in other OSes, means 16gb is actually a legitimate problem sometimes.

So there you have it. Finally someone's made a fair point at least. I still think it's the most exciting laptop out there, and the GPU bump makes it the first time I've considered a mobile workstation in my career.

But if the devs need more ram for VMs, that's fair play. Fair comment.

 

[T5BRICK]

You guys are funny. Apple has been using "Pro" as a marketing term for years and you're still getting all fired up about it.

 

[NT1440]

They are clearly by no definition 'professional,' even if meeting some less than demanding tasks. Those preferring to use OSX, and requiring truly capable laptops, have every reason to be upset. This is no accident and Apple has clearly forsaken them.

So these people you speak of were never able to use a MBP to begin with seeing as these are currently the most powerful MacBooks ever....and even these are capable, right? So what's the problem?

 

[jackoatmon]

So these people you speak of were never able to use a MBP to begin with seeing as these are currently the most powerful MacBooks ever....and even these are capable, right? So what's the problem?

This is the part I just can't understand about all this. It's the fastest macbook ever in every single way, yet it cannot do anything a pro would ever want to do under any circumstances, if you believe what people say.

So, are people saying no professionals have ever been using the Macbook pro?

 

[NT1440]

This is the part I just can't understand about all this. It's the fastest macbook ever in every single way, yet it cannot do anything a pro would ever want to do under any circumstances, if you believe what people say.

So, are people saying no professionals have ever been using the Macbook pro?

Apparently they were using mythical never released to the public Macbook Pro's previously, seeing as they couldn't possibly do their current job with a dongle, or less than 32GB of RAM,....and that machine they've been using for years simply doesn't exist.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

Apple is using fastest available consumer CPUs and fast mid-range GPU, as it always has been, in every MacBook Pro ever released.

I won't argue most of the points because the argument would look like "but the Pros need this" vs "go eff yourself, Pro, you're minority", I've already seen this in a lot of threads. As if Apple was not a company liked by a lot of their fanboys for their pro-minority position (in fact just a for-profit position but fanboys don't care when it fits their needs).

But this specific point is factual ********. Apple used to use fastest consumer CPUs and now it does not. No Iris Pro for you this generation because they cost even more and would add 150 more $ to the already overpriced MBP 2016 considering Apple's margin.

And the funniest thing is that current processors Apple use are a year old and were WIDELY available for several quarters already compared to the Iris Pro ones. All of us excused Apple's long release cycle due to Iris Pros Intel release cycle. And this was for nothing.

 

[cmaier]

I rate this Verge article a 4.9.

 

[NT1440]

I won't argue most of the points because the argument would look like "but the Pros need this" vs "go eff yourself, Pro, you're minority", I've already seen this in a lot of threads. As if Apple was not a company liked by a lot of their fanboys for their pro-minority position.

But this specific point is factual ********. Apple used to use fastest consumer CPUs and now it does not. No Iris Pro for you this generation because they cost even more.

Is the Kaby Lake in the given TDP faster than the Skylake Apple is using? I could have sworn I had seen that wasn't the case because that particular KabyLake hasn't been released yet.

Also, blisteringly fast SSD's across the board. Apple has had the fasted SSD's standard for a couple of years now but no one ever seems to mention it for some reason....

 

[idunn]

So these people you speak of were never able to use a MBP to begin with seeing as these are currently the most powerful MacBooks ever....and even these are capable, right? So what's the problem?

Any number of reasons. One would be 4k video, let alone 8k; try editing that without horsepower. Admittedly a desktop makes more sense for such a task, if some for various reasons require a laptop for same. But the 2016 MBP portends nothing good for the rest of the Macintosh line and desktops.

That is the rub. Nothing wrong with Apple wishing to meet the desires of iPhone customers and others with relatively modest computing needs. Their laptops from four years back can do that handily enough. But time marches on and for some 32GB of Ram is a bare minimum. They are focused on the needs of one group, admittedly the largest, but forsaking those of the professional.

The proposition is that Apple could only conceive of and do as well in all iOS because of its once focus on excellence in that most demanding. Time will tell, but it doesn't take much courage or vision to downgrade the Macintosh towards the lowest common denominator of iOS, rather improve the latter towards the best the Macintosh was and might achieve.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

Is the Kaby Lake in the given TDP faster than the Skylake Apple is using? I could have sworn I had seen that wasn't the case because that particular KabyLake hasn't been released yet.

What Kaby Lake has to do with what I said? Iris Pros I talk about are Skylakes.
But yes, Kaby Lakes are marginally faster and marginally more efficient. And we don't have Kaby Lakes either. Because, well, Apple's update was long overdue and they can't wait 2 months to get Kaby Lake counterparts for the processors they've really used (we all thought these would be Iris Pros for which there will be no Kaby Lake counterparts for a rather long time).

 

[NT1440]

What Kaby Lake has to do with what I said? Iris Pros I talk about are Skylakes.
But yes, Kaby Lakes are marginally faster and marginally more efficient. And we don't have Kaby Lakes either. Because, well, Apple's update was long overdue and they can't wait 2 months to get Kaby Lake counterparts for the processors they've really used (we all thought these would be Iris Pros for which there will be no Kaby Lake counterparts for a rather long time).

You spoke about CPU and then an iGPU in the same sentence as if they aren't two different types of components

Two months? Really? Intel has delayed these ****ing chips for over a year, just like they did with Skylake to begin with. Can you image the hell that would be there to pay on forums like this if Apple missed the most sacred of consumer times, the holiday season?

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

Also, blisteringly fast SSD's across the board. Apple has had the fasted SSD's standard for a couple of years now but no one ever seems to mention it for some reason....

One can buy Samsung Pro 960 from the market right now and install it to his or her Lenovo P50 or Zbook Studio or Dell Precision which were available for 2-3 quarters so far and get the same speed for less money and with upgradeability, longer warranty and, well, knowing what to expect. No one knows what to expect from Apple's new SSD yet, no reviews, only claims. And history shows Apple's SSD will be at max marginally faster than Samsung top ones (because essentially they're the same, just in proprietary package and now with proprietary controller) or the same speed as Samsung.

Those loyal to Apple will be able to experience this in a month.
[doublepost=1478546681][/doublepost]

You spoke about CPU and then an iGPU in the same sentence as if they aren't two different types of components

Two months? Really? Intel has delayed these ****ing chips for over a year, just like they did with Skylake to begin with. Can you image the hell that would be there to pay on forums like this if Apple missed the most sacred of consumer times, the holiday season?

Don't try and catch me on technical correctness. Unfortunately for you I'm correct both practically and technically. Iris Pros' L4 cache helps CPUs so Iris Pros Skylakes are better than HD from pure computational POV. Practically they're superior overall.

They missed holiday season last year even though they could've bumped the spec with the same processors they've redesigned MBPs with last month, so what?

 

[leman]

But this specific point is factual ********. Apple used to use fastest consumer CPUs and now it does not. No Iris Pro for you this generation because they cost even more and would add 150 more $ to the already overpriced MBP 2016 considering Apple's margin.

Yes, that is a valid point. As I have written in a number of threads, personally, I believe that Intel was not able to supply those chips in sufficient quantities. I think Apple would have certainly used them if they would be available. My arguments: reported issues with Skylake manufacturing process, Intel's canceling Iris Pro for its future GPUs, very low actual availability of Iris Pro Skylakes on the laptop market.

 

[Pootmatoot]

just saying...

I'm not sure quoting Ballmer... the man many say is the mirror of Tim Cook's tenure ... if really helping things.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

Yes, that is a valid point. As I have written in a number of threads, personally, I believe that Intel was not able to supply those chips in sufficient quantities. I think Apple would have certainly used them if they would be available. My arguments: reported issues with Skylake manufacturing process, Intel's canceling Iris Pro for its future GPUs, very low actual availability of Iris Pro Skylakes on the laptop market.

Even IF (and this is a big IF, really) this is true, you understand that, as I mentioned above, these CPUs would make new MBPs 150 $ more pricey? And this is kinda too much...

 

[xmonkey]

I won't argue most of the points because the argument would look like "but the Pros need this" vs "go eff yourself, Pro, you're minority", I've already seen this in a lot of threads. As if Apple was not a company liked by a lot of their fanboys for their pro-minority position (in fact just a for-profit position but fanboys don't care when it fits their needs).

But this specific point is factual ********. Apple used to use fastest consumer CPUs and now it does not. No Iris Pro for you this generation because they cost even more and would add 150 more $ to the already overpriced MBP 2016 considering Apple's margin.

And the funniest thing is that current processors Apple use are a year old and were WIDELY available for several quarters already compared to the Iris Pro ones. All of us excused Apple's long release cycle due to Iris Pros Intel release cycle. And this was for nothing.

I don't think it's correct for you to assume Apple didn't use the Iris Pro quad-core Skylakes simply due to cost savings. We have no idea if Intel is even able to produce these in a volume sufficient for Apple's needs. If you have some sources saying otherwise, please show us as I'd be very curious. So far the Iris Pro quad core is still only just in Intel's (low volume) Skull Canyon NUC as far as I'm aware. So.. Apple is using the fastest 28W and 45W chips available to them.

The real reason it took so long for these to come out? AMD and their mobile Polaris chips.

 

[kazmac]

I'm betting Death by Dongle as the Newsweek cover for the 2018 Apple bubble crash.

^ LOLOLOL Priceless. Thanks for the laugh.

According to this forum, the Verge is more than a week behind.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

I don't think it's correct for you to assume Apple didn't use the Iris Pro quad-core Skylakes simply due to cost savings. We have no idea if Intel is even able to produce these in a volume sufficient for Apple's needs. If you have some sources saying otherwise, please show us as I'd be very curious. So far the Iris Pro quad core is still only just in Intel's (low volume) Skull Canyon NUC as far as I'm aware. So.. Apple is using the fastest 28W and 45W chips available to them.

The real reason it took so long for these to come out? AMD and their mobile Polaris chips.

I'm sorry but you made the claim, you prove it. This is how dialogues work. Apple is not using the fastest 45W chips. I've proven this factually. Prove factually otherwise.

+ My previous post about cost. It is unreasonable as it is. It would be 150$ more unreasonable.

P. S. IMHO it's quite silly to think Intel cannot produce 45W Iris Pros in enough quantities while seeing them produce Irises in bigger quantities assuming more 13" MBPs are being sold than 15". It's more likely Intel cannot give Apple enough discount compared to other vendors for Apple to meet their profit margin and not make their user base furious over the price more than now. However this is pure speculation.

 

[xmonkey]

I'm sorry but you made the claim, you prove it. This is how dialogues work. Apple is not using the fastest 45W chips. I've proven this factually. Prove factually otherwise.

+ My previous post about cost. It is unreasonable as it is. It would be 150$ more unreasonable.

Are you kidding me? You started off by claiming that Apple isn't using them merely because they wanted to save some money. You haven't proven such thing, either.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

Are you kidding me? You started off by claiming that Apple isn't using them merely because they wanted to save some money. You haven't proven such thing, either.

My claim is that Apple is not using the fastest CPUs. This is factually correct.

As for why, my assumption that it would make new MBPs cost more is factually correct as well - see Intel MSRPs. Will this enfuriate the users even more? Yes, again, factually correct. Is this the main reason? One of the reasons? No one knows. There is no public information or even confirmed rumours on this subject available. Yet you tried to claim you know the main reason for a fact.
[doublepost=1478548231][/doublepost]

Apple is using fastest available consumer CPUs

But this specific point is factual ********. Apple used to use fastest consumer CPUs and now it does not.

 

[xraydoc]

Oh please... they are designed to be as thin as possible - everything else is secondary. You can see it all in the design video on .com

Yep. Because professionals hate machines that are light. They much prefer to carry around 7.5lb desktop replacements.

Personally, I think 15 mm thick *closed* with 4 TB3 ports, a high DPI screen and 10 hrs of battery life is pretty damn good for any professional machine. Professional meaning something that a business person, attorney, physician, professor, IT professional, architect or artist would want to use. I think it covers most of that.

I carry my machine often and heavy machines are aweful. Don't care how powerful. I'd happily give up a pound of weight for a 2 ounce dongle that I might not always need with me.