I usually stay out of these sorts of discussions because it's ultimately futile when, short of voting with one's wallet, it amounts to nothing. However, to me, there is a very real problem with the mentality that Apple should continue to keep one foot firmly in the past with legacy support of older technologies.
I'm very certain that in the days of the PDP-10 and other mainframe-class architectures, to many the personal computer seemed underpowered and lacking in extensibility, especially given how little computing power could be housed in a basic pizza-box or tower configuration, but that style of computing died and personal computing became the norm. It did so not because it was more powerful or provided a greater ability for future expansion, but because it allowed the class of product to be purchased by a larger number of people. Now the wheel has turned and the days of hobby kit-style and Frankenstein PCs is now largely over, and should've been probably a decade earlier than it was. As far as Apple is concerned, Steve Jobs' vision of the Apple computer as being an appliance, regularly replaced instead of being a steel-and-silicon heirloom, is now fully being realized. Twenty years ago, because of their rarity and great expense, computers were generally owned by people that knew and understood them, could service them, and in most cases needed the opportunity to expand because buying whole new systems was reserved for every five or ten years, but times were already changing; computers were moving from the office to the home. Despite this, the models for PCs retained the construction trappings and swiss army knife hardware mentality that was, for perhaps 95% of computer owners, neither needed nor helpful. They really needed, and now want, prepackaged, functional machines at competitive prices, though competitive being commensurate with what is provided in the exchange. Inflation adjusted to 1994, a $1000 MBA in 2014 costs a mere $622, roughly the same cost as the Newton MessagePad 115 during the same year. Does anyone here, that was an active and buying computer user during that time, ever remember any computer, power equivalently regressed, for less than $1500 with all accompanying equipment? I certainly don't. I do remember a solitary $3000+ Christmas present with a colorful apple on the box under the tree that year.
Even as a software developer, I'm personally gratified by the direction that Apple is taking with their products and their adoption of the post-PC paradigm. Apple still offers, to one degree or another, the sort of power computing experience that some assert they no longer do, it just has a dollar figure attached to it that most people either can't or won't meet. They realized, probably before most, that the average user, the one that caused family, neighbors and tech support so many headaches, does not need a computer to do what they need or want, and the content consumption devices they need are relatively cheap to replace on short-term schedules. Those that do need power computing can still get it, machines of power and build quality inconceivable even a decade ago, they just have to pay heftily for the privilege.
Well, the problem that I have is that is not really about Apple keeping a foot firmly in the past, it's about them keeping one in the
present.
There is no reason for Apple to push forward without
discontinuing support for
technologies that are still in use. Computing tech, for the last couple of years, has plateaued somewhat. We are on a transitional period (the cloud, etc), but I feel Apple has jumped the gun a bit and has given us machines tailored to their (apparently accurate) vision of the future, but removing the machines that can more easily, flexibly and effectively integrate into the
present tech.
It takes time to replace/build out infrastructure. But Apple, in their earnest to skate where the puck is going to be, has skated a bit too far ahead.
So the issue is not Apple's direction, is the lack of diversity in their portfolio. They very well could give us cutting edge (should some of us want it), but also give us currently useful. For example, I feel it would've been excellent for Apple to release the new Mac Pro
alongside an updated version of the old, with TB, USB 3, and the latest PCI standards, just like they did when they released the Cube. They did not discontinue the Power Mac in their push forward, back then. Apple's portfolio was more balanced (briefly) in their portable line when they had 3 categories: Ultrabook-entry level (Air), Ultrabook-power (RMBP), Desktop replacement (cMBP). It seems to me that they are still downsizing, consolidating, and "focusing" as if it's 1995. It isn't. They seem to be attempting to put all their fruit in one basket (iPhone/iPad), and it may backfire.
Apple should let go of the notion that for Apple to win (by going after the majority base with iPad/iPhone/Air combo, new Mac Pro), they have to lose the computer or IT "enthusiast" (that does appreciate their
previously-held philosophies of easy accessibility, expandability, and configuration flexibility such as the old Mac Pro and the cMBPs, including the enterprise IT folks).
Apple is in a position to grow and cover (perhaps now more niche) markets and segments that fall within the computing realm, simply because they have their cash cows (iphone/iPad), as well as lots of cash and brand popularity. I could care less if they release a so-called smart watch.
I also never felt that Apple machines were expensive. I felt that they provided a great value and still do. I'm all for the push forward.
But I don't like the transformation from computing company to appliance-only company. I would've preferred that Apple did both, kind of like a company that sells cars, trucks,
and SUVs, both electric (the future) and gasoline/diesel (the present). A simply updated (Retina or not) 17 in the "old" shell with USB3, TB2, 802.11ac, new PCIe, and Blu-Ray drive would have been an AWESOME machine. That's what people who buy 17s we're expecting. Instead Apple KILLED the line, one that had been produced for 10 years. Same could be said for the Mac Pro. Many expected an update that would allow them to plug into their
existing infrastructure (the present), not require a whole new one (the future) now.
Give me
more options Apple, not take them away.
But alas, it is what it is and it's not meant to be. I
have come to peace with it: the Apple I liked is dead.
Long live the new Apple.
They're
still better than their competitors, in my opinion, and I think I can wait it out (with my existing infrastructure) until the future catches up with the present.
OK, I've hammered these points enough. It
has been fun to discuss. Thanks everybody for the intellectual exercise!
🙂
