Yeah, but then you wouldn't get the interesting back-and-forth comments from people who might have more details and illustrations, and comments, than a search engine hit or AI might have.
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.
When did Apple get rid of the illuminated Apple logo on their MBP line (last year model)
- Thread starter digimc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course that’s true, people have more to add than an AI, and a post like this always gives people the opportunity to reminisce if they want to.
But OP admitted that this is just an attempt at circumventing an internet search. The word „tried“ doesn’t make it better.
I wonder more why my MBP no longer says "MacBook Pro" (or the MBA "MacBook Air) on the inside below the screen. Surely it couldn't cost that much to differentiate the models for the casual, non-MacRumors observer.
No. It looked cheap & tacky. Looks far more premium since they ditched that design choice.
It was bloody annoying in having hundreds of illuminated apples pointing at you at a conference/lecture.
At least we can use it to ID the poor students now.
I always loved the illuminated Apple logo. The Apple logo is probably one of the most recognized brand marks in the world. Proudly emblazening each laptop with it was the best and least expensive form of advertising possible. Who didn't see that glowing Apple and want one for themselves?
That glowing logo didn't just emit light - it emitted pride of product and pride of ownership. Apple has cheapened the user experience by cheapening the product in this way.
That glowing logo didn't just emit light - it emitted pride of product and pride of ownership. Apple has cheapened the user experience by cheapening the product in this way.
What I loved about that particular indicator was that it pulsed about in time with a slow breathing rate, which really conveyed the concept of "sleep" in a lovely and intuitive way. I haven't had a Mini in a long time so I didn't know they'd axed that. Weird choice to cut it out.
Side note, I will say, Apple has always been very good about not overusing blinding LEDs. I can't count how many external drives or other devices I've bought over the years that had "indicator" lights as bright as little flashlights. I had a cable router for a while that was so bright the light would escape the closed door of my bedroom closet. Just insane.
On the (hopefully) rare occasion you needed to troubleshoot display issues, it was a benefit. Shine a flashlight or other strong light source through the Apple logo to help isolate whether the problem related only to the backlight or involved the LCD and more components without an initial need for any disassembly.
I miss it too. I know it doesn't make sense, but it's those details that don't make sense that drew me to Apple in the first place. It's like "hey, we made this for you with this detail just to make it pretty". I also see it in packaging. I know smaller boxes makes more sense, but when they threw in a dock with an iPod or those acrylic boxes iPods came in... All that was technically unnecessary, but it made it a better experience in my opinion. Same with the battery indicator on the side of Macbooks. Miss it too.
No, that is not it... it is almost about Apple's "soul" as a company and what Apple stands for these days. Steve Jobs always said that Apple was a company positioned at the crossroads of art and technology. The glowing Apple logo was pure art. The machine was pure technology. The combined product was pure (Steve Jobs) Apple.
I am not sure what Apple stands for these days, but it definitely is not the company that Steve Jobs created and ran.
Is there a Steve Jobs version of Godwin's law? That all conversations online involving Apple will eventually become a conversation about what Steve would or wouldn't have done?
I'm not sure how removing the glowing logo (which had its own detrimental impacts on display quality) cheapens the product. Likewise, displays now are significantly thinner and use a completely different backlighting system, so how would Apple even be able to return to that style without compromising somewhere else?
Even Steve himself told Tim Cook not to play the "What would Steve do?" card when he took over as CEO. Those days are gone.
... and more's the pity! Apple's erstwhile focus on technology and art gave rise to some incredible products. Can you see Tim Cook bringing to market revolutionary designs like the G4 iMac or the G4 Cube? I don't think so.
Back in Steve Job's day, Apple was exciting, revolutionary, ground breaking... now it is just another leading technology company, playing Tim Cook's never ending game of progressive incrementalism.
Think Different? Not anymore. Even Apple's once famous disruptive marketing is now a thing of the past. Those days are gone too, and we are all a little the lesser for it.
Last edited:
Before someone says it before me, yes I am an unapologetic Steve Jobs fan boy. He was a genius, a force of nature, a phenomenon not to be repeated anytime soon. Rest in peace, Steve.
Most of those designs you laud were Johnny Ive creations, and he left Apple some time ago. He also was driving the move towards thinner and lighter MacBooks, which is what led to the butterfly keyboard and all of its flaws. Given the transition away from Intel and the subsequent growth of Apple Silicon, even Steve would be taking a backseat at this point in time.
Arguably the Mac Pro 6,1 was a combination of both the G4 iMac’s base design and the Cube (cylindrical, inlet designed similarly at the bottom with a vertical thermal design with top end ‘pro’ performance) came out in Cook’s tenure. Although laughably marketed, the XDR display’s stand/arm is also a call back to the iMac G4. I think the problem these days is there’s not as many constraints to birth out revolutionary solutions like those mentioned, as the iMac G4 was because of hardware performance and display technology whereas the Cube was just 10/20 years too early.
Last edited:
@dmccloud, agreed. Johnny Ive played a big part in both of the machines I mentioned, but Steve was obsessed with square computers - witness the NeXT machines! The Cube had Steve written all over it!
I would be lying if I did not admit that the square footprint of the Mac Studio, with it's obvious G4 Cube heritage, played more than a small part in my decision to purchase one.
As for Johnny Ive, his obsession with making everything thinner, all the time, became counter productive IMHO. When I read the latest breathless marketing copy about how the new iDevice is x% lighter and thinner than its predecessor, I just roll my eyes. How thin does an iPhone or an IPad really need to be after all?
I would be lying if I did not admit that the square footprint of the Mac Studio, with it's obvious G4 Cube heritage, played more than a small part in my decision to purchase one.
As for Johnny Ive, his obsession with making everything thinner, all the time, became counter productive IMHO. When I read the latest breathless marketing copy about how the new iDevice is x% lighter and thinner than its predecessor, I just roll my eyes. How thin does an iPhone or an IPad really need to be after all?
Last edited:
Thin enough that you NEED to put it in a case, negating the thinness, because part of Ive's thought process omitted the common sense that having a glass front AND back did nothing for structural integrity if it slipped out of your fingers. Glass is not very grippy.