Future proofing concept?

[DukeDevlin]

Hey,

I would like to know your opinion on the concept of "Future Proofing", especially when buying a new computer, in this case a Mac. What should you think about when you buy a new computer?
Let's take my example. I have had a Macbook Air model 2013 with all the options (i7, 512GB SSD, 8GB Ram) for 7 years. It continues to work perfectly, I have no problems with it. Nevertheless, since 4 years, I've been making video montages under Final Cut Pro on a weekly basis as well as thumbnails on Photoshop. For basic video montages, it's still very good, as soon as they get more complex, it gets complicated. That's why, in the coming days, I'm going to buy a 16" Macbook Pro. I already have a model in mind following your recommendations: i9 2.3; 1TB; 32GB RAM; AMD 5500 8GB.

Nevertheless, I can't find a consensus on the following question: When buying a new model, is it necessary to systematically reason with this notion of "Future Proofing"?

If I continue with my example, the question would be: In 5 years, will a boosted model still be able to meet my needs (as opposed to a basic model)? Or on the other hand, whatever model you choose, in 5 years, it will be obsolete and you will have to change it anyway if you want to continue doing video editing in 4K in a fluid way.
That's the debate I'm having right now. Is it worth it to add another 1000 euros because it guarantees you a computer that will still be as powerful in 8-10 years, or on the contrary, it will not be the case and in 5 years, you will have to put 3000 euros back on the table no matter what you choose?

You understand my reflection, this sustainability story is my haunting. As much concerning iPhones, I like to change every 2-3 years, as much as a computer that costs at least 3000 euros, I prefer to change it as little as possible in the years to come. The idea is to have a machine that meets my needs as long as possible, here, editing 4K videos on 5 minutes to 1 hour rushes smoothly on FCPX (and using Photoshop too) today and for years to come. So, is it worth adding a 1000 euros option? Does it guarantee a better hold over time?
You'll understand that I base my reflection on my user experience of my 2013 Air model. 7 years later, it still works very well, it's only saturated because I have a need that didn't exist 7 years before and it didn't do for the video, but if it didn't, I could still keep it. I want to make it clear that video is not my job. It's a passion I have for a sport that made me open a YouTube channel and thus get into video editing.

We can also look at the problem the other way around: Would a Macbook Pro with all the options in 2012/2013 continue to perform well in 2020 to edit video in 1080p and 4K relatively smoothly?

So what's your opinion on the subject? Thanks.

 

[maflynn]

your opinion on the concept of "Future Proofing",

A marketing concept used to drive sales up for higher configured models, getting people to over buy and thus spend more money.

Back in the day when the computer industry was changing and innovating, yeah you could have made a case for such a mindset, but not for the past 10 years.

 

[DukeDevlin]

A marketing concept used to drive sales up for higher configured models, getting people to over buy and thus spend more money.

Back in the day when the computer industry was changing and innovating, yeah you could have made a case for such a mindset, but not for the past 10 years.

So, what are your recommendations about additional option on one model for example MBP 16 inch? In all cases, I have to change in 5 years?

 

[maflynn]

So, what are your recommendations about additional option on one model for example MBP 16 inch? In all cases, I have to change in 5 years?

Here's what I see:

I have had a Macbook Air model 2013 with all the options (i7, 512GB SSD, 8GB Ram)

i9 2.3; 1TB; 32GB RAM; AMD 5500 8GB.

Your 7-year-old MBA is still able to handle most of what you're doing on it, yet, you're choosing a top of the line i9, with 32GB of ram, and the high-end discrete GPU, where as your MBA doesn't even have a discrete GPU.

I have no experience or knowledge of final cut pro, but if you're generally happy with the MBA, I would say that base model of the MBP would be more then up to the task.

 

[DukeDevlin]

Here's what I see:




Your 7-year-old MBA is still able to handle most of what you're doing on it, yet, you're choosing a top of the line i9, with 32GB of ram, and the high-end discrete GPU, where as your MBA doesn't even have a discrete GPU.

I have no experience or knowledge of final cut pro, but if you're generally happy with the MBA, I would say that base model of the MBP would be more then up to the task.

Honestly, you lost me. I'm at a dead end at the moment to take a model that would suit my needs for the next 4-5 years, or to add 700 euros, to have a boosted model and hope to last longer.

 

[maflynn]

Honestly, you lost me. I'm at a dead end at the moment to take a model that would suit my needs for the next 4-5 years, or to add 700 euros, to have a boosted model and hope to last longer.

I'm not sure why I lost you.

You said

For basic video montages, it's still very good, as soon as they get more complex, it gets complicated

I took that sentence to say that your MBA is meeting your needs. Is that assumption accurate?

 

[Fishrrman]

I reckon you could buy the current "base model" 16" (which has 16gb of RAM and a 512gb SSD and a 2.6ghz i7), and -- 7-8 years from now -- STILL not be using it to full capacity.

Anything more is wasting your money.

The only "future" you'll be guaranteeing by buying "as much as you can get", is... Apple's.

TIP:
You can get even more for your money by buying this as an Apple refurb -- currently selling for around $2,039 (US).

 

[DukeDevlin]

I'm not sure why I lost you.

You said


I took that sentence to say that your MBA is meeting your needs. Is that assumption accurate?

I'm losing myself. I'm sorry.I was saying that currently my 2013 MBA is working perfectly for the office part, but as soon as I do 4K editing, or editing with long rushes and effects, this last RAM and runs in a vacuum. Hence this desire to have a more powerful model giving comfort to my video editing and fluidity in my work. Nevertheless, I have this choice between taking the basic model which will hold maybe 3-4 years, or adding options to hope to be comfortable in 8-10 years.
[automerge]1589294119[/automerge]

I reckon you could buy the current "base model" 16" (which has 16gb of RAM and a 512gb SSD and a 2.6ghz i7), and -- 7-8 years from now -- STILL not be using it to full capacity.

Anything more is wasting your money.

The only "future" you'll be guaranteeing by buying "as much as you can get", is... Apple's.

TIP:
You can get even more for your money by buying this as an Apple refurb -- currently selling for around $2,039 (US).

So, this model is comfortable when you think about the future, while having a margin of progress on my current set-ups?

 

[DukeDevlin]

Right now, at Instant T, I think even a basic 16-inch model would satisfy my needs. Knowing that basic mounts are going on my 2013 Air. But changing machine will allow me to finally have a timeline with a better resolution, increase the resolution of my videos, add effects etc.. While having a fluidity on FCPX. Except if YouTube changes its standards, but I think, without being mistaken, that in 4-6 years, my first needs will be to be able to edit 4K rushes in a fluid way (with effects that go well) while doing in parallel the graphic identity of the channel on Photoshop. Here, the debate is more: In 8-10 years, will I still be able to meet these needs in a fluid way with a 16" MBP? If yes, with which, if not, is it worth taking a boosted version (the one proposed with the i9) compared to a basic version (even boosted to 32GB). In itself, do these additional 500-1000 euros guarantee me something once these 4-5 years have passed.

 

[hobowankenobi]

So called future-proofing is hard...as we simply don't know what is coming. I would suggest that tech generally jumps up every so often, and then sits at a relative plateau for a while...then another jump. With video editing, 4K was that last big jump. When will the next one come?

One could reasonably argue that 4K will be good enough for a long time, and so hardware that can handle editing and rendering should last a long time too. OTOH, tech marches forward, and 8K cameras are available now, and getting cheaper all the time. At what point with a higher res become the new standard? Hard to say. We could have a whole discussion about file size, streaming bandwidth limitations, etc. that could cap the use of super high res for general purpose video.

Having said that, yes, generally higher spec hardware has a longer usabale life, as software and processing requirements increase over time.

My general rule is that the sweet spot in the cost/benefit ratio is usually the mid-tier hardware:

• Low-end gets pushed out fairly fast.
• High-end gear lasts longer, but the cost-per-year of ownership is high as well.

One complicating factor is that back when Macs were generally easily upgradable, one could buy a lower spec machine and upgrade RAM and storage over time, and extend the useable life of the machine, usually at low prices (as RAM and storage prices typically fall over time). But with fewer and fewer upgrades easily possible, for most Macs that is no longer an option. We must buy higher spec machines to maximize useful life.

Based on this, I would say as a general rule for upgradeable Macs: minimum of 16GB of RAM, and only solid-state storage. 32GB might make sense depending on tools and workflow.

Last I checked, 2D video editing was CPU intensive, sometimes GPU intensive (depending on tools), and not RAM intensive. If this is still the case, a video rig should get the fastest CPU one can afford for both faster rendering today, and the longest usable life.

Don't forget fast, large external storage too. If I were trying to keep costs down, I would go 500GB internal storage, and buy both SSD and HD external storage for more space per $, as well as more flexibility down the road.

 

[DukeDevlin]

So called future-proofing is hard...as we simply don't know what is coming. I would suggest that tech generally jumps up every so often, and then sits at a relative plateau for a while...then another jump. With video editing, 4K was that last big jump. When will the next one come?

One could reasonably argue that 4K will be good enough for a long time, and so hardware that can handle editing and rendering should last a long time too. OTOH, tech marches forward, and 8K cameras are available now, and getting cheaper all the time. At what point with a higher res become the new standard? Hard to say. We could have a whole discussion about file size, streaming bandwidth limitations, etc. that could cap the use of super high res for general purpose video.

Having said that, yes, generally higher spec hardware has a longer usabale life, as software and processing requirements increase over time.

My general rule is that the sweet spot in the cost/benefit ratio is usually the mid-tier hardware:

• Low-end gets pushed out fairly fast.
• High-end gear lasts longer, but the cost-per-year of ownership is high as well.

One complicating factor is that back when Macs were generally easily upgradable, one could buy a lower spec machine and upgrade RAM and storage over time, and extend the useable life of the machine, usually at low prices (as RAM and storage prices typically fall over time). But with fewer and fewer upgrades easily possible, for most Macs that is no longer an option. We must buy higher spec machines to maximize useful life.

Based on this, I would say as a general rule for upgradeable Macs: minimum of 16GB of RAM, and only solid-state storage. 32GB might make sense depending on tools and workflow.

Last I checked, 2D video editing was CPU intensive, sometimes GPU intensive (depending on tools), and not RAM intensive. If this is still the case, a video rig should get the fastest CPU one can afford for both faster rendering today, and the longest usable life.

Don't forget fast, large external storage too. If I were trying to keep costs down, I would go 500GB internal storage, and buy both SSD and HD external storage for more space per $, as well as more flexibility down the road.

You’re totally right! So do you think that worth it to upgrade 16inch basic model?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I’d say wait until WWDC definitely. Because, future-proofing as an idea may have changed wildly by then. If ARMacOS becomes a thing, any ARM based system is going to have a much longer future than any Intel one.

 

[hobowankenobi]

I’d say wait until WWDC definitely. Because, future-proofing as an idea may have changed wildly by then. If ARMacOS becomes a thing, any ARM based system is going to have a much longer future than any Intel one.

This a good question. And it is open to debate.

My opinion: If ARM OS comes this year...it will be either a new MacBook Air, or possibly a totally new low cost, highly mobile portable....perhaps the new Macbook (again). It will not be a MBP contender either in CPU or GPU power. There may also be desktop to replace or be the low end of the Mini line.

Point is...we may see an ARM Mac this year, but it won't be any of the higher end, higher power machines, at least to start. Nothing with an i9 or i7, and perhaps even an i5.

My hunch is that we will see ARM move up through the lines over a couple of years with the iMac Pro and Mac Pro being the last to convert. That might take more than 2-3 years.

If I am right, that will mean full support for X86 Macs for many years. I would not be shocked it they forked the OS and had "consumer" devices with ARMos and "pro" devices with Mac(X86)os for the foreseeable future.

Apple has always been fairly focused on a line up that consumers can understand, with little overlap. So I don't see them overlapping A series CPUs with X86 CPUs. Nor can they stop supporting the high-end Macs....like the 16" MBP or worse...imagine spending $15K on a Mac Pro today, and finding out 2 years later it is at a (software) dead end. I don't see that coming.

If I am wrong, and Apple converts most or all of the product line at once....all bets are off.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

but it won't be any of the higher end, higher power machines, at least to start. Nothing with an i9 or i7, and perhaps even an i5.

Apple’s last transition saw all lines transitioned in a little less than a year, so I’m expecting that here just because it mirrors what they’ve done before. Additionally, when I consider two things:
1. Apple is easily outpacing i7’s and exceeding i9 levels in some mobile benchmarks (and that’s with current chips), and
2. Apple may not have much reason to offer a tiered processor structure
(they haven’t offered a tiered structure on the iPhone or iPad, the lowest configuration has the same processor as the highest)

... then Apple COULD release something like a MacBook Air that executes FCPX faster AND more efficiently than the current 16 inch MacBook Pro. This is by no means a given, but it’s just one of those things that could really upend any future-proofing. It wouldn’t be unlike them to make the primary difference between a future low end machine and a high end machine focused on the size of the screen and features instead of the CPU power. We’ll have to wait until the end of June to know for sure, but I look forward to the side-by-side comparison demonstrations.

and finding out 2 years later it is at a (software) dead end. I don't see that coming.

Without going deep in the whole ARM thing as this isn’t an ARM thread , any developer using Xcode (which is almost all of them) would be able to produce both ARM and Intel executables easily. So, a transition of the entire line to ARM doesn’t alter a developers ability to continue to support the first year Mac Pro purchasers.

Translating an ARM iOS App to Intel macOS Using Bitcode

www.highcaffeinecontent.com

I’d be against picking out your 16 inch until WWDC. When they describe their future roadmap and it means a beast of an A-series chip, BUT it’s not being released until first quarter of next year, then you’ll have a much better picture of your next steps.

 

[DukeDevlin]

So I don’t know what I have to do... Basic model? Boosted model?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

So I don’t know what I have to do... Basic model? Boosted model?

With the need that you’ve defined, the basic model should certainly fulfill your needs for 10 years. The wrinkle right now is that there’s rumors that Apple may introduce a new architecture that provides different performance expectations. The better question may not be “Do I spend an additional 1000” but instead “Do I wait for a few more months”.

I know you’ve been waiting 4 years, but if you can wait until WWDC in June, revisit this thread to see if any of the new info we have by then defines whether you should get a base 16 or some new, as yet unannounced, system.

 

[DukeDevlin]

With the need that you’ve defined, the basic model should certainly fulfill your needs for 10 years. The wrinkle right now is that there’s rumors that Apple may introduce a new architecture that provides different performance expectations. The better question may not be “Do I spend an additional 1000” but instead “Do I wait for a few more months”.

I know you’ve been waiting 4 years, but if you can wait until WWDC in June, revisit this thread to see if any of the new info we have by then defines whether you should get a base 16 or some new, as yet unannounced, system.

Thanks. In June, we will get some news about ARM system?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Thanks. In June, we will get some news about ARM system?

The rumors are stating that an ARM Mac system is coming in late 2020 or 2021. If it’s true, Apple would have to announce at WWDC so developers can prepare. If there’s no announcement at WWDC, then the rumor is likely not true and you can get the base 16-inch knowing it’s the best choice you can make with the information available by then.

 

[DukeDevlin]

The rumors are stating that an ARM Mac system is coming in late 2020 or 2021. If it’s true, Apple would have to announce at WWDC so developers can prepare. If there’s no announcement at WWDC, then the rumor is likely not true and you can get the base 16-inch knowing it’s the best choice you can make with the information available by then.

Thanks. ARM will be impacted 16 inch model, not just the little model?

 

[NewUsername]

The problem is, you can put 64GB RAM in your notebook but in 2030 it will still have a 2020 processor, GPU, display, ports, Wifi, et cetera. Instead of future-proofing, it is probably better to buy a cheap MacBook, and every three years you sell it and buy a new one. Count the money you save. It won't save the environment of course.

However, for the amount of time you spend using a computer, I think even a 16" MBP is actually a fairly cheap device. Let's say you buy a 2399 dollar MacBook Pro, use it for five years and then accidentally destroy it. You spent 2400 dollar for 60 months, that's still just 40 dollar per month. If you can still sell it after five years it's even a lot less. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Thanks. ARM will be impacted 16 inch model, not just the little model?

We don’t know yet. If we knew that Apple will absolutely NOT be updating the 16 inch model for a few years, then you could go with the base configuration. This is info that Apple’s likely to provide as a part of the WWDC presentation.

For example, during the transition from PowerPC to Intel, they announced that the entire line will be updated to Intel within a year, and they did.

 

[Cayenne1]

How do you future proof against OS and Application changes? Often long before the hardware dies, software updates can leave your computer behind. But, soft obsolescence is very related to what applications you need.

For instance, some power applications like Final Cut Pro need Mojave or even Catalina to run. You cannot get the High Sierra version from the app store anymore. Microsoft is famous for new versions of Windows or Office not compatible with older PCs. I have one in the basement that runs fine, but can't go higher than XP.

So, my solution was to just load up my 2017 27" iMac minus memory (add 3rd party later). I run graphics applications so the Radeon Pro 580 8192 MB graphics card works great. I also added the 1 TB SSD which probably helps more than the i7 processor on many items.

At some point I'll need to upgrade the hardware. But, it might be more of a want vs need at the time. Get the most in your box you can afford. It'll last until Apple obsoletes it with OS 20.0.0. years from now.

 

[DukeDevlin]

What disturbs me is that I heard everything and its opposite.

• ⁠Some people here have told me: Don't worry, the 16-inch base is enough for you.
• ⁠Others told me that to be comfortable over 4-6 years, I needed to have 32 GB of RAM.
• ⁠Others told me to do an i9 / 32GB / 5500 8GB config.
• ⁠Others told me to wait.
• ⁠Others told me not to wait because the changes would be minor in 2020 and tests show that a 10th generation chip is not extremely better than the old one. The gain does not justify delaying the purchase and that ARM would only concern small models at Apple.

The more subjects I open up, the more opinions I have, and that confuses me. There is almost a different consensus for each subject I open. I'm confused.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

What disturbs me is that I heard everything and its opposite.

• ⁠Some people here have told me: Don't worry, the 16-inch base is enough for you.
• ⁠Others told me that to be comfortable over 4-6 years, I needed to have 32 GB of RAM.
• ⁠Others told me to do an i9 / 32GB / 5500 8GB config.
• ⁠Others told me to wait.
• ⁠Others told me not to wait because the changes would be minor in 2020 and tests show that a 10th generation chip is not extremely better than the old one. The gain does not justify delaying the purchase and that ARM would only concern small models at Apple.

The more subjects I open up, the more opinions I have, and that confuses me. There is almost a different consensus for each subject I open. I'm confused.

Right, and it's going to remain that way. People have been debating this question for decades and there's never a single pat answer.

My basic feelings are:

1) A computer is a system. You can boost certain parts of that system (CPU, RAM, GPU, storage), but the rest you can't change. It makes no sense to buy something that MAYBE will be the right thing in 5 years when other components that can't be changed may turn out to be a bottleneck.

2) The future is unknowable. Trying to anticipate change is a very imprecise art (it's certainly not science).

3) Buy what you know will improve your performance/productivity over the next 3-5 years. Enjoy those benefits now, worry about the future when it arrives.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

What disturbs me is that I heard everything and its opposite.

Having more opinions is good! That just means that from the time you started looking into this, you’ve found out SO much more that should factor into your decision.

Starting with “How much do I want to spend?” is always good. See what you can get for what you can afford and just go with that. Your last purchase was a laptop for general use, that could also run FCPX if you needed it to. In buying a MBP 16-inch now, you’re getting a computer meant to run FCPX from day one. Regardless of what configuration you get, from the base, all the way up to the high end, they’re all going to run FCPX better longer than your Air.

Now, what no one here can help you with, is whether your modest hobby usage of FCPX will grow dramatically in the future. Because you don’t know if it will or not. You mentioned:

I want to make it clear that video is not my job. It's a passion I have for a sport that made me open a YouTube channel and thus get into video editing.

If this is true and WILL be true in the future, then literally any 16-inch configuration you buy will be sufficient. Because today’s 16-inches already perform well with FCPX today. Look at this text from Apple’s page.

1. Testing conducted by Apple in October 2019 using preproduction 2.4GHz 8-core Intel Core i9-based 16-inch MacBook Pro systems with 64GB of RAM and shipping 3.1GHz quad-core Intel Core i7-based 15-inch MacBook Pro systems with 16GB of RAM. Tested with Final Cut Pro 10.4.7 using a 50-second Multicam project with 11 streams of Apple ProRes RAW video, at 4096x2160 resolution and 23.98 frames per second. Multicam playback with Angle Viewer in Final Cut Pro was set to display 16 angles. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of MacBook Pro.

This is a load that Apple considers would be representative of potential MBP buyers TODAY. It doesn’t sound like you’re working with 11 streams of Apple ProRes RAW video (and not looking at 16 angles at once?) And, if you’re not, and you never do, then you may never see the benefit of the additional processing power of the 2.4 i9 even after 10 years. It might be 1000 wasted. That’s why the most important thing for you, based on what information you’ve provided, is to buy what you can comfortably afford.

Having said allllllll that, if you were a family member or a close personal friend of mine, there is NO WAY I’d let you spend a penny on a new computer this close to WWDC.