Jony Ive’s vision was killed today

[Gudi]

I also have a hunch that Steve Jobs might have been a fellow INTP. Here's my evidence: his uncommon viewpoint that computers are a 'bicycle of the mind', his insistence that Mac menus needed to have rounded corners, his ability to get fired from the company he founded by getting on everyone's nerves, his shout-out 'to the crazy ones, who do change the world' in the Think different! campaign, his rejection of a potentially life-saving cancer surgery in favor of alternative treatments like acupuncture, dietary supplements and juices. He definitely was a unique personality, who succeeded to make a dent in the universe. Dearly missed. 

 

[ArkSingularity]

I am neither. I am an INTP (Logician) personality. My strange tendency to over-analyze absolutely everything from every angle and come to my very own personal conclusion is bound to seem erratic and eccentric to people who can’t follow my frequent mental leaps. But I’m not defying all logic reasoning, I am way too logic to explain myself.

See, I can relate (I'm actually an ENFP, but I think in much the same way). But what I've learned is that in those gaps where I made big jumps in reasoning, often I learned something in going back and fleshing out the WHY.

Intuition can get you to a solution or an answer quickly, sometimes even when you don't have time to go through all of the details. But it also often leaves us blind to the things we do not yet know on the way of getting there. I think there is great value in both types of minds, both of which have very different approaches towards arriving at solutions, but that balance each other out at the same time.

 

[Queen6]

I am neither. I am an INTP (Logician) personality. My strange tendency to over-analyze absolutely everything from every angle and come to my very own personal conclusion is bound to seem erratic and eccentric to people who can’t follow my frequent mental leaps. But I’m not defying all logic reasoning, I am way too logic to explain myself.

Guilty as charged, if can fall into the right field can be very lucrative...

Q-6

 

[dmccloud]

Of course, I do shift my arguments! How else do you counter a completely non-related rebuttal over economics 101, then with another completely non-related lecture over biology 101?

Miniaturisation is so essential for progress in chip technology that it doesn't even get mentioned in Gordon Moore's Law: "The number of transistors in an integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years." He only speaks about quantity, because transistor size doesn't matter (other than as an enabler of more quantity, of course). Size can go to almost zero, as long as you can still distinguish between zero and one.
I've yet to hear a real argument for why smaller more integrated computers aren't always better. Frank Zappa couldn't convince me. Until you come up with one, I regard that discussion as finished.

Continuously shifting the goalposts and redefining things as you go is proof that you have no real argumentation and just try to dance around to "win" an argument. You also just contradicted yourself AGAIN, by stating in the same sentence that miniturization is essential in chip technology then also claiming "transistor size doesn't matter". Not only is that irrelevent to the original discussion (the design of computers as a whole, NOT the CPUs inside them), but it has no bearing on the overall size of a computer.

You try to deal in absolutes ("I've yet to hear a real argument for why smaller more integrated computers aren't always better."), most likely because in your mind that gives you an advantage in the argument. But you consistently fail to recognize or admit that absolutism will almost always fail because the world isn't all 1s and 0s. Then you randomly bring Frank Zappa into the argument, which has about as much relevance to this discussion as Germany's performance in the Women's World Cup.

 

[dmccloud]

I am neither. I am an INTP (Logician) personality. My strange tendency to over-analyze absolutely everything from every angle and come to my very own personal conclusion is bound to seem erratic and eccentric to people who can’t follow my frequent mental leaps. But I’m not defying all logic reasoning, I am way too logic to explain myself.

If you can't explain your logic, then by definition you aren't actually logical. Given that the definition of logic is "
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity," the inability to tie your logic into any such principles by definition makes it illogical reasoning.

 

[nmt1900]

Higher levels of integration reduce the overall risk of hardware failure. The part most prone to wear and tear is the battery, not RAM or SSD. So for repairability the battery must be user replaceable.

It can be this way with mobile devices like iPhone. Not so much with Pro-level computer which can wear SSD out by intense work quite easily - and with soldered-on NAND death of SSD makes your computer a piece of scrap. Only way to remediate this is replacement of motherboard which is usually not feasible due to cost.

This should be addressed as well before others will do the same. Macbook Pro is not a glorified iPad.

 

[leman]

It can be this way with mobile devices like iPhone. Not so much with Pro-level computer which can wear SSD out by intense work quite easily - and with soldered-on NAND death of SSD makes your computer a piece of scrap. Only way to remediate this is replacement of motherboard which is usually not feasible due to cost.

This should be addressed as well before others will do the same. Macbook Pro is not a glorified iPad.

Death of anything soldered on will turn your computer in a pile of scrap. Where is the evidence that the SSD will go before some random capacitor? Are you bringing this up just because SSD has limited endurance? This argument is not convincing without demonstrating that endurance is a problem.

 

[Queen6]

Death of anything soldered on will turn your computer in a pile of scrap. Where is the evidence that the SSD will go before some random capacitor? Are you bringing this up just because SSD has limited endurance? This argument is not convincing without demonstrating that endurance is a problem.

I dont care for the approach, equally I'm not able to say a modern Mac has failed me before becoming well and truly redundant. Even the 100% stock Black Sheep of the family 15" 2011 MBP silently keeps running seemingly imperviously to abuse.

So while I dont like, I'm OK with the status quo...

Q-6

 

[leman]

So while I dont like, I'm OK with the status quo...

That’s also my thinking. Sure, I’d prefer the SSD to be easily replaceable or even upgradeable. At the same time, I don’t see any empirical evidence that the current approach leads to real, existing problems.

 

[Queen6]

That’s also my thinking. Sure, I’d prefer the SSD to be easily replaceable or even upgradeable. At the same time, I don’t see any empirical evidence that the current approach leads to real, existing problems.

Despite all the talk yet to see one fail. Personally these days I tend to purchase the lowest spec for my needs and hammer them. Same result, they seem pretty impervious to abuse. Portable Mac's may not be ToughBook's, equally they are also very far from the dainty flowers some believe.

Q-6

 

[nmt1900]

Death of anything soldered on will turn your computer in a pile of scrap. Where is the evidence that the SSD will go before some random capacitor? Are you bringing this up just because SSD has limited endurance? This argument is not convincing without demonstrating that endurance is a problem.

It is just enough to google something like "A2141 nand failure" to get reluctant in replacing my A1502 with newer machine. Even getting Magsafe and other ports back does not help if new machine is made to be "disposable" product.

It is obvious that SSD is a consumable part as battery is. They might just "embed" battery in as well as next step of "progress" to make it single-use as well

It is not a question of "if" but "when".

 

[dmccloud]

It is just enough to google something like "A2141 nand failure" to get reluctant in replacing my A1502 with newer machine. Even getting Magsafe and other ports back does not help if new machine is made to be single-use product.

It is obvious that SSD is a consumable part as battery is. They might just "embed" battery in as well as next step of "progress" to make it single-use as well

It is not a question of "if" but "when".

Given that the "when" is measured in hundreds of TB written to a drive or even hundreds of thousands of hours of use, it is more likely that the machine will become out of date long before the SSD fails. For example, the Samsung 980 Pro M.2 SSD has TBW ratings of 600x the storage capacity of the drives (250GB has a TBW of 150TB, 2TB has a TBW of 1200TB). Since Apple does not release those type of specs for its SSDs, we can only use examples such as the Samsung numbers to approximate what the soldered-in SSDs would be able to withstand.

When SSDs first hit the market, there were concerns regarding their overall reliability. However, as SSD technology has improved over the years, so has the reliability, to the point where there currently are server-focused SSDs that have a MTBF of over 1.5 million hours. Despite these improvements, there are still a handful of people who cling to that original concern over longevity as fact and overlook the years of evidence to the contrary.

 

[ArkSingularity]

It really depends on what kinds of SSDs they're using. Some of the older SSDs were actually more reliable because they used SLC NAND that could take substantially more abuse. Now, TLC is pretty much the norm. Of course, newer SSDs are larger (offsets some of this by having more blocks for wear leveling to spread writes across), and SLC caches are also used in most modern SSDs to help offset some of this also.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

I Posted already that I refused to purchase the idiotic „Thinness instead of Funktionality“ MBP Products following the 15“ 2015 MBP…
And now I purchased a wonderful 16“ M1 Max - aside of soldered SSD a pleasure to use -Thank god they fired Joni Ive !!!

After some years I purchased as well an Iphone that would never ever seen the light under Joni Ive‘s autocratic directory:

The iPhone I dreamed of for so many years:
Neither slim nor small - but a pleasure to use!

Good screen,
good battery for a long and busy day without charging although high performant
Water- and dust-resistent instead of being overloaded with useless gimmicks

The 14 Plus is a step back to more user-friendly and not too (!) much overpriced apple smartphones… although the protruding two lenses are pain in the xxx. But at least less than three and less protruding than those of the so-called „Pro“ models: „Pro“ seems to stand for „prohibitive price“ and not „professional“… but „Plus“ means really a „Plus“…

 

[t2jd1967]

I Posted already that I refused to purchase the idiotic „Thinness instead of Funktionality“ MBP Products following the 15“ 2015 MBP…
And now I purchased a wonderful 16“ M1 Max - aside of soldered SSD a pleasure to use -Thank god they fired Joni Ive !!!

After some years I purchased as well an Iphone that would never ever seen the light under Joni Ive‘s autocratic directory:

The iPhone I dreamed of for so many years:
Neither slim nor small - but a pleasure to use!

Good screen,
good battery for a long and busy day without charging although high performant
Water- and dust-resistent instead of being overloaded with useless gimmicks

The 14 Plus is a step back to more user-friendly and not too (!) much overpriced apple smartphones… although the protruding two lenses are pain in the xxx. But at least less than three and less protruding than those of the so-called „Pro“ models: „Pro“ seems to stand for „prohibitive price“ and not „professional“… but „Plus“ means really a „Plus“…

I think Pro in the iPhone stands for more and better (the best?) camera's and a better screen (since the 11 Pro) and the best possible processor (since the 14 Pro). Whether that is worth the money is of course something else.