Apple don't cut corners. They cut features that make them more money in the long run.
[doublepost=1484924391][/doublepost]
Yes, but Apple believe they're still on top more than anybody. They're blinded by their own ignorance.
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.
New MBP—and Everything Else—is Threatening My Apple Purchasing Habits
- Thread starter BWhaler
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple don't cut corners. They cut features that make them more money in the long run.
[doublepost=1484924391][/doublepost]
Yes, but Apple believe they're still on top more than anybody. They're blinded by their own ignorance.
IMO, that's precisely why Steve Jobs put Ive (his "spiritual peer") in charge of product design and Cook in charge of the management-end of things.
"Toward the end of his life, Jobs told Walter Isaacson, “If I had a spiritual partner at Apple, it’s Jony. Jony and I think up most of the products together and then pull others in and say, ‘Hey, what do you think about this?’ He gets the big picture as well as the most infinitesimal details about each product. And he understands that Apple is a product company. He’s not just a designer."
So between the 2001 game-changing iPod and the 2007 game-changing iPhone, it's pretty hard to objectively look at what Apple did (under Steve Jobs) and say that they weren't rehashing existing products to be slightly thinner/lighter (PowerBooks, iPods) or to have different screen sizes (iPod morphing into iPod Photo, introduction of 15"/17" PowerBooks), or come in different colors (iPod shuffles).
2001 -- game changer: iPod
- 2001 PowerBook G4: “The new Titanium PowerBook G4 is the world’s thinnest and lightest professional notebook and offers stunning improvements in both video and processor performance,”
- 2002 PowerBook G4 w/ SuperDrive: “The Titanium PowerBook G4 is the thinnest and lightest pro notebook in the industry."
- 2003 New 15-inch PowerBook: "Apple® today introduced the all-new 15-inch PowerBook® G4, offering an unrivaled mix of power and portability in a sleek aluminum design weighing just 5.6 pounds."
- 2004 - U2 iPod / iPod Photo
- 2004 - New PowerBook G4 Line: “No other notebook packs so much performance and so many cutting-edge features, including large widescreen displays, high-speed wireless networking, advanced connectivity and industry leading graphics, into such a thin and light design.”
- 2005 - New iPod: "Apple today introduced the new iPod®, featuring a gorgeous 2.5-inch color screen"
- 2005 - iPod Nano: "Apple® today introduced the iPod® nano, a revolutionary full-featured iPod that holds 1,000 songs yet is thinner than a standard #2 pencil and less than half the size of competitive players."
- 2006 - iPod shuffle: "Nearly half the size of the original, the new iPod shuffle is just half a cubic inch in volume, weighs just half an ounce and features a minimal aluminum design with a built-in clip, making it the most wearable iPod ever."
- 2006 - MacBook Pro: "The new MacBook Pro, the first Mac notebook based on an Intel processor, features a stunning aluminum enclosure just one inch thin, weighs only 5.6 pounds"
2007 -- game changer: iPhone
Last edited:
A brand new product take years to develop unlike slapping new processors and graphics on last year model.
It's also the same reason why the MacBook Air proves to be revolutionary and invented the Ultrabook category despite the first iteration of the MacBook Air being very expensive and seriously underpowered.
What I think people miss is the purpose behind those changes.
For example, people thought of laptops as huge bricks until Apple released the MacBook Air and invented the ultrabook category.
When Apple introduced the MacBook Pro Retina, Apple was the first to release a laptop with high screen resolution.
Of cause, at some point, the product have become so thin that it reached the point of diminishing returns.
Last edited:
I could fill a bag with all the adapters and docks that couldn't be used with 2012 MB Pro that I own today. One of them, a fat video-to-HDMI cable, is still plugged into my TV even though the last computer to use it is long gone.
Again, all this hand-wringing suddenly manifesting itself in 2016 seems silly when the exact same thing has been happening for decades.
+1
I'm more and more inclined to get a 12" MB next time around. When I'm honest with myself about how I use a computer, it's really all that I need and nothing I don't. I would certainly not shy away from the newest models, though, either.
You appear to be confusing innovation with greatness. The first is great, you think, but doing something better than before isn't. Whatever.
Steve Jobs worship is a curious thing in itself, but rather than speculate on anti-factual notions of what he would have thought, it's more sensible to stick with facts. The new 15" machines are better in almost every way than their predecessors.
Now that's irony!
You said, "Tim Cook is like a salesman who is trying to get kids to pay 50% more for same candy." Again, when was it so cheap for a comparable machine that the new one represents a 50% increase? True answer: never.
By objective measures the 2016 15" is better than the 2015 in nearly every way. But don't let facts get in the way of myth.
MacBook Pro 15" was $1799. Sure it wasn't a 50% increase, but you get the idea.
Also, the 2016 MBP is in many ways worse than the 2016 model: worse keyboard, lack of any ports except for USB Type-C.
You might say that Steve Jobs got rid of the optical drive and FireWire, but USB was already ubiquitous when it took place of the optical drive, but not so for USB Type-C. FireWire is proprietary and was never widely adopted.
Last edited:
Again, and I think this was already clear, the older $1799 machine wasn't remotely the "same candy."
Again, by objective measures, the new MBP is better in nearly every way, where objective factors apply. The keyboard is a matter of taste. Some like it better, so not as much. The lack of legacy ports is a disadvantage for some, but the new Mac's ports are objectively far more powerful, flexible and compact. The new Mac optimizes the ports for the space allowed.
Again, a tiny $5 adapter will solve the horrible, terrible lack of USB-A connectivity.
As I have previously said, the analogy is good, but imperfect.
Technology gets cheaper over time.
For example, SSD now costs less than 1/6 of what it did in 2012, yet Apple didn't increase the SSD capacity of MacBook Pro by six folds.
Chocolate obviously does not costs 1/6 of what it did 5 years ago.
Not a good analogy by any measure. What you've said is flatly false. Let's not mislead people who might actually believe what they read here.
People keep harping on USB-C as if it can't do anything else. You know it's not true.
And a point of history --
USB did not replace the optical drive -- it replaced ADB, SCSI, and GeoPort, among others. Arguably, USB would not have become ubiquitous if the iMac hadn't used it as its main peripheral connector. It also helped drive people away from floppy disks (in college, I used to gather up AOL installer disks that were laying around in the student union and erase them for my own use) as USB thumb drives were created a few years later.
What replaced the optical drive was online downloads. Being able to push out new software without printing easily-damaged CDROMs was certainly a welcome change.
FireWire, yes, wasn't widely adopted because it was expensive and, relative to USB, more power-hungry.
I wouldn't say that.
Back in the day, if you buy boxed software, when you open the box, you used to find a disc (or discs) inside.
These days, when you open the box, you find a flash drive
[doublepost=1484946913][/doublepost]
Oh, okay.
The price increased by 33.33%.
Are you now satisfied?
Again, not for the same machine, or even close to it. The new one is much better than the one you're comparing to. This isn't nearly as hard to follow as you're making it.
As I said, the price of technology goes down over time.
If every time something new is release, the price has to go up, a computer would cost millions of dollars.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you think companies that find increasing success and demand for their products have to keep prices flat since their costs for components for those products are decreasing?
No, your Apple died with Steve Jobs. Believe it or not, Apple was a thing without him, especially the stuff in a forum like this. Albeit, more of a private club thing. I'll bet there are a few here who would love to see it return to the old days.
Frankly though, I can't remember details. All I know is if Windows was actually better, I would switch.
I remember when the Apple notebooks were not so great; dim screens, and expensive. Now all the pieces come together (but still way expensive, even more so after this launch).
Just rambling.....sorry
Last edited:
...yeah, a nearly dead "thing"
Leadership and direction matters..
Would you prefer Sculley, Jobs or Cook Apple?
(sure hope you'd say Jobs)
Windows is ok, but the problem is that Microsoft never went the hardware route except with the Surface; which highlights the attributes of controlling both the hardware and software, as Surface is fantastic and looks a hell of a lot like Apple stuff.
If MS made (regular) notebooks like Surface I probably would switch if the price was right. That actually would be a healthy competition, no?
By 'regular', I mean without all the extra stuff, that adds weight and cost.
Last edited:
Windows is "ok" is being generous in my eyes...
I use Windows 10 every day on my HTPC and it's still the same crap to me that it's always been. It looks better than it used to, but it's mostly lipstick on the same old pig of problems (to me anyhow).
I basically just tolerate it since it's a better platform for the gaming I do on my HTPC.
I think I'd turn change professions if I had to use Windows in a professional manner all day.
You may be right, I don't use it that much. For a while there it was God awful mess. I used to like XP and even 95. DOS was cool
That's a patently ridiculous statement. You aren't using Windows all day. You're using an app that runs in Windows. The interactions with the OS are few and far between compared to the time you spend actually doing something productive in the app you use. If you're sitting there playing with Windows Explorer and the Start menu all day, then you aren't getting anything done.
My you are certainly positive about what I do and how much interaction I have with my OS (vs in apps) aren't you!?
lol
(no, I'm not going to get into what I do - not interested in sharing that here)
Could you at least recognize that perhaps Windows and the interactions with it (in any form and location and process) are more bothersome to some of us than perhaps for you?
Not all of us have interactions that are primarily "get in an App and the OS doesn't matter all day".