Phil Schiller Says 32GB RAM on New MacBook Pro Would Have Required Battery Compromising Design

[544263]

When making millions of computers its not that effective to have a second logic board design only for selected few users that want 32gb ram and crappy battery life. And its crappy for marketing if one config have different batterylife than the others, and someone that really needs 32gb should have a desktop instead since everything else in a laptop would be a bottleneck for tasks thar need that amount for real anyways

the most people i know - like me - don't want a desktop and a crippled down laptop, we want ONE machine that is strong enough for all of our work while still being portable. and we're willing to spend good money on it (i always was looking at it like this: instead of getting a medium desktop and a medium laptop, i wanted to have a high end laptop - for the same budget)

what you are saying about the marketing is correct, but it just proves that what apple is doing currently doesn't make sense: apple is now selling three computers in the same segment: macbook 12", macbook air, macbook pro 13".

 

[Lalov001]

Or just make the damn thing a bit thicker?
Thickness has never been an issue with my current MBP. It operates on my desk with the top down 90% of the time, and the times I do need it for the road, an extra pound wouldn't kill me.

You do realize that this is Intel's fault for not supporting low power DDR4 and the FAA's 100W limit on laptop's batteries. Making it thicker wouldn't have achieved great battery since they would only have 24 watt-hours more.

 

[shareef777]

Too bad nobody at Apple noticed there was more space in the case.

Too bad they didn't have the MacRumors commenters available to point out what is clearly an oversight and not an intentional engineering decision.

Maybe next time, they'll post the schematics here ahead of time and we can tell them where to put the batteries.

Too bad they can't get their heads out of their ass and realize no one is buying Phil's BS excuse. All their decisions are due to size. They want it thinner and they want it lighter. Not saying it's the wrong decision, but even Apple is hiding behind other excuses.

 

[StayPuft]

Every time Phil Schiller talks, an angel dies.

 

[MallardDuck]

You know, if Schiller has to do this much damage control wouldn't most reasonable companies take this as a cue that they made a huge design error?

Or that they need to split the line between a thin/light macbook, and a powerful pro.

People get hung up on the 'pro' word because it makes them feel good to carry a 'professional' unit. Fine, call the thin/light/lower performance unit a 'pro' and call the performance unit an 'ultra'.

The new machines are really impressive for what they are, but they don't meet a power/performance user's requirements. And there's a lot more of those than Apple guessed - probably because we're the ones that turn off all the telemetry that they use to make product decisions.

Since the Mac Pro (a machine targeted at performance users) hasn't been updated in years, and now we got an ultraportable with mediocre performance, we're justifiably worried that Apple doesn't care about that segment of the market anymore.

Phil needs to just come out and say 'suck it, we're not building for the power/performance user anymore' or 'yeah, we heard you, and love is coming'.

It's time to fish or cut bait.

 

[apolloa]

Ah bless Schiller attempting his marketing talk again... it's sweet because nobody believes him. All that man sees is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

We all know they did not need to make the laptop that thin, which would have resulted in more useful ports, more powerful hardware, and bigger batteries. But no, Apple wants to maximise profits and minimise operating costs. And feed BS statements.
As for does it game? No not really, this is the result of penny pinching price gouging when a laptop with a Nvidia 1060 would make mincemeat of the new MacBook Pro for say 1 quarter of the price..

The new MacBook Pro is literally only good for the apps that are optimised for it, and that's not many because Apple has already killed of most of those...

 

[PlainviewX]

Damage control for another planned obsolescence device.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Just GIVE US THE OPTION! Let us decide whether we want battery life or more RAM.

Sorry, never mind, I thought I was on DellRumors.com.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

You can't make one model with 16 GB and another with 32 GB. That's madness. Madness I say!

You make a good point though. I'm going to test how many people in the office actually like diet coke by getting rid of the diet flavor and only stocking regular coke. If your theory is correct then people will choose to not have any soda instead of drinking the sugared flavor.

Wow is this well stated.

Sales numbers don't tell the whole story.

 

[Jimmy James]

These computers are so thin you can use them as a cutting tool. I'd say the biggest compromise to the battery is the space they left themselves to work with.

 

[decimortis]

You do realize that this is Intel's fault for not supporting low power DDR4 and the FAA's 100W limit on laptop's batteries. Making it thicker wouldn't have achieved great battery since they would only have 24 watt-hours more.

This is the internet; I don't need details, facts or logic to spout my opinions.
I only need a working keyboard and strong cup of coffee.

 

[kyykesko]

That whole computer is one big battery compromising design.

 

[apolloa]

Using the word compromise on a product that cost a ton takes courage.

Nearly four and a half tons actually.

 

[wol]

Laptops don't seem to be great for that, seems to be a load of fiddling. Did have a quick look at XPS hack but some people's idea of working isn't the same as mine.

Same here - late 2016 Dell XPS 13 comes with 7th generation Intel CPUs, while the new MacBook Pro has the previous generation. 7th generation uses slightly less Watts in "TDP-down" low power mode, but currently has the same restrictions on LPDDR3/DDR4 memory as the 6th generation.

Getting a stable Hackintosh seems challenging - one might even have to replace the WLAN/Bluetooth module, and configuration of a proper wake-up from sleep/standby seems tricky...

Intel i7-6660U (MacBook Pro 13 TB):
http://ark.intel.com/products/91169/Intel-Core-i7-6660U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz

Intel i7-7500U (XPS 13):
https://ark.intel.com/products/95451/Intel-Core-i7-7500U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz-

Hackintosh:
https://www.tonymacx86.com

 

[Thunderhawks]

may be in the near future 15" MBP will end up with 32GB magically and you have to pay $2500 and upwards to get just to get 32GB RAM.

What is up with all the so called low end macbooks ($999 and up, no one calls them as low end other than apple) end up with 8GB RAM?

the marketing and money grab really took over Pro section of the company - what ever it is!

Yes, a Pro machine should not even be available with 8GB.
I can see consumers doing fine with 8G and a 256 SSD.

Try "Handbrake" with a 16GB machine and you'll have a lot of fan noise for quite a while and Handbrake isn't even that demanding. Don't know other programs real Pro's use on their older MBPs, but would imagine the same.

 

[masteroflondon]

So, is he saying that for the next few years the MBP will not support 32GB of RAM? It's not that battery technology is moving forward that fast, and I don't see apple making a thicker laptop.

I think it's the intel CPU that won't support the 32GB of the low power memory? it just needs them to add support. Will Kaby Lake have it?

 

[MallardDuck]

This is the internet; I don't need details, facts or logic to spout my opinions.
I only need a working keyboard and strong cup of coffee.

Yeah, 24% more battery capacity doesn't help at all.

 

[masteroflondon]

Using the word compromise on a product that cost a ton takes courage.

Or just an understanding of engineering and the universe we live in.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Lol at the arm chair engineers on MR getting in a tizzy because 32GB of ram isn't supported as a low power option.

 

[dannys1]

They could make a slightly thicker one for people who so desperately need 32gb of ram, but that would require an entire new design and lets be honest, it'd be very expensive (probably $5000) and most people who say how much they need 32gb wouldn't buy it...which would make it the worst selling MacBook Pro and a complete waste of time unfortunately.

It'd be nice if there were more options from Apple for a niche market, this is where poor sales of an iPhone would help us Apple fans as they'd have to branch out, but now anything outside of the iPhone seems like a waste of time for them.

 

[Feenician]

Yes, a Pro machine should not even be available with 8GB.
I can see consumers doing fine with 8G and a 256 SSD.

Try "Handbrake" with a 16GB machine and you'll have a lot of fan noise for quite a while and Handbrake isn't even that demanding. Don't know other programs real Pro's use on their older MBPs, but would imagine the same.

Handbrake isn't particularly RAM intensive. It's all about CPU throughput (and GPU, where applicable). I doubt it would make any difference at all whether a machine has 8Gb or 16Gb.

 

[jmgregory1]

You just described your need as the Macbook Air

I own a MBA (2011 13") which is still going strong, but my current 15" rMBP (early 2013) is my everyday desktop and travel computer. It's hard to go back to the non-retina screen, although the smaller and lighter MBA was awesome for traveling with.

What I was describing is something Apple won't offer, because they're done catering to the small market of people who want / need very specific specs. And they are certainly not going to go back to some previous design / thicker case, in order to add in more battery, more powerful / energy inefficient GPU / CPU / Ram, bigger fans, etc.

 

[MallardDuck]

Lol at the arm chair engineers on MR getting in a tizzy because 32GB of ram isn't supported as a low power option.

Not what we're asking for. It's a false dilemma because you add 'low power option' in there. Give us a thicker unit, with a full battery and we'll take the unplugged time hit.

This is driven because Jony Ive secretly wants to be a fashion designer for waif-thin supermodels. All he cares about is thin. Remove that fixation, and you get a more reasonable tradeoff.

 

[dannys1]

So, is he saying that for the next few years the MBP will not support 32GB of RAM? It's not that battery technology is moving forward that fast, and I don't see apple making a thicker laptop.

Until Intel make a chip that supports DRR4L, that's not Kaby Lake by the way...

 

[0997853]

Let's do some math with some roughly estimated numbers*:

Macbook Pro 15" with Intel HD graphics:
------------
20 Wh - CPU Intel 6700HQ - TDP 45W (x1.5 would be maximum of power consumption = 67Wh, but let's say 30% average power consumption)
2 Wh - SSD
3 Wh - Retina display (considering a 7.7 Wh consumption of the whole notebook in idle)
3 Wh - other components: fans, USB, Wifi (just a guess)
0.6 Wh - 2 x 8GiB SODIMM 2133 MHz PC3-17000 LPDDR3 SDRAM (considering some RAM is on idle)
------------
28.6 Wh - TOTAL - it might be a lot more, considering the 87W USB-C Power Adapter, but let's say it's that much on an average use

Let's say that double the amount of RAM would double the power consumption. Let's see some numbers:
- 0.6 Wh from 28.6 Wh is ~2.1%
- 1.2 Wh from 29.2 Wh is ~4.1%
- The increase of power consumption from 29.2 Wh to 28.6 Wh is, of course, 2.1%
- The MBP is advertised to run for 10 hours on battery, a 2.1% increase in power drain, would mean you will be able to use your MBP on battery just for (28.6 x 10 / 29.2 = ) 9.79 hours = 9h47m, instead of 10h.

Conclusion (based on my roughly estimated numbers):
- could you live up with losing 13 mins of your battery life out of 10 hours for double the memory?
- would they have enough space to add a bigger battery to make up for the 2.1% loss?

* Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Pro#Technical_specifications_2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power
http://ark.intel.com/products/88967/Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/5dimal/lpddr3_vs_ddr4_power_usage/
http://superuser.com/questions/589709/power-consumption-ssd-vs-hdd
https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/15inchMBP_wRetinaDisplay_PER_2016.pdf