Same thing here, used to want it all, now I dont care for any of the stuff apple bring out.
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.
Phil Schiller Says 32GB RAM on New MacBook Pro Would Have Required Battery Compromising Design
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macbook pro mbp phill schiller
- Sort by reaction score
My 30 year old Apple IIgs would beg to differ. My 2011 MBP giggles at your silliness. My 2008 Mac Pro thinks you're not a great comedian.
And the ][+ from 1980 powers on every time I hit the switch. Five? That was a lot of birthdays ago.
I mean, it should only get better right? As technology/size/weight improves, all should eventually improve for the Pro line. So I don't think it is all bad. I think Apple is kind of in that middle period where they will need a few more years to really create the machine that every pro is looking for. Sucks for those that rely on macOS though, as Apple may be alienating that customer base. It could be too late by the time they get it right.
Well this summer I build myself a Windows 10 machine for my photo and video editing because I got tired of waiting for my 2012 rMBP and that has 64GB of memory. Granted, that is total overkill for me and a case of 'just because I could', but when I am editing my memory usage quite easily exceeds 16GB by a significant margin. I *need* 32GB for what I do with my computer. And I am not even a very heavy LR/PS user compared to some. Is it absolutely necessary? No. Does it help performance? Most definitely. The thing is, if you market something as 'Pro' and for creatives, you need to provide options that suit the use cases of those people you target. And a maximum configurable memory of 16GB does not do that. I have used my (Apple) laptop exclusively for the last 10 years, now I am back to a Windows desktop because Apple decided they do not want to make a portable device anymore that suits my needs.
Could I have stayed with Apple and use an iMac or Mac Pro? Sure. But at the price of a tricked out 27" iMac I could build me a Windows PC myself that runs circles around both the iMac and a base Mac Pro. Unless you are a hardcore Apple fanboy, once the preferred option is off the table, all other options are on the table. And that can and does cost Apple customers. As a result, I still have my rMBP but no more iphone, no more ipad because Android is less cumbersome when using Windows and I have left iCloud for Google as it makes syncing more flexible and Amazon for cloud storage. These are all areas Apple could have kept me as a customer if they had made a product suitable for me, so they have a lot more to lose than just a computer.
Tim, Phil and Jony need to put this on repeat:
sorry but i'd rather have the same performance regardless of being plugged in or not.. i mean, this is a laptop after all and one of the main advantages of a laptop is that it's portable and battery powered.
idk, i don't think 'shut off memory when not plugged in' is to be considered innovation.
----
i think anybody wanting 32GB in an apple laptop should probably just chill out for a while and wait until the next version.. LPDD4 should be available soon enough and we'll more-likely-than-not see it in the 2017 model.
https://www.macrumors.com/2016/10/31/macbooks-2017-price-cuts-32gb-ram/
[doublepost=1479826161][/doublepost]
lol wut.
that's exactly what everybody whining is victim of.. nobody is talking about how this computers work and are only talking about (design) specs.. if people were actually using the computer and talking about how it works then these threads would be entirely different.
That's the thing, it wasn't too wrong to begin with, then they took discrete Graphics out of the base Macbook Pro 15'' and then it started to get wrong. The 2012 and 2013 Macbook Pro's were great capable machines with little compromise and much going for them, they still are. Then 2014 they eliminated the powerful version of the Mac Mini and soldered things together. They bring out a reasonable Mac Pro re-design that has some element of pizzazz and then don't do anything whatsoever to it, not even bumping base RAM of PCIe storage sizes, then 3 years later bump the price by £500 in the UK.
This 2016 update was meant to be the year they got their act together, people have waited, they have given them a chance. If Apple stick to this strategy of possibly hurting MacOS it hurts iOS. I'd love to know return numbers for the new machines and also number of Macbooks sold via Refurb Store versus New Design.
Customer: -What's with all these limitations?
Phill: -You should be thankful you didn't get a 5400rpm glued hard drive in it.
Phill: -You should be thankful you didn't get a 5400rpm glued hard drive in it.
This is getting ridiculous. Even the prior gen MacBook Pro 15" did not use desktop class DDR. Why does anyone expect that Apple will opt for higher power consuming DDR chips than before?
I looked this up, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Early/Mid 2015 MacBook Pro 15" uses DDR3L. Early/Mid 2015 MacBook Pro 13" uses LPDDR3. So the best one'd expect Apple to do is use DDR4L in their 2016 MacBook Pro 15". But DDR4L doesn't exist yet. And then Intel does not yet support LPDDR4....
And then people jump to the conclusion that Apple should've fatten up the 2016 MBP to accommodate for desktop DDR chips??? Which was never done before in the previous gen, thicker MBPs? So I guess people want the Mac to grow bigger than the previous gen? Do you think Apple will lose more customers with a temporary 16GB RAM limit, or lose more customer with a new form-factor that is thicker and heavier than the previous one? If anyone of you wannabe pro users are in Tim Cooks shoes, you will probably bankrupt Apple in a flash.
I can now conclude there are 2 majority class of Apple users.
1. Image conscious socialites who doesn't care what's inside the box as long as the Apple logo is there.
2. Professional wannabes that don't even know what they are talking about, and attack Apple for any change that doesn't float their niche boat.
There are things that Apple screws up on, and things that makes perfect sense. With the latter more often than the former, as between their experienced executive team and engineering team, they indeed know better than the wannabe consumers most of the time. And this time, the decision makes perfect sense to me.
It's typical that upon a big form-factor upgrade, Apple device doesn't have that much of a price/performance improvement. If you dig the new form-factor and despise the price/performance, simply just wait for refurb or the next refresh. If you don't even dig the new form-factor, then just go buy some Windows POS and stop pretending that Apple owes you something. They owes you nothing, and you owes them nothing. If you really wanna carry around a Windows brick, feel free to vote with your wallet. I'll stick with a thin and powerful package in the form of a 2016+ MacBook Pro
Again, highlighting a quote from someone that seems to knows his stuff
From https://macdaddy.io/macbook-pro-limited-16gb-ram/
"Apple have never made big compromises in their engineering, and to switch to DDR4 memory now just to support 32GB would be relatively ABSURD given the disadvantages which are outlined in this article. They would be more likely to replace the Intel CPU with their in-house manufactured ARM CPU in order to support LPDDR4." *emphasis mine
By this logic, DDR4+32GB proponent are equally absurd.
The article also correctly points out that for those screaming, the laptop for you would've been the 17" version. But apparently that user base is too cheap and did not generate enough revenue to justify another SKU from Apple.
Power-users that must have 32GB RAM and wouldn't have mind carrying a 17" brick, what's wrong with the iMac or the Mac Pro anyways?
Another article from the same guy https://macdaddy.io/apples-new-macbook-pros/
"that 100 watt-hour ceiling, and that they are using the best components that they can given that ceiling.
Using the other 24 watt-hours available wouldn’t be enough to move the RAM & CPU up to the desktop counterparts in their laptop and still have reasonable battery life, so given the components they are restricted to using a 76 watt-hour battery is enough. With no such ceiling maybe they would have used very different components and created a larger machine. Since that was never an option that is a moot point.
This is also why the only laptops currently available which support >16GB RAM are huge, like this one which weighs 17 pounds (8KG), or are smaller but have terrible battery life. This battery capacity limitation goes a long way to explaining a lot of the problems with current laptops from all manufacturers."
There are just such overwhelming evidence that Apple have made the correct choice on their new 13" and 15" MBPs. For those that needs more, nobody is stopping you from buying this pig.
Razer just made a 17" laptop one third of the weight you are describing that would outperform the new MacBook Pro 100 times over at every turn. So again explain to me why you think Apple, who is supposedly one of the most innovative companies on the planet, cannot find a way to make a better mobile workstation than Razer or at least one than can compete with it at the same price point... Give me a break.
Based on your claimed usage 32 GB will not be noticeable at all. The newer MBP have the PCI-e SSD's and processor that are way faster than you 2012 rMBP.
Last edited:
Because in practice those types of machines sell in absolutely tiny quantities. The Razer Blade Pro still weighs 8lbs without the enormous power brick, and battery life is so poor that Razer doesn't even mention it in their literature.
Apple has never made this kind of niche device.
I think Apple should not compare the performance of the new MBP with the old Mac. They should compare its performance with that of the competitors'.
I need a mobile solution. In Canada with tax, you're looking at paying over $4000 for a MacBookPro upgraded. $4000.... for a graphics card that barely out performs its predecessor and a 16GB RAM cap... I have no problem spending another $500 on the Blade knowing that I'm at least getting something for my money instead of being completely ripped off.
[doublepost=1479829268][/doublepost]
I am not necessarily saying they should either. The problem is they aren't even trying to give us something that we can honestly say is worth the money.
You presume they sell in tiny quantities. Whatever the sales figures are it has been made, it does sell and you can assume they make money from them. Apple have made niche devices and at one time all you could almost term every Apple product as niche.
Apple is not building a 17", because apparently none of you buys them enough.
And then I found a CNET comparo on the 15" Razor. Specs a wonderful 5hrs, which probably is more like 3hrs in real life. What's more? 16GB RAM max. Not that much cheaper than the Mac anyways.
Can someone name a 15" laptop that's within 20% of the MBPs thickness and weight, that has 32GB RAM and at least have 80% of the 15" MBP's battery life? That essentially is the trade everybody is asking for. But if such a thing doesn't even exists on the Windows side, then it shows that it isn't even possible to build such a laptop even if Apple is willing to forgo size, weight and battery life considerations.
Now that I think about it, the bitching you guys are doing is all wrong. What you guys should be bitching about is why did Apple stop making 17" laptops. And the fight should've been done years ago when Apple have just discontinued it.
I've yet to see anyone post a solid counter example of who on the market that is making anything like the rMBP at 15" with 32GB of RAM. If you are talking about double the weight, double the thickness, you shouldn't have looked at Apple to begin with. That's not what Apple is about every since the introduction of the first iPhone. Go buy your brick machines and stop flooding the forums with useless repetitive contents.
Attachments
Last edited:
Apple doesn't make a wide variety of laptops when compared with PC competitors. Comparatively speaking, every laptop Apple makes is fairly mainstream. Workstation replacements and high end gaming laptops are niches that Apple has never explored before. You can wish that that would change. But Apple has never given you any indication that you should have hoped for such a thing from them.
[doublepost=1479829718][/doublepost]
XPS 15 pretty much does it. At least on paper.
I'd give it that it's ~20% thicker and ~20% heavier decked out. But not 80% of MBP's battery life. More like 50%. There'll be a lot more bitching if it's 50% battery life compared to the previous rMBP, just so the max RAM can be 32GB....
http://www.trustedreviews.com/dell-xps-15-review#Orst364MmdmamHCt.99
Battery life is another area where the XPS 15 is slightly less competitive, but this can once again be put down to its svelte build. Dell reckons that the 56Wh battery will last for five hours. That claim appears to be accurate: working on documents and emails, I hit five hours before having to plug the system back into the mains.
Streaming from Netflix at half brightness, it consumed around 23% of its battery per hour. It’s a decent result when you consider this is a high-power laptop, and will easily make it through the brief periods you’re working on it away from your desk. It won’t match the likes of the 15-inch MacBook Pro, however, which squeezes a couple more hours of life from its cells.
The 32GB bitching is just purely showing ignorance of the underlying tech on the complainers's part. If one wants to bring the MBP on a plane, 32GB is simply not possible without significantly reducing battery life, and also to make the laptop thicker and heavier at the same time. With so many downside just to allow for 32GB max for a few people, Apple will not switch over the design wholesale to DDR4 just to satisfy a few ignorant people's request for 32GB max RAM.Streaming from Netflix at half brightness, it consumed around 23% of its battery per hour. It’s a decent result when you consider this is a high-power laptop, and will easily make it through the brief periods you’re working on it away from your desk. It won’t match the likes of the 15-inch MacBook Pro, however, which squeezes a couple more hours of life from its cells.
Call me an Apple sheep. I will definitely not buy any of the rMBP refresh if it's 20% thicker, 20% heavier, and 50% shorter in batt life than the last gen rMBP. I am likely to buy this one refurb, or when it gets refreshed to Kaby Lake later.
You do know what a stupid statement this is don't you?
Here's a clue, read up on the difference between virtualisation and emulation.....
I'm not saying I even want a 17" laptop. Unfortunately it's one of the only other options right now for a high powered alternative to a desktop. Honestly though, are you saying that you don't think Apple could've found a way to design a 15" model with 32GB of RAM and a slightly better GPU? That's all everyone here is asking for. That Apple actually give us something that warrants the absurd cost. If those improvements end up costing me four out of the 10 hours of battery life I would take that option in a heartbeat. Give us an option here to upgrade. Don't just paint professional users into the same category as your everyday user.
The XPS 15 is also available with an 84Whr battery that puts it within spitting distance of the MBP. I have one sitting here on my desk that I'm currently configuring for a new user. It appears it would do 8 to 10 hours or so under light usage with this battery.
Yes, I am saying it's NOT possible for Apple to find a way to design a 15" model with 32GB of RAM without sacrifices in size, weight and HUGE sacrifices in battery life. To give a 32GB max, Apple would need to make the current gen MBP thicker, heavier and much less battery life than the last gen MBP. Apple would need to be nuts to do that just so a few people have the option of clicking on 32GB. Re-read all the technical links, articles, competitor's examples that have been presented in the last dozen responses or so.
Any GPU that is better is ~90W vs. 35W in the model they chose. That could easily mean 2 hours of battery life - which is the case under load for many of the devices that use those cards. You might be happy with that tradeoff but Apple isn't, nor would the bulk of owners.
Honestly guys I think it's just a substantial amount of frustration right now. You wait two years+ for the MBP update... They had two+ years to work on this... The result for the price is so underwhelming that it makes it hurt more than it should.
I guess maybe the XPS is the laptop most of the complainers are looking for. If they absolutely can't wait for Kaby Lake and otherwise will kill themselves, then go ahead, buy the Dell.
I'd still prefer the current new MBP than this would be 32GB version. This XPS like would be MBP essentially is the last gen MBP with a new processor and DDR4 32GB max added into it.
The thing is, as soon as chipset that supports LPDDR4 and/or DDR4L available, the MBP as it looks today will have 32GB support. While Apple simply cannot keep the last gen body anymore. I don't get why the 32GB crowd can't just wait a little and get the best of both worlds, while people that don't mind 16GB max gets to get a lighter and smaller machine right now.
If anything, the blame should be to Intel. The rest of us do not want a laptop that is any thicker or heavier or with less battery than the previous gen MBP.
Last edited:
Schiller: "The MacBook Pro uses 16GB of very fast LPDDR memory, up to 2133MHz. To support 32GB of memory would require using DDR memory that is not low power and also require a different design of the logic board which might reduce space for batteries. Both factors would reduce battery life."
— Phil Schiller, per MacRumors
Well, Phil, use DDR memory in a bigger, heavier body, redesign the logic board, increase the size of the batteries as well—and then rightly call it a "Pro" model. Not everyone at the coffee shop will want one, but professionals needing the horsepower will accept and understand the limitations in weight and battery time, etc.
While at it you might make this something like a dGPU, in that it can switch automatically to a lower power mode, and components, when not needed. As for running the battery flat, have the option for the MBP to turn itself off before that point. Etc.
Why am I telling you this … are you not the experts?
— Phil Schiller, per MacRumors
Well, Phil, use DDR memory in a bigger, heavier body, redesign the logic board, increase the size of the batteries as well—and then rightly call it a "Pro" model. Not everyone at the coffee shop will want one, but professionals needing the horsepower will accept and understand the limitations in weight and battery time, etc.
While at it you might make this something like a dGPU, in that it can switch automatically to a lower power mode, and components, when not needed. As for running the battery flat, have the option for the MBP to turn itself off before that point. Etc.
Why am I telling you this … are you not the experts?