I conceptually disagree a bit. Profit is usually conceptually seen as a percentage; seen that way needing to "keep growing your profits indefinitely" makes no sense. Simply put, a firm making x% profit every year need not grow that x number if the number is reasonable enough to attract capital to the risk involved in doing business in the given industry.
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.
You really don't need a brand-new Mac...
- Thread starter VirtuallyInsane
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Although I fully agree with most of your commentary, I disagree here. Corporate size obviously impacts how much risk is involved, but it seems that most wags consider the Vision Pro device to be a fresh risk.
[Personally I disagree and consider AVP mandatory applied research for Apple no matter how much it costs, but I appear to be in the minority.]
The Vision Pro would be a fresh risk in an arena wherein no other major companies ventured forth in the first place.
Instead, what Apple are doing with the Vision Pro is refining their — excuse the pun — vision of what they, the company, believe a VR/AR computing environment should be in the realm of an existing market which, at best, shows limited, even lacklustre consumer reception for using computing interface headsets beyond limited windows of time (both for comfort reasons and, in select cases, with the way those devices can trigger immediate motion sickness) or for niche applications (gaming, simulations, and so on).
Yah, the Vision Pro is being designed as a springboard for an all-in-one computing device, rather than as a display peripheral. How it will help improve the ability for one to work and get that work done more efficiently/effectively remains a question not yet answered by Apple or software developers.
With the Macintosh, by contrast, existing software start-ups like Adobe were preparing the analogue-to-digital vector bridge to be known as Illustrator from 1985. In the 128K/512K years, the Macintosh’s viability pivoted on an idea that its XEROX PARC-lifted GUI would help to bridge that applied analogue-to-digital transition in both the visual and audio realms.
I’m not sure what the paradigmatic transition for the Vision Pro is intended to be.
Applied research is great, especially when its ongoing findings are semi-public and it hints of future products (without giving away a long-game plot). Using consumers as alpha-testing subjects for that applied research is more next-level capitalism than it is data collection for continuing applied research. If Vision Pro is supposed to be a revolutionary game changer like, say, iPhone was, I’m not sure how many consumers would have been ecstatic to buy an early version of it — or, for that matter, an early version of the iPod.
Also, to everyone participating in this thread: none of what we’re discussing is topical to Early Intel Macs support. If you have a moment, please notify the moderators to nominate this thread to be moved to the Mac Basics, Help and Buying Advice forum. Cheers!
You say If Vision Pro is supposed to be a revolutionary game changer like, say, iPhone was, I’m not sure how many consumers would have been ecstatic to buy...The Vision Pro would be a fresh risk in an arena wherein no other major companies ventured forth in the first place.
Instead, what Apple are doing with the Vision Pro is refining their — excuse the pun — vision of what they, the company, believe a VR/AR computing environment should be in the realm of an existing market which, at best, shows limited, even lacklustre consumer reception for using computing interface headsets beyond limited windows of time (both for comfort reasons and, in select cases, with the way those devices can trigger immediate motion sickness) or for niche applications (gaming, simulations, and so on).
Yah, the Vision Pro is being designed as a springboard for an all-in-one computing device, rather than as a display peripheral. How it will help improve the ability for one to work and get that work done more efficiently/effectively remains a question not yet answered by Apple or software developers.
With the Macintosh, by contrast, existing software start-ups like Adobe were preparing the analogue-to-digital vector bridge to be known as Illustrator from 1985. In the 128K/512K years, the Macintosh’s viability pivoted on an idea that its XEROX PARC-lifted GUI would help to bridge that applied analogue-to-digital transition in both the visual and audio realms.
I’m not sure what the paradigmatic transition for the Vision Pro is intended to be.
Applied research is great, especially when its ongoing findings are semi-public and it hints of future products (without giving away a long-game plot). Using consumers as alpha-testing subjects for that applied research is more next-level capitalism than it is data collection for continuing applied research. If Vision Pro is supposed to be a revolutionary game changer like, say, iPhone was, I’m not sure how many consumers would have been ecstatic to buy an early version of it — or, for that matter, an early version of the iPod.
Also, to everyone participating in this thread: none of what we’re discussing is topical to Early Intel Macs support. If you have a moment, please notify the moderators to nominate this thread to be moved to the Mac Basics, Help and Buying Advice forum. Cheers!
Personally I do not see revolutionary game changer to be some kind of important metric. After the fact, revolutionary game changing earns a gold star, but IMO not what today's goal should be. My thinking (which frankly I could argue against easily enough) is that the AVP is a very appropriate direction that the world's largest tech firm should be heavily investing both pure and applied research funds into.
Short term (~2 years) sales/profitability that the internet wags call success are not IMO important here. This is tech, and in tech often firms' real success is in taking advantage of evolving tech. IMO Apple must invest/research with an open mindset and see where the tech learning takes them.
Where the tech takes Apple may not be in an immediate consumer product direction even if Apple has always been a consumer products company. Apple is rich/huge and should be able to move in multiple directions.
This is like watching IBM applying research funding toward the IBM PC Jr. and OS/2 Warp. Or Microsoft funding research into Zune and Longhorn.
The place, as long has been the case, to keep an eye out for tech innovation and paradigm changes are from scrappy upstarts quietly working outside or at the margins.
To their credit, Apple invested heavily in consumer financial research for years, starting with their buyer instalment plan to pay for Macs, and now one can use Apple Pay at the supermarket or even an Apple credit card to fuel a car…
Having used an Apple ][ in school way back in 1980 and having using a Mac for the first time in 1990 and buying my first Mac in 1999, to say the the following is, at present, heresy to a lot of current fanbois in denial:
Apple are no longer the lithe and quick company they were in 1983 or even in 1998.
Apple today are a fat, multi-trillion-dollar “organization man” sloth in 2023 — the Spindler era redux, but with too much capital — housed in an expensive, still-new building which, coincidentally, has virtually the same footprint as the U.S. Department of Defense’s headquarters.
“Moving in multiple directions” is what landed IBM to invent the business concept of “downsizing”, in name, in 1990, when they put too much focus on low-margin PCs and too little on their high-margin business mainframes. IBM also led the way in vertical integration then, much as Apple are doing now.
Completely agree, but it applies to professionals too.
I started years ago with Macintosh Performa computers, around the time of Power PC and up. The thing is... being on an advertising agency (tons of graphic design) we focused on being fair with the computers and using them wisely. Fast forward to year 2015 (just a reference) I see graphic designers delivering magazine covers around 800mb to 1gig, gazillion layers and insanely "high" resolution stuff.
I'm on a graphic design group, and I see them selling their overpriced macs every month and nobody buys. You can easily offer 50% price and they sell it because they are just opening their eyes to the difference between potential and reality (an expensive mac won't make you rich) and many can't make what they expected from them.
Same thing applies to regular users... most upgrade to things they don't need (hardware and software), and to make it worse, they use these things poorly and badly.
You mean like the Butterfly keyboard disaster, and the new unproven 15" MacBook Air that's apparently selling poorly?
Getting back on the subject of this post:
My opinion: I *THINK* most people would need a new Mac.
Excluding the current Macs, which Macs should be recommend to users?
ALMOST every Mac between 2015 to 2019 should be instantly removed from a "buy" list, because of the keyboard.
https://www.macrumors.com/guide/butterfly-keyboard-issues/
So what machines do we have remaining that are currently being updated (per MacTracker):
MacBook Air 2020 (intel).
MacBook Air 2019.
MacBook Pro 13" 2020. .
MacBook Pro 16" 2019.
MacBook Pro 13" 2019.
What about machines before 2015?
MacBook Pro 13" 2015 . Most recent OS is MacOS 12.
MacBook Air 2015/2017. Most recent OS is Mac OS 12.
Most websites will continue to load on MacOS 12 and Apple is still patching the operating system. Remember, the current version of MacOS right now is version 13.
What about further back?
MacBook Pro 15" 2014. Most recent OS is MacOS 11.
MacBook Pro 13" 2014. Most recent OS is MacOS 11.
MacBook Pro 15" 2013. Most recent OS is MacOS 11.
MacBook Pro 13" 2013. Most recent OS is MacOS 11.
MacBook Air 2014. Most recent OS is MacOS 11.
These are currently two versions behind, and these machines are on borrowed time for support and updated browsers. They should continue to work, as normal, for now. But come next year, when they are three versions behind? The web will slowly start breaking.
What about further back, for machines made between 2012 to 2014 running MacOS X 10.15? It can still run Chrome, per https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95346?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform=Desktop#zippy=,mac .
What about machines from 2008 to 2012, running MacOS X 10.13? Currently, yes, but Google will drop support soon, per another post in this website.
I believe the 2014 machines are on borrowed time, and will be supported for another two years by Google. Once Google stops supporting these machines, websites will break. The webpages won't render correctly. It won't be possible to access online banking services. Eventually online shopping carts won't load making the computer worthless as an online machine.
My opinion for someone on a budget: For hardware quality of life, get a basic MacBook M1 and be done with it. It'll last a long longer than a 2020 machine because of heat, and a quick search on eBay shows they aren't that much cheaper than an M1.
My opinion: I *THINK* most people would need a new Mac.
Excluding the current Macs, which Macs should be recommend to users?
ALMOST every Mac between 2015 to 2019 should be instantly removed from a "buy" list, because of the keyboard.
https://www.macrumors.com/guide/butterfly-keyboard-issues/
So what machines do we have remaining that are currently being updated (per MacTracker):
MacBook Air 2020 (intel).
MacBook Air 2019.
MacBook Pro 13" 2020. .
MacBook Pro 16" 2019.
MacBook Pro 13" 2019.
What about machines before 2015?
MacBook Pro 13" 2015 . Most recent OS is MacOS 12.
MacBook Air 2015/2017. Most recent OS is Mac OS 12.
Most websites will continue to load on MacOS 12 and Apple is still patching the operating system. Remember, the current version of MacOS right now is version 13.
What about further back?
MacBook Pro 15" 2014. Most recent OS is MacOS 11.
MacBook Pro 13" 2014. Most recent OS is MacOS 11.
MacBook Pro 15" 2013. Most recent OS is MacOS 11.
MacBook Pro 13" 2013. Most recent OS is MacOS 11.
MacBook Air 2014. Most recent OS is MacOS 11.
These are currently two versions behind, and these machines are on borrowed time for support and updated browsers. They should continue to work, as normal, for now. But come next year, when they are three versions behind? The web will slowly start breaking.
What about further back, for machines made between 2012 to 2014 running MacOS X 10.15? It can still run Chrome, per https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95346?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform=Desktop#zippy=,mac .
What about machines from 2008 to 2012, running MacOS X 10.13? Currently, yes, but Google will drop support soon, per another post in this website.
I believe the 2014 machines are on borrowed time, and will be supported for another two years by Google. Once Google stops supporting these machines, websites will break. The webpages won't render correctly. It won't be possible to access online banking services. Eventually online shopping carts won't load making the computer worthless as an online machine.
My opinion for someone on a budget: For hardware quality of life, get a basic MacBook M1 and be done with it. It'll last a long longer than a 2020 machine because of heat, and a quick search on eBay shows they aren't that much cheaper than an M1.
No. I mean:
- the creation of a consumer laptop called the iBook, which came in a novel form factor, set of materials, and actual vivid colours;
- a POSIX-based operating system to replace the proprietary OS from the Macintosh’s inception;
- a portable hard drive we came to know as an iPod;
- a professional laptop which turned first to titanium, then to aluminium, to lighten and strengthen the case;
- switching to little-endian, MIPS-based Intel processors;
- throwing a mobile computer into a case to sell a new product called the Mac mini, for a competitively low(er) price than a full-bore desktop (such as the earlier Power Mac G4 Cube); and
- much as I don’t use it, the glass UI iPhone.
Not all Macs are laptops and hence not affected by laptop problems.
You don't load websites with OS alone, you use a web browser. Firefox ESR will still work with older OS's and will open pretty much everything. Yesterday installed it to 10.13 but I think it supports many versions before that. Basic Firefox requires 10.14. Brave and other Chromium based browsers work with older OS's but only (?) provide updates to 10.15 or newer. Other options. I only use Brave and Firefox so cannot personally comment on how other browsers work in any OS version or online.
Online security can be handled with smart use practices, third party apps, browser extensions etc. even with older OS's.
Last edited:
Done.Also, to everyone participating in this thread: none of what we’re discussing is topical to Early Intel Macs support. If you have a moment, please notify the moderators to nominate this thread to be moved to the Mac Basics, Help and Buying Advice forum. Cheers!
I sure would have loved connecting 2+ displays (at full tb bandwith, daisy chained) without needing to upgrade to a cumbersome pro. I know that some hacky workaround exists but I summoned the example of the point you highlighted.
Last edited:
Thanks for doing that! ⭐
I find it a bit precious whenever I nominate a thread move to the mods to a forum where the thread sincerely belongs — only to be told nope, followed by the same mods OKing the move to that proper forum once a second person nominates it.
It’s… kind of a recurring pattern here on MR. 🙃
I would say that using a 2+ displays is not a basic use. I see a lot of people in this thread are really pushing the boundary of the basic/pro use which defeats the point the OP is obviously trying to make.
Mac Pro
Tower from£7,199.00
(October 2005) The Power Mac G5 Quad, with a suggested retail price of £2,299 (inc VAT), includes:
Apple Introduces Power Mac G5 Quad & Power Mac G5 Dual
www.apple.com
7199.00 - 2299.00 = 4,900 price increase in 18 years
I really think it is down your wealth, if you can afford to give Apple all that money for a brand new M2 Mac rather than upgrading your current Mac then go for it.
Apple say thank you and the more of you that buy these new toys the bigger the salary management of Apple get.
If companies can justify paying all that money then good luck to them but compare the price of a new M2 Mac to that of the Quad Core PowerMac and work out the difference, then ask yourself in 5 years time how more will apple be asking for a top end Mac.
If it does the job you purchased it to do then do not waste money, do not repair what is not broken!
Last edited:
One little gripe with your extremely simple maths: use an inflation calculator.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator
Cheers.
Some folks have had this trained out of them since childhood by, well, the consumer industry.
The hard work is to un-learn that training. It can be done, and it is a good thing to un-learn.
Manufacturing costs may have risen but not that much for a company to rip people off, both Nikon and Canon got on this bandwagon a few years ago with their lenses. The lens that cost around £350 now they cost over £1000.
Rip off computing.
www.overclockers.co.uk
£23k for a computer with a short life span, 7 to 10 years on average
Rip off computing.
8Pack Supernova - AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7980X @ 4.8GHz DDR5 Extreme Overcl | OcUK
Order now online and benefit from fast delivery.
www.overclockers.co.uk
£23k for a computer with a short life span, 7 to 10 years on average
I detest capitalism. That said, supply and demand sets the prices. The 50mm AF-D f/1.4 Nikkor prime went up, not only due to inflation, but also due to great demand. The 85mm f/1.4 prime went up even more steeply.
Lens glass went up cos a bunch of people who never shot film started shooting digital, and not just for still-image, either. You can curse content creation portals like YT for that. I also lament digital shooters who not only devoured old Takumar and non-AI Nikkors, but also modified them for their digital rig’s mount. (I still shoot film!)
Yes and no.
Each major jump forward in chip fabrication tech gets incredibly more expensive to design, test, and manufacture. At the same time, fewer fabrication plants can accommodate the latest tech. These days, only one, TSMC, can accommodate what Apple are selling in their Silicon models. In addition, only Apple use Silicon SoC, so there will never be as many units made (or sold) to help recoup the R&D/fabrication costs of, say, an Intel chip (which shows up in just about anything by just about any company except for, well, Apple).
My quibbles with Silicon SoC could fill reams of paper.
But comparing the pricing of current Silicon Mac Pro (which is, frankly, an Apple cop-out and snub to the strictly professional market — not least of which the absolute lack of modularity), with the final Power Mac Quad G5, is lopsided for the earlier described reasons. (IBM, at least, were able to recoup some of their costs into making the PPC 970 (G5) by selling many more POWER4 CPUs, on which the G5 was based, for their enterprise server customers.)
Dig into the economics. Yah, Apple probably tack on 15 per cent because nifty Mac Pro case costs, but the rest of the economics of scale and of complexity in the kind of stuff being churned out now most definitely apply.
I have a 13” MacBook Pro bought in early 2016. I can no longer get the new OS. In the next year I will buy a new macbook, just waiting to see if the 13” gets updated this year as it’s a Do Not Buy right now. I want a new MacBook basicly beacsue I will keep it until I’m in the same boat with it as I am with my current MacBook. Right now I have to leave it for 5 minutes when I turn it on before I can use it.
If you can, give OCLP and, if not already, an OCLP-assisted Monterey, a try on your MacBook Pro. It ought to, hopefully, give you a little more breathing room before making a new (or new-used) purchase.