Hey AppleFritter Members,
*
*
***** When considering the history of early Non-Mac and Mac Apple Computers from which the sleek current generation of Mac Computers and related Apple products has evolved, (especially since Apple's Mid-2009 new product releases), it seems to me as though "The Theory of Diminishing Returns" - which appears to apply in many, many contexts and instances in the world - increasingly characterizes the true nature of the upgraded offerings by Apple Inc. to almost all Apple Customers.
*
*
***** I would suggest that there is a trend toward decreasingly noticeable effect(s)/usage facilitation that these Mid-2009-To-Present upgraded products actually now provide for, I'd approximate, 90% of (almost by definition) already-discerning Apple Customers. That is, "Diminishing Returns", as measured not theoretically in a Cupertino Development Lab using ultra-sensitive comparative speed measurement equipment but, rather, through the daily experiences of real Apple Customers in utilizing whatever currently-available (and useful/enjoyable for them) applications they choose through which their brand new Mac Computers' upgraded performances can be meaningfully measured.
*
*
Concrete Example: The Apple Mid-2009 MacBook Pro 17" Laptop Computer, Which Already Offered A Maximum-Selectable Custom-Configuration Of Its Essential Specifications Up To:
*
( 1 ) Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo, 3.06 GHz;
*
( 2 ) Memory: 8 GB of DDR3 RAM;
*
( 3 ) Internal Hard Drive: 256 GB Solid State Hard Drive;
*
( 4 ) Built-In Ports Included: 4 USB; 1 FireWire; 1 Apple Mini DisplayPort; 1 Ethernet; 1 Flash Memory Card;
*
( 5 ) Built-In CD/DVD Read/Write Drive;
*
( 6 ) Built-In Wi-Fi Receiver/Transmitter;
*
( 7 ) Blue Tooth Signal Receiver/Transmitter;
*
( 8 ) Mac OS X Snow Leopard Operating System; and
*
( 9 ) Full Exterior Unibody Aluminum Casing (same as on the most recent Revision of the MacBook Pro 17" Laptop Computer).
*
*
***** Allow us to assume, just for the sake of far-flung argument, that most Customers of this particularly-configured Mid-2009 MacBook Pro 17" Laptop Computer -- notwithstanding (Apple Inc.'s Self-Promoted?) Image-Association with / Allegedly Unique Functional Capabilities for "Creative Usages" (i.e. to a far greater extent than any PCs) -- neither are Professional Graphic Designers, Professional Film Editors, nor Incredibly Speed-Demanding "Gamers".
*
*
***** And, if we generously assume too that there actually is a time differential of a few seconds, in the speed at which an Intel i7 Quad-Core Processor (compared to an Intel Core 2 Duo 3.02 GHz Processor) MacBook Pro 17" would complete the command to - absurdly - open 50 applications/windows simultaneously, I suspect that, beyond the walls of Apple Inc.'s R&D Lab Facilities, this 50 simultaneous application/window opening scenario would be an irrelevant test for almost any conceivable actual MacBook Pro 17" Customer, as this sort of ridiculous degree of simultaneous processing demand never would occur for a real Apple Customer.
*
*
***** So then what difference does it make that the very next MacBook Pro 17" Edition was introduced (in Mid-2010) with an Intel i7 Quad-Core Processor (rather than its immediate predecessor's Intel Core 2 Duo 3.02 GHz Processor) and, for most Apple Customers, the similarly-imperceptible relative speed increase achieved through the use of Apple's newly-included Thunderbolt Port? I don't know about you, but I never have perceived any lag time between the data transmitted from my MacBook's CPU and when it displayed via Apple Mini DisplayPort on its half-foot-away Cinema Display Screen. Have these Thunderbolt Engineers completely lost their minds? Or is Apple Inc. simply relentlessly greedy to sell Apple Customers a whole new, multi-thousand dollar Mac a year after they bought the same model, based solely upon the addition of the most functionally-infinitesimal upgrades?
*
*
***** Conceptually, I do appreciate these technological advances, such as a processor with a Quad-Core threading instead of a Dual-Core threading. And if you happen to be in the market to purchase a new Mac anyway, then these functionally minor upgrades constitute a nice "why not?" bonus to receive.
*
*
***** But unless an Apple Customer has statistically highly unusual processing-power-demanding application(s) through which they, (unlike 90% of the Apple Customers who believed Apple Inc. that they needed to upgrade to this same MacBook Pro 1 year after they just purchased the same), actually could perceive, let alone substantially benefit from, a Quad-Core Processor compared to a Dual-Core Processor, and from Thurderbolt-mediated Component Connection(s) (rather than from Mini DisplayPort, Fire Wire, and/or Ethernet-mediated Connection[s] [that the Mid-2009 MacBook Pro 17" already offered]), then the replacement of a Mid-2009 MacBook Pro 17" (with an Intel Core 2 Duo 3.06 GHz Processor), by a MacBook Pro 17" with the newer Intel Quad-Core Pentium i7 Processor, seems like a tremendous waste of literally thousands of dollars, no?
*
*
***** But for those who have a MacBook Pro from anytime within the last 3 years, what is the purpose of upgrading your current Ferrari to an even newer, faster one, when all you're doing usually is driving to the supermarket, and driving occasionally on highways on which the 200 M.P.H. speed required even to compare the metahorical Quad-Core/Dual-Core Processor difference is illegal, and 200 M.P.H. assumed by Apple to represent its Customers' comfortable highway driving speed, is just plain inaccurate (especially in a cost-benefit analysis).
*
*
***** On the other hand, even if such a multi-thousand-dollar upgrade purchase is intended purely to display one's wealth and status, then the flaws in that scheme seem to me to be:
*
*
( 1 ) Casual observers (not the tiny number of highly-attuned to the MacBook Pro 17's every microscopic physical change, such as an added Thunderbolt Port on its side) could not tell the difference unless they went into, say, the "About This Mac" Menu for a Spot Prestige Check.
*
*
( 2 ) You'll have upgraded to what will be the latest and greatest MacBook Pro 17" for at most 1 extra year, after which a newer model is certain to Oust its Prestige and to Steal its Thunder[bolt];
*
*
( 3 ) Even if they could distinguish a Mid-2009 from a 2011 MacBook Pro 17" through casual obervation, what sort of people would on that basis render a negative or positive respective judgment about you, (based upon whether you have the absolute newest version of a partiuclar MacBook Pro 17")? And do those superficial, judgmental folks tend to fit the personality types who know a significant amount about computers?
*
*
***** However, the larger point that I was hoping to open up for potential discussion is that, in the absence of new corresponding quantum leaps in computer applications of utility/enjoyment to most MacBook Pro 17" Apple Customers (such as, for example, the World Wide Web via Ethernet Speed represented; and the soon-to-follow related processing power required to watch an audio/video YouTube clip or movie on one's computer), isn't there a point at which Apple Sales strongly recommending the multi-thousand dollar purchase of each year's newer and more powerful model of, say, the MacBook Pro 17" (e.g. an Intel i7 Quad Core Processor to upgrade an Intel Core 2 Duo 3.06 GHz Processor), (absent a concommitant development and release of remarkably newer and greater, much more processing speed and RAM-demanding applications), is Apple Inc. unethically sanctioning the misleading, overhyping of its annual minor advances, deliberately leveraging a Customer Base that it knows is comprised substantially of (1) rather computer-lay, (2) surface-image/materialistically hyper-competitive, (3) impulsive, financially irresponsible, people?
*
*
***** And, from a purely technological interest standpoint, have we been witnessing during these last few years Mac upgrades which, from the realistic usage standpoint of 90% of Apple Customers for these computers, are functionally imperceptible? [b]For the moment, has our revered Apple Inc. - which for so long has been a true ground-breaking-level pioneering company, hit a ceiling re: substantial, meaningful advances that it's adding to its feverishly-paced, continuous annual release each by far the best ever new revisions of its Mac Computer line?[/b]
*
*
***** Are these recent Apple "Must-Have" annual computer model upgrades Actual Quality-of-Life Breakthroughs, such as the 1997-2001 first mass-marketing availability of cell phones to the average Apple MacBook Pro 17" Laptop Computer Consumer? Is Apple still making leaps on a par with the switch from the Dial-Up Modem to Ethernet/WiFi/Cellular Modem Internet Connectivity?
*
*
***** Or are these annual MacBook Pro 17" upgrades more akin to Verizon's incredible(??) 4G data transfer speed on some of its new cellular/modem devices, as opposed to its immediately prior 3G data transfer speed which, especially when considering the cost difference between subscribing to these 2 available speed services, is negligable even in those physical regions where 4G Coverage is available?
*
*
***** AppleFritter Vintage Apple Computer enthusiasts, such have we, have the unusually-expanded perspective of 30+ years of Apple's personal computer development (as well as a greater-than-ordinary understanding of an Apple computer's core construction components). And we have witnessed some of our recent Vintage Apple Computer Engineer Pioneers' invention of new cards for Vintage Apple II CPU Slots, enabling Apple IIs to connect to and utilize (albeit in text-only browser formats) the Internet, both via Dial-Up Modem, and now even via High-Speed Uthernet-Ethernet Connections. And, these Apple II Computers always could print in excellent quality, if attached to 1980s-available made-for-the-Apple II Computer Series laser printers.
*
*
***** So arguably, the essential functions of current-day computers (whatever their particular models, revisions, and upgrades) have, in essence, been replicated by a computer with one-millionth of the Processor Speeds and one-millionth of the RAM Amount that, today, comes standardly built into a $300 All-Inclusive Asus 10" Display Netbook.
*
*
***** If especially we AppleFritter Members know that so much has been proven accomplishable by an Apple II Series Computer with one-millionth of the power plus some creative tinkering and tweaking by skilled Vintage Apple Computer Card/Circuit Board Engineering Professionals, then what does that say about the current Consumer Culture of people who readily would trash a 2-year-old MacBook Pro 17", and spend thousands of dollars (often adding to their credit card debt) essentially solely based upon the revenue-aimed hype which vastly overemphasizes the supposed major benefits to Apple Customers of replacing their Mid-2009 MacBook Pro 17" Intel Core Duo 3.06 GHz Processor Laptop Computer with an Intel i7 Quad-Core one.
*
*
***** One which, just by unforeseeable coincidence for Apple Inc., I have a vague inclination shall be dubbed "Obsolete, Ancient History" by Apple Inc.'s Marketing and Sales Departments 2 years from now?
*
*
***** Oh and one more thing: Isn't one of an Apple Computer's key distinguishing qualities from PCs of one-third the cost, that unlike junky, plastic PCs, Macs are built of the highest-quality materials, and include (especially in their high-end models) specifications at the forefront of technological advances (i.e. substantial "future proofing"), in large part so that they constitute a true investment that will last for years longer than the average PC? How can that Apple Inc. claim be true, and it simultaneously be true, also according to Apple Inc., that a MacBook Pro 17" that you spent thousands of dollars to buy in early 2010 now is grossly obsolete -- and that the only solution is to buy a whole new, multi-thousand dollar MacBook Pro 17" again to reap the essential benefits of the technological leaps that have been included in their 1 or 2 year newer MacBook Pro 17" Laptop Computers?
CUPERTINO: We've Got A Problem. (Or At Least A Gripe.)
August 1, 2011 - 4:43am
#1
CUPERTINO: We've Got A Problem. (Or At Least A Gripe.)
Its all about selling the sizzle and not the steak. I do not know of anyone who has to buy the latest and greatest as soon as it comes out. It is always called the bleeding edge, because you bleed money to be there. Unless you want bragging rites.
Then their is the planned obsolescence. Where programs and OS will not work with older systems. And the fact that they need to make x amount of dollars on the old system, before they roll out the next new system.
It always the first 0-200 MPH that you notice when a plane takes off. When you are in the sky cruising you do not notice speed increases as much. Same is with the computer at times. But with the faster bigger cpu's you need more support. They still take almost as much time to boot as an older Apple II/IIgs system. The user is the weakes link.
IIgs,
After reading your thread, I am not really sure what you are asking.
If you are trying to say that there are folks out there that upgrade thier current Mac to a brand new one every couple of years for no apparent reason other than to do it, the I will remind you what P.T. Barnum Said: "There's one born every minute."
I still use a 2.4 ghz C2D chip on my main MacBook Pro, and it's fine. I'm not one of those people that has to have the "latest and greatest" either :3
Apple is more cash rich than the U.S. government
Apple's response to your post: *BURP* "Say what?"
I like your energy, though. Have you a license to practice at the bar?
It's difficult to follow the logic of a thread when you are continually editing and changing the content of your first post.
If you wish to clarify or expand your thoughts, it would be better if you replied to those who have posted.
Software developers target the installed base. Software that makes efficient use of new hardware lags behind the development of the hardware. So, typical users will not often see big benefits from the latest and greatest hardware.
Revolutionary features don't come along every day - perhaps once per decade if we take a relatively narrow view of "revolutionary." But, you probably still don't want to use a computer that is a decade old, because it will be full of little annoyances. The perception of the degree of those annoyances is probably proportional to the amount of disposable income one has.
I stay pretty close to the bleeding edge. The expense is not very large at this point in my life and I don't like to wait for apps to load or code to compile. There was a time where the expense meant more and I lived with older technology for much longer. It's just a matter of preference.
I have Apple computers dating back to 1983. None is newer than 2008. And I repair computers (Mac and Windows) for a living.
But then, the mechanic's car never gets that oil change, and the dentist's kids have crooked teeth.
Please Delete This Account.
Please Delete This Account.
Please Delete This Account.
IIgs: Most of the machines in my workshop are for troubleshooting clients' machines, parts to repair clients' machines, or for my own enjoyment. Pretty much anything pre-2000 has value only to me, and I wouldn't be able to get enough out of it to justify putting it up on ebay or craigslist. I'd be thrilled to part with some 6400/6500s and 9600s, for example, but you'd pay much more in shipping than the machine would be worth.
That said, if you're looking for specific parts, you never know what I might find (and it might surprise me too). That goes for a lot of folks here on the 'Fritter. Post a "Want to Buy" listing and see if anybody is able to lay hands on the specific parts you need. Big sweeping generalities (such as "any Apple II line machines or parts") has a tendency to waste everybody's time, including yours.