4 ms·

The current philosophy is pretty solidly in line with the historical Apple design philosophy, so I wouldn't necessarily expect it to change. The iMac is basical

by mjn 9y ago

The current philosophy is pretty solidly in line with the historical Apple design philosophy, so I wouldn't necessarily expect it to change. The iMac is basically today's evolution of the original Mac [1], a single-piece computer/monitor combination with no user-serviceable parts. Jobs said in 1984 that hardware customization is unnecessary to support, because "customization really is mostly software now". The Mac Pro towers were pretty different, but if anything they were the aberration, going in a more Unix workstation direction. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K

iainmerrick 9y ago
You're cherry-picking. That is definitely one of Apple's design philosophies, and it has definitely worked very well for the iPhone and iPad. But not all their computers have followed that style. The Mac II launched in 1987(!) and was very influential. And as the earlier commenter mentioned, before the "trash can" redesign, the Mac Pro was easy to open and had plenty of ports. Trying to apply that sealed appliance approach to every single product is sometimes a mistake, as demonstrated by the Mac Pro misstep.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  The recent MacPro was only a misstep in that they bet on CPU/GPU design zigging instead of zagging. It was a technically beautiful machine (still is, really) but their choices meant it became impossible to update. If the market had gone the other way we'd likely be talking about the 2016 MacPro instead.
  - iainmerrick 9y ago
    But they didn't have to make a bet at all. They wanted to make a tiny, silent Pro machine to make a statement, but nobody seems to have cared much about that. I haven't seen a single person saying "I hope the new Pro is still really really small, even if that means it's more expensive and less expandable!"
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      > But they didn't have to make a bet at all. Sure, neither does anyone... on anything. If the bet had succeeded though we'd all be calling them geniuses and suchlike. If no-one made bets like that we'd still have boring beige boxes. Hell the original Mac was a bet like that (the design was radical at the time). The MacPro is an awesome machine. Everyone I know that has used one loves it. That's great for a pro-machine. That's exactly what Apple likes to do - create hardware that people love They lost the bet, but it was a good bet to make. I'll take a company that makes bets like that over one that doesn't, long term.
      - iainmerrick 9y ago
        Sorry, I was unclear about the "bet". I don't mean they shouldn't take risks, more that in this case it would have been easy to hedge the bet -- launch a bigger expandable box at the same time. In their recent discussions around the upcoming redesign, it sounds like they didn't realize they were making a bet at all. If they had, they should have monitored it more closely and been a lot quicker out of the gate with the redesign. A possible defence is that Apple had other priorities at the time, and wasn't paying full attention to the Pro. But it's mystifying why the world's biggest company by market cap can't walk and chew gum at the same time. The MacPro is an awesome machine. Everyone I know that has used one loves it. It's funny it hasn't been more successful, then! Although I certainly believe you. It's definitely possible for it to be popular with a niche while failing in the wider market.
        abritinthebay 9y ago
        High end desktops are a niche, a small but important one, and the MacPro was wildly successful... at first. There's a reason people complained about the lack of upgrades and it wasn't because no-one bought one. Your suggestion would be the most un-Apple thing I've heard. They never do stuff like that because they believe in their solution as being the best. They could have been right - that was the bet. What you describe is not a bet at all!
        9y ago
- mjn 9y ago
  True, although perhaps worth noting that the Mac II was developed in secret because its developers knew Jobs would hate it, and indeed Jobs hated its "unnecessary" and supposedly user-unfriendly expansion ports. It ended up being released only after Jobs was fired from Apple.

by mjn 9y ago

iainmerrick 9y ago

You're cherry-picking. That is definitely one of Apple's design philosophies, and it has definitely worked very well for the iPhone and iPad. But not all their computers have followed that style. The Mac II launched in 1987(!) and was very influential. And as the earlier commenter mentioned, before the "trash can" redesign, the Mac Pro was easy to open and had plenty of ports. Trying to apply that sealed appliance approach to every single product is sometimes a mistake, as demonstrated by the Mac Pro misstep.

abritinthebay 9y ago
The recent MacPro was only a misstep in that they bet on CPU/GPU design zigging instead of zagging. It was a technically beautiful machine (still is, really) but their choices meant it became impossible to update. If the market had gone the other way we'd likely be talking about the 2016 MacPro instead.
- iainmerrick 9y ago
  But they didn't have to make a bet at all. They wanted to make a tiny, silent Pro machine to make a statement, but nobody seems to have cared much about that. I haven't seen a single person saying "I hope the new Pro is still really really small, even if that means it's more expensive and less expandable!"
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    > But they didn't have to make a bet at all. Sure, neither does anyone... on anything. If the bet had succeeded though we'd all be calling them geniuses and suchlike. If no-one made bets like that we'd still have boring beige boxes. Hell the original Mac was a bet like that (the design was radical at the time). The MacPro is an awesome machine. Everyone I know that has used one loves it. That's great for a pro-machine. That's exactly what Apple likes to do - create hardware that people love They lost the bet, but it was a good bet to make. I'll take a company that makes bets like that over one that doesn't, long term.
    - iainmerrick 9y ago
      Sorry, I was unclear about the "bet". I don't mean they shouldn't take risks, more that in this case it would have been easy to hedge the bet -- launch a bigger expandable box at the same time. In their recent discussions around the upcoming redesign, it sounds like they didn't realize they were making a bet at all. If they had, they should have monitored it more closely and been a lot quicker out of the gate with the redesign. A possible defence is that Apple had other priorities at the time, and wasn't paying full attention to the Pro. But it's mystifying why the world's biggest company by market cap can't walk and chew gum at the same time. The MacPro is an awesome machine. Everyone I know that has used one loves it. It's funny it hasn't been more successful, then! Although I certainly believe you. It's definitely possible for it to be popular with a niche while failing in the wider market.
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        High end desktops are a niche, a small but important one, and the MacPro was wildly successful... at first. There's a reason people complained about the lack of upgrades and it wasn't because no-one bought one. Your suggestion would be the most un-Apple thing I've heard. They never do stuff like that because they believe in their solution as being the best. They could have been right - that was the bet. What you describe is not a bet at all!
        9y ago
mjn 9y ago
True, although perhaps worth noting that the Mac II was developed in secret because its developers knew Jobs would hate it, and indeed Jobs hated its "unnecessary" and supposedly user-unfriendly expansion ports. It ended up being released only after Jobs was fired from Apple.