Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the 2012 non-Retina MacBook Pro still sells

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: Why the 2012 non-Retina MacBook Pro still sells

#61

Post by derefr »

yuhong wrote: post #2

I have been thinking about Apple and EPEAT for a while now. Why not make MacBooks with removable batteries etc that are not outdated for governments etc that need it?

Apple's laptop internals are increasingly commoditized, to the point that with things like the 12" Macbook, you can basically consider them a battery in a case with ~$100 worth of other stuff attached. You may as well throw the whole thing in the battery recycling bin. (Also, given the way the battery cells are packed directly inside the case now, a sealed Macbook has the same number of layers of aluminum between the recycler and the electrolyte as a regular AA battery has. It'd probably be more trouble for the recycler if you take the battery out: they'd be having to deal with a soft bag of electrolyte that may have been punctured in transit.)

Re: Why the 2012 non-Retina MacBook Pro still sells

#62

Post by yuhong »

derefr wrote: post #61
yuhong wrote: post #2

I have been thinking about Apple and EPEAT for a while now. Why not make MacBooks with removable batteries etc that are not outdated for governments etc that need it?

Apple's laptop internals are increasingly commoditized, to the point that with things like the 12" Macbook, you can basically consider them a battery in a case with ~$100 worth of other stuff attached. You may as well throw the whole thing in the battery recycling bin. (Also, given the way the battery cells are packed directly inside the case now, a sealed Macbook has the same number of layers of aluminum between the…

There is still the matter of EPEAT though.

Re: Why the 2012 non-Retina MacBook Pro still sells

#63

Post by bbody »

I am also still on the 2012 non-Retina MacBook Pro and I love it. I have added an SDD, moved HDD to DVD slot, replaced the battery and added an extra 8gb of RAM (will upgrade to 16gb when I can justify it).

I love my MacBook Pro and am dreading when I have to upgrade, the price of buying a new one doesn't seem worth it considering just a moderate spec upgrade.

Re: Why the 2012 non-Retina MacBook Pro still sells

#64

Post by rbanffy »

stonogo wrote: post #46
rbanffy wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's see how that Lenovo is in five years.

Is this a joke? I have a Lenovo-produced T60 in its tenth year in daily use. I also still have its predecessor, a T43 labeled IBM (but manufactured by Lenovo) in regular use, but by my sister. Lenovo has a lot of problems, but they're every bit as capable of making a durable product as Apple.

My 2006 Macbook still looks presentable, if a little bit vintage-ish. It runs well.

My experience with Lenovo laptops is that, with the exception of the ThinkPad line, they don't strike me as very durable machines, which is fine considering they are cheap. I am not very confident the current ThinkPads will be alive 10 years from now. I have no such feelings about my current Macs - quite the contrary: I got them overspecced because I suspect they'll be around for a long time and while 16 GB of RAM seems excessive for Python/Django work now, I am not sure what kind of demand will be placed on them by then.

Re: Why the 2012 non-Retina MacBook Pro still sells

#65

Post by rbanffy »

HSO wrote: post #48
stonogo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a joke? I have a Lenovo-produced T60 in its tenth year in daily use. I also still have its predecessor, a T43 labeled IBM (but manufactured by Lenovo) in regular use, but by my sister. Lenovo has a lot of problems, but they're every bit as capable of making a durable product as Apple.

Wasn't there a change of ownership a few years ago? If so, I'd also tend to a wait-and-see attitude until it's clear what changed and what didn't.

I don't think IBM would have ever gone with the unremovable malware idea.

Re: Why the 2012 non-Retina MacBook Pro still sells

#66

Post by dkrich »

mschuster91 wrote: post #30
dkrich wrote: post #6

The short version of this is that there is a lot of money to be made from enterprises by selling them outdated technology because enterprises are almost always slow to adopt new technology. That's how Dell and Microsoft Sharepoint still make a lot of money. It's not necessarily a bad thing when taking into account the economics of training IT personnel and the added costs of supporting cutting edge technologies. But…

> The short version of this is that there is a lot of money to be made from enterprises by selling them outdated technology because enterprises are almost always slow to adopt new technology. A end-2011/2012 MBP has more than enough resources to fill most day jobs' needs. Give it an SSD and enough RAM and you can run IDEA just fine as on a brand new one. The only thing that's not really possible is doing video editin…

Yes, it can be souped-up to be as fast, but the frame is still larger and heavier, and has an inferior display. So, my point still stands that most individual buyers would not prefer a 2012 MBP to a new one that ships with SSD and a retina display. The ability to change out parts does not really matter to most buyers. Yes, I know, some buyers like that ability, just like some like to have a DVD player in 2016. Those concerns are not what make Apple a $700 billion company, but can still bring in a non-trivial amount of profit so I see why they still make them.

Re: Why the 2012 non-Retina MacBook Pro still sells

#67

Post by dkrich »

eitally wrote: post #14
dkrich wrote: post #6

The short version of this is that there is a lot of money to be made from enterprises by selling them outdated technology because enterprises are almost always slow to adopt new technology. That's how Dell and Microsoft Sharepoint still make a lot of money. It's not necessarily a bad thing when taking into account the economics of training IT personnel and the added costs of supporting cutting edge technologies. But…

I see a lot of complaints about Sharepoint, but this one is new to me. What about it is outdated, and especially when you compare it to what other options? I'm no fan, and Sharepoint is super-heavy and requires enterprisey-typical levels of care & feeding, but it's a mature platform and offers a lot of pretty spiffy bells & whistles when correctly configured. None of the open source options remotely compare.

I'm no fan, and Sharepoint is super-heavy and requires enterprisey-typical levels of care & feeding, but it's a mature platform

You seem to have just agreed with me.

The Sharepoint vs. open source argument is a straw-man, since I never once mentioned open source. Sharepoint is used by all manner of organization for all manner of tasks. I just recently ran into an organization using it as a CMS platform. Past teams I've been on have used it as a document sharing platform, but even that experience is far from ideal. Sharepoint is used because enterprises are not in the risk business when it comes to software procurement. But for document review and sharing there are a host of better options available. Very few small teams that I've worked on that had their own control over what software they used chose to use Sharepoint of their own volition. Take that as you will.

Re: Why the 2012 non-Retina MacBook Pro still sells

#68

Post by mschuster91 »

dkrich wrote: post #66
mschuster91 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The short version of this is that there is a lot of money to be made from enterprises by selling them outdated technology because enterprises are almost always slow to adopt new technology. A end-2011/2012 MBP has more than enough resources to fill most day jobs' needs. Give it an SSD and enough RAM and you can run IDEA just fine as on a brand new one. The only thing that's not really possible is doing video editin…

Yes, it can be souped-up to be as fast, but the frame is still larger and heavier, and has an inferior display. So, my point still stands that most individual buyers would not prefer a 2012 MBP to a new one that ships with SSD and a retina display. The ability to change out parts does not really matter to most buyers. Yes, I know, some buyers like that ability, just like some like to have a DVD player in 2016. Those…

Indeed, but we were talking about enterprises, not private buyers ;)

Re: Why the 2012 non-Retina MacBook Pro still sells

#69

Post by dkrich »

tacos wrote: post #34
eitally wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a lot of complaints about Sharepoint, but this one is new to me. What about it is outdated, and especially when you compare it to what other options? I'm no fan, and Sharepoint is super-heavy and requires enterprisey-typical levels of care & feeding, but it's a mature platform and offers a lot of pretty spiffy bells & whistles when correctly configured. None of the open source options remotely compare.

SharePoint lets you glue together a lot of business process with (gasp) paid software. Somewhere in Idaho there's a five person dev shop who's really, really worried about making the tool for production companies that have to deliver 30 second radio spots in 40 languages. And somewhere in Burbank there's a couple production companies happy to pay them $1200/seat each for ten people instead of hiring a bunch of devs t…

Somewhere in Idaho there's a five person dev shop who's really, really worried about making the tool for production companies that have to deliver 30 second radio spots in 40 languages.

Sharepoint's bread and butter is in Fortune-500 companies' IT departments that use Microsoft, IBM, and Hewlett Packard software because they are not in the business of risk. Software is a resource, just like the buildings those companies occupy and the people they employ. It helps them meet a business objective. They do not care what developers think makes them most productive. They care what will minimize IT training and support costs and what will be around in ten years. That is why companies that make their livings off of enterprise sales design their software for C-level execs and IT decision-makers, not low-level developers. It's also why most in-house enterprise software is written in Java and not Ruby.

So the point is that, just like for Apple with the 2012 MBP, there is money to be made from those who are risk-averse and see more cost in moving to a new platform than from sticking with what already works. Somewhere there emerged an assumption that no developers understand that there are real P&L driving business decisions underlying the crappy software they are forced to use. I think most people get that, but that the software sucks to use is still an opinion shared by most of the people who use it for hours a day.

Re: Why the 2012 non-Retina MacBook Pro still sells

#70

Post by jseliger »

escap wrote: post #35
shirro wrote: post #21

I have an ancient mid-2009 MacBook. I walked out the Apple retailer and straight into a cut-price PC parts shop and upgraded the ram and hard drive to avoid some Apple tax. I am probably overdue to replace my second battery but I haven't been travelling much for awhile. My second or third HDD was swapped for an SSD quite some time ago. It wouldn't be fast enough for some jobs but as long as I have browser and termina…

> I will buy a quality laptop that isn't disposable and run Linux again. you have a model to suggest ?

Librem: https://www.crowdsupply.com/purism/librem-13.

I gave $10 to their initial Kickstarter!

Post reply on HN