Slashdot Mirror
MacWorld MacBook Only a Prototype?
mahju writes "Hard Mac is reporting that Apple's, unoffical, response in Paris to the the lack of information on battery life, is that the MacBook Pro that were demoed at Mac World SF are only prototypes and the final versions are still under development.
"
This would also explain why:
...
1. Only the 15 inch model was released (not the 12 or 17 inch version)
2. You can still buy the entire range of G4 laptops
3. The release date was February whilst the iMac was immediately available.
Makes sense - I think apple wanted to make a splash at MacWorld and the laptop wasn't quite ready yet.
I wouldn't be surprised if the entire MacBook range actually ships simultaneously, even if they are announced separately.
Of course, they were announcing six months ahead of schedule, so they aren't really that far behind. And at least my shiny new (1 year old) power book doesn't quite feel outdated just yet
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
sigh.
There's also other interesting information in the article, namely that it looks like they're very much tied to Intel's decisions regarding supportable technologies. Firewire 800, for example, is missing not because it's deemed unnecessary, but because Intel doesn't want to support it. Conversely, 802.11a is supported over Apple's historic objections, so it goes both ways. Hopefully this will mean better support for 802.11a in general in the near future. But it does appear that Apple is less in control of its destiny than it's been in the past, and may well lose its role of first-move innovator that it was over, say, optical media, Firewire, USB, 802.11, and other technologies.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I'm not a manufacturing expert, but I would think that taking a machine from prototype to production would be more than a month's work. If they're still in development, then I would expect the shipping models to be *much* later than a month late.
The assembly line has to be geared up before any production can take place. How long does that take after the design is finalised?
I can't see how a model could still be in development and yet ship as a completed unit in a month.
Factually Apple can not be showing a "prototype" and have a world wide availability in less than a month later. Yes they were samples from the factory(not prototypes which look far worse), but the truth about battery life is simply this: It's a new type of battery (as used in the iPod) so they actually don't have any proper idea about the life of it. Remember apple have had a lot of issues with consumers demanding refunds/exchange because batteries didn't live as long as expected. At this stage they know one thing: it should be about the same. Whether or not it's less or more will take a lot of consumer review.
There was a video floating around where Jobs is showing the Macbook to Andy Grove and Paul Otellini. They're at the Apple booth in Macworld. In that video, Jobs doesn't hem and haw when Grove asks "how long does the battery last?" Jobs says "about the same" which I assume he means "about the same as the G4."
An irony about the video is Otellini looks ghastly ill while Jobs and Grove, who have both survived cancer, look the picture of health. Perhaps it was the lighting or perhaps Otellini needs to hit the gym.
FireWire 800 is backwards compatible electronically with FireWire 400, but everyone who sells adaptors charges an insane amount for them (a FW800->400 cable cost about three times as much as a three-port FW800 card last time I looked). I wouldn't say there is 'no demand'. I have a couple of LaCie disks that are chained together with FW800. They connect to my PowerBook via a single FW800 cable, and it is noticeably faster than using FW400 (which they support, but only by limiting me to a single disk, since they only have one FW400 port). If they had included a FW800->400 convertor for each FW800 port though, I agree that would have been better.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
1. Um, the units at Macworld essentially represent the final shipping product. They will look, act, and perform the same in all ways that matter. They may not have their final agency approvals and that sort of thing, but the specs, speeds, parts, case, appearance, screen, and so on, all represent the shipping units.
2. Apple - and other vendors - have preannounced products and shown pre-production units before they have shipped many, many, many times in the past. This is NOT new.
3. What if Apple had preannounced the MacBook Pro the same exact way they did, and still said "shipping in mid-February", and then didn't show anything at all at Macworld, even though the product is essentially done? How would that be better?
I'd love an explanation as to how this is anything new, much less "irresponsible".
The original Jobs Mac demo didn't use MacInTalk, it actually used a very early Mac port of Mark Barton's Software Automatic Mouth. SAM ran fine on 64K Apple II systems, and my guess is the Mac version worked ok with 128K. The reason the original Mac demo took up so much RAM is because of its fancy graphics running from RAM. Not too shabby for being written in a few days and they probably could have made it work on a 128K Mac by having it load each segment of the demo graphics from disk as needed.
Speak takes up 36 KB of disk space and can talk quite well on a 128K Mac. Give it a whirl.
Browsing the usenet, I see several comments from Mac 128K users that have played with MacInTalk, so it seems to work with that limited RAM. Perhaps the final released version of MacInTalk was a further optimized version of the SAM port?
There have been many suggestions that Steve's keynote at the Expo wasn't the one that he really intended to give as other things had to be withdrawn at the last moment.
So instead of a new Mac mini, video download service and new iPod shuffle, were the gaps left in the keynote filled with a very leisurely stroll through iLife 06 and a preview of the forthcoming MacBook ?
The MacBook certainly comes across as being a product that wasn't originally intended to be announced at that time.
Hard to say as it obviously isn't shipping yet, but Apple used to mention this capability in the specs... MacBook, not so much...
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
But it does appear that Apple is less in control of its destiny than it's been in the past
Please tell me at what point since '95 has Apple been "in control of it's destiny."
I kid, but seriously--they were first jerked around by Moto--Apple was notorious for shipping behind the curve systems because Moto failed to keep up. This seriously hurt Apple. Next, Apple tried again with IBM--who also failed to keep up with the market.
While Apple may not be able to dictate all of the technology that they can ship with, going along with the crowd instead of trying to distinguish itself with features that peripheral makers barely support is probably going to be the smartest long term strategy. I think Apple knows this, and after failing to make much headway by swimming upstream is now willing to swim with the current for awhile--and adding value where they are able.
--
$tar -xvf
The MacBook Pro Rev A is probably not a good buy because of these reasons: - 32 bit x86, which will be replaced in near future - Rosetta is necessary for most application, which makes the old PowerBooks better for most usage - There are battery issues, maybe others we don't know about I believe it is better to wait for a rev B, so they have better time to fix the problems and port the applications. Have a nice day :-)
The main reasoning for lack of FW800 on the Macbooks is due to the fact that it consumes more power than FW400. Remember one of the big
reasons for going to Intel was
power consumption.
If you require an FW800 interface for
this computer, at least one hardware manufacturer has announced an
interface card for this purpose.
I would agree; the permanent absence of FW800 is news (even though that missed the headline). I just bought a triple-interface HD in hopes that my next 12" Power(Mac?)Book would sport FW800. The studio I work at is outfitted with FW800, and there is a very significant real-world difference between it and the older spec.
This market is likely to be taken over by external SATA, or eSATA. You can read about it here. With no overhead in converting to SATA and a much higher cap to begin with, it is likely to be the solution for external high-performance storage. Firewire is still limited by the fact that both current DV and newer HDV cameras don't need FW800 for live playback. On the low end, USB is the standard for anything for keyboard, mice and everything else (with some competition from the PS/2 port). In short, FW800 is a technology looking for a market and the market just isn't there.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This could simply be an engineering decision. They are already performing a pretty drastic architecture switch, why complicate things by trying to make Intel an expert in FW right off the bat?
A better strategy might be to limit the variables on both the R&D and production ends by letting Intel provide hardware it is comfortable with and mating it with software Apple is comfortable with. If it all works out, then you can reintroduce the neglected hardware.
I predicted that one of the first casualties of the Intel-Apple relationship would be Firewire since Intel has fought Firewire in favor of their standard, USB--despite its inferiority in I/O overhead. So I have written a few times in various forums that the Intel relationship with Apple would see increased pressure on Apple to give in and result in a gradual abandonment of Firewire. Many people vehemently disagreed with me. However, we are now seeing the first evidence that I may, unfortunately, be right. Buried in the news about the Macbook Pro was this: "The disappearance of FW800 has also been discussed: Apple said it would have required them toi build a specific FW800 card (Intel does not support it), and that they had no plans for it". If the lack of glue chip support doomed Firewire 800 on the laptops, then might it not doom it on the desktop systems of the future as well since Intel's glue chips will be just as important there as well? Surely Apple is not going to use up a PCI-X slot just for a Firewire 800 card at an added price. I have not seen anything from Apple guarranteeing Firewire support for the future unless I missed it. So I think this may be the beginning of the end for Firewire. I am sure Intel will produce the next generation of USB chips at the 800 speed or better and with Firewire stuck at 400, that will be the death knell for it. I'll be betting that way though I don't like it.
I was relying on statements I've read on the rumor boards saying that the absence of FireWire 800 was probably because Intel motherboards were being used.
Also, Intel said that they had a massive team of engineers working on the Apple product, and what else would they be doing but designing the motherboard and chipset?
That being said, I suspect you are right and stand corrected.
D