If Apple had two product lines..

[jlc1978]

Because Apple does not listen to its customers, but thinks that it knows better than them what they really need. From my point of view, this is a mistake. Because most likely I will give up the Macbook first, then the iPad and finally the iPhone.

Steve Jobs was never about listening to customers.

But this is not the case where each of the millions of customers wants something different. This is a case where some of the customers are happy with the change and some are not.

As is always, from Apple ][ to Mac to Motorola to PowerPC to Intel to AS.

Even if the dissatisfied part is only 10%, looking at Apple's revenues we are talking about really big money. As a shareholder, I wouldn't be thrilled.

Not really. All customers do not have the same value, and the costs of keeping those 10% may outweigh any short term benefits.

Energy efficiency is the one thing Apple keeps repeating. For some it works because they need to reassure themselves that they made the right choice. For me, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

The AS is not for you; and is for those who value battery life. For many, that is a key laptop feature.

Whether my laptop uses x or 1.5x watts is still in power saving mode anyway, because running office programs doesn't require any power. However, what matters to me is whether I can run specific programs on my laptop or not. Let's put it this way: the energy efficiency of the Toyota Prius is incomparably greater than that of the Toyota Land Cruiser. But I need 4 wheel drive.

As always, the key is to get a machine that does what you need.

 

[jlc1978]

’m less inclined to spend my thousands on computers intentionally designed to be thrown in the trash when the SSD’s that wear out after a thousand writes are permanently soldiered into the board. Because of this, my ancient 2015 MBP will ultimately outlast every other computer I have.

SSD's life is measured in TBW - terabytes written (reads don't count); with a 256 usually having a rating of 70* or so TBW. To hit that, you'd need to write about 190GB per day for a year; i.e. fill 2/3 of the disk every day. At 10 GBs/day, you would get 20 years of life. I suspect most users are no where near 10GBs/day, let alone 190GB/s per day, every day; so SSD life is a non-issue. By the time it fails you're likely to be way past when newer OS versions no longer work.

* That is likely conservative, given manufacturers build in extra capacity to allow for wear as well as to ensure warranty claims are not so high they impact profits; i.e no one expects a computer to die after 1 year or a car after 5years/50k, despite the length of the warranty.

 

[MacProFCP]

I think this is a bit disingenuous in the current context. For many customers, Apple Silicon has been exactly what they want — unmatched on-demand mobile performance and superior ergonomy. There is a reason why Mac sales have skyrocketed since late 2020.

Is it really worth it to sabotage all this and dilute the brand just so that one can cater to the small group of users who need professional access to competitor software?

You misunderstood.

As I tried to clarify, what I meant was that Apple puts little weight on what customers say they want or in focus groups or feedback. Apple does what Apple thinks customers want.

Obviously they get it right a lot of the time. Just think how long it took to replace the MacBook keyboards when there was an obvious failure. The culture dictates that if a customer is unhappy, it’s the customers fault.

 

[Gudi]

Would you buy a brand new Macbook (Air/Pro) with an Intel processor today?

No, and neither would Apple offer one.

 

[unrigestered]

No, and neither would Apple offer one.

they'd surely make a nice platform with Linux on it though 👍