New Macbooks, Snow Leopard, iPhone 3.0, and the iPhone 3GS.

(starting the thread now for all the likely inbound comments)

Looks like the days of having a Macbook Pro with a removable battery are long gone, and my chances for getting an order for one through our purchasing system before they're sold out are virtually nil.

Screw you, Apple.

My first thought is on Snow Leopard. It's a minor step up for consumers until new apps come out for it, and thankfully Apple is pricing it as such. $29 for an upgrade copy. Microsoft should take note and make a very cheep/free upgrade version of Windows 7 for Vista owners.

Out of curiosity, how often do you swap out batteries? This came up at lunch today, and pretty much everyone at the table realized they have no real use for replaceable batteries, except for when they wear out. I had 2 for my PowerBook G4 later in it's life, and only swapped them once for more runtime.

My thought is that the companies that make the external battery packs are going to see a rise in business now, for the relatively small number of people who do need extra power on the go. The advantage these have is that they can be used on multiple different systems as well.

Any plane ride lasting longer than a couple of hours requires a battery swap. I don't care how much they say battery life has imporved -- there's no substitute for having a second charged battery available.

There are plenty of other times when plugging in is inconvenient/impossible for long periods of time, especially when you consider charging takes an hour or two, and you might not be in one place for tht

To directly answer your question, I've probably *had* to swap batteries dozens of times, and done it voluntarily (where plugging in was possible but not convenient) hundreds of times.

The external battery packs don't help unless Apple licenses MagSafe, which they haven't. I heard there's a company out there recycling old Apple power supplies with MagSafe and putting external batteries on them, but I don't really trust that.

The writing was on the wall with regard to the battery (though I didn't imagine it'd happen quite this fast) but I didn't have time to prepare myself to lose the express card slot. I needed an SD reader recently and picked up a $10 express card reader. My unibody MBP now has a SD slot and a removable battery.

I also kind of expected that the loss of the battery would come at the same time or after that the matte screen option trickled down. No such luck, it seems.

The new iPhone looks fine, though the upgrade lacks wow factor.

ExpressCard slot's still there on the 17, it seems.

Yeah, the lack of matte is another "Apple knows best" move that irks me. If you're in the sizeable minority of users who prefer matte screens and removable batteries, you're screwed.

For my flights in the past year, I've just skipped having my laptop out on the plane completely and used my iPhone for video, audio, and gaming to keep me occupied. I suppose if you had to work on a plane I could see needing more power, but don't most flights that are longer then a few hours have power at nearly every seat now?

Deep down, Apple's evil plan is to hope people just buy two laptops now, and swap them when the battery dies. :-)

I just wish they would have put 4GB ram in the Air. If they did, I would have replaced my gen 1 MacBook Pro with one.

A couple modest surprises, to me anyway:

- SD slot on the 13" and 15" MacBooks. About time! Given how most cameras these days have standardized on SD, from tiny point-and-shoots up to some of the D-SLRs, it's just an obvious feature that's been missing forever. This also means that people will be able to add assorted gadgets via the SD slot (e.g., a cellular modem). Hey, if they can do the Eye-Fi, they should be able to do all sorts of other things.

- Firewire 800, standard. Seems like the rumors of FW's death have been somewhat exaggerated.

- Tom Tom on the iPhone -- I wouldn't count on it being available before I'm heading to attend a wedding in France in July, but this will definitely have an impact on the portable GPS market.

- Otherwise, the new iPhone doesn't really scream that it's all that much of an upgrade over the current iPhone beyond the improvements in battery life. At least, it's unclear that I'd ever notice a difference in my daily life if my 3G were to be replaced with a 3GS. Of course, I'm not exactly a power user.

(The single best thing Apple could do to improve my life with my iPhone is to do caching properly with the browser, such that when you open a new pane, do some surfing, and come back, it doesn't have to re-render the page from scratch. This could certainly be done without requiring new hardware.)

- Interesting that Apple now supports remote wipe and other such "enterprise" features that Blackberry people have always taken for granted. It will be interesting to see whether you can do this without requiring a MobileMe subscription. Presumably, the iPhone wakes up once in a while and pings a server with its serial number to ask "gee, anything I need to know here?" You should be able to configure any old web server to serve that purpose.

(Evil thought: go to a conference, hook into the public Wi-Fi, and watch for these phone-home messages. If you see one, what are the odds they did the crypto properly? If they screwed it up, then you could respond with the kill signal. You could cause a whole lot of grief.)

- Any one of the changes to Snow Leopard would be no big deal, but the sum of all of them is definitely a big deal. One notable feature is that you can run your machine as a file server but have it stay asleep until it actually gets a request. I've been pondering doing Wake-on-LAN from my iPhone or something, but this will make it painless.

- ZFS seems to have disappeared from the Snow Leopard Server pages. Old text: New text: completely absent.

Not with the new MacBook Pro machines. At least not until you've watched two movies. I can get over 7 hours of battery life on my 17" MBP. Using the higher power discrete graphics chip is going to shorten battery life, as will doing something more intensive like 3D gaming.

The removable battery user group is some 1% of notebook owners - this isn't my stat, but I can't recall where I grabbed it from. Some of that 1% will be taken care of by the much longer run times with the new batteries.

I call bullshit on the 7 hour figure, if only because that's Apple's "ideal conditions" number, and there's no way you're getting that if you're actually using the machine. None.

To be fair, Apple claimed, what 3 or 3.5 hours on the MacBook Air, and that's precisely what I've been able to get out of mine, playing videos non-stop while on a plane.

Apple's claim for the Air was 5 hours.

Apple also claims 8+ hours on the 17 inch Macbook Pro, not 7.

Saying that a machine that you haven't used won't last more than a couple of hours is what then?

I was under the impression they claimed 8+ hours. I was happy to get 7. Whether anyone else believes this isn't relevant (to me) since I'm not the one selling machines.

Unlike older PowerBooks, this thing also lasts a LOT longer while asleep. I'm pretty sure it's consuming less power when asleep, in addition of course to the much higher capacity battery.

BTW, I wasn't saying that you can play movies for 7 hours. I said 2 movies. 7 hours is while predominantly using the browser, but with other apps open and doing their thing in the background, such as Mail, Path Finder and Evernote.

Okay, it is 8 hours on the 17", my bad. Still, I haven't seen anyone getting anywhere near the official number around work. I believe 3 or 3.5 on an Air, but 7 on a 17" MBP must mean *very* light usage (cf.)

Anyway, when I said "couple of hours" I was talking about my current MBP, not the new models. I'm sure the new 15" unibody can get through 3 or 4 hours of typical usage, and that's great, but that doesn't mean having swappable batteries wouldn't help a lot of folks out. It just isn't the "typical" use case, and Apple is legendary for over-optimizing for the typical use case (see also glossy screens, the on-again off-again love affair with Firewire, ExpressCard, etc.)

The stats in that link concur with what I wrote. Approximately 7 hours doing work online and over 4 hours playing movies (the 2 movie figure I mentioned). Maybe it's my anti-glare screen giving me better battery life. I mean, producing the glare on those other screens must use up some juice.

I suppose that the batteries in the new 13 and 15" machines are of a lesser capacity so may not run as long given the same usage.



I completely agree (with you, not Apple).

Did they say whether this was for all iPhones, or just the newest model announced today?

re: (TomTom's GPS software and mounting solution)

It's for the iPhone 3G and newer. It was announced before the new iPhone.

I just picked up an interesting tidbit from the specs for the 3GS display:



Need to see that one in person, because the regular iPhone and iPod Touch are fingerprint swine.

Yeah, I was very curious about this spec. I hope it works and other companies start incorporating that. With touchscreen devices this becomes a huge problem.

I've become quite adept at finding just the right ways to swipe my fingers across my G1 to wipe away the smudges but not leave a smear of oil behind

Fingerprint-resistant oleophobic coating

Did they put this on the touch2's?

If so I'll tell you, when the skin oil beads up, what you get is a smear of tiny lenses that are perfect for magnifying odd pixels.

It does require new hardware - the memory that the old page was rendered in has been reused by the new browser tab; when more memory is required stuff gets turfed out forcing the re-render. More memory helps this, obviously

The phone home stuff is very likely to be the (already documented) XMPP jabber session that is used for mobileme/yahoo/notification pushes, which is encrypted. Not speaking from a position of knowing anything here, just from a position of thinking that the wheel is unlikely to have been reinvented.

There was already remote wipe for exchange users, which uses the exchange persistent connection stuff.

Hugo

As evidence that at least a few folks out there love swappable batteries, (and I promise this will be my last gripe about it), I submit the following.

Right after the Apple store opened up yesterday, I checked the refurbished section of the store, and there were prior-gen 15" and 17" MBPs in seven or eight configurations, still with the glass trackpad and glossy screen, but with the removable battery. Within two hours, they were all gone.

Now, I don't know how many were there, and Apple is usually good about ramping down production before their updates, but with prior refreshes, I've always seen the previous gen laptops hang around for at least a few days on the refurb store.

This is anecdotal evidence, of course, but I think this impacts more than just 1% of Mac users. If I wasn't completely broke from my upcoming wedding, I would have snatched one of them up. As it is, I guess I"ll have to adjust to life under the new regime. After all my griping about the Macbook Pro battery, it's not like I'm going anywhere else for my next laptop.

I will say that the Snow Leopard upgrade pricing is great, (been waiting for Exchange support for awhile) and the iPhone improvements, while somewhat incremental, are certainly nice. I did expect more out of the iPhone updates (multitasking, A2DP, and tethering on A2DP would be enough to make me consider the 3GS) but all in all, not a bad show.

Oh, Hugo, nice offices they have you working in these days.

Presumably, they could also swap browser state out to unused Flash memory (not just cached files, but internal data structures). I guess that would increase the wear load on the Flash, but it might be worth it.

So... any information about ZFS's noticeable no-show?

How about making the browser more efficient so pages don't take up close to the full 128MB of available memory? That's probably where I'd start with improvements to Mobile Safari.

While a move to 256MB of memory would be welcomed over 128MB, I'm sure most people would be a lot happier with 512MB or 1GB, judging by the current performance bottlenecks. If Safari on the desktop is any indication, it's one very unforgiving and memory hogging application.

Tonyc,

when you saw the old MacBook Pros on the website, how much were they going for?

It varied based on configuration. The one I was hoping for (assuming work would have paid for it) was the 15" 2.6 GHz with 4GB RAM and 128GB SSD HD. I think it was going for $1,999, which is just $300 or so less than what a similarly-configured machine is going for now. Not a huge price break (especially for a refurb), so I think folks were motivated by the removable battery (and possibly the ExpressCard slot as well, maybe Compact Flash SLR users?) In any event, that's definitely the fastest I've seen the prior-generation MBP's fly away.

I've got nothing new here; I just think this is worth reiterating:

As it stands now, there is no real, non-hack, option for having an external battery pack for a MacBook. If you are one of the people for whom a single battery is not enough, you have no recourse at all. Other than not buying a Mac laptop.

One "hack" way of using an extra battery is to attach the bottom of the case with velcro. And replace the few screws that gold the battery in place with velcro as well. That should simplify a battery swap.

You can also carry a car battery and inverter to use along with your existing power supply.

These don't look all that hacky to me. These on the other hand do.


This thread has a few people that have bought the HyperMac batteries.

I'm pretty sure that means "We buy power supplies from Apple and hack off the MagSafe connector".

Not to mention that you then have to have this external battery hanging off your MacBook. They could at least have sized it so that you could just slip it under the laptop's base.

Of course one benefit with these external packs is that you don't have to zero-power sleep (hibernate and un-hibernate) or worse, shut down, your machine to hook them up. And another is that they're available in capacities much higher than the internal batteries.

True enough, but the pictures (including the users pictures on Mac Rumors) show a very clean cable. Unless you told someone, "hey, this cable is all hacked together, don't buy it!", noone would really care. The product appears to work, and provides functions that a single spare battery for a laptop wouldn't. It's a solution to get more runtime for people who are "stuck with" a longer running sealed in battery.

I guess in the same vein, I used a hacked solution to get the empeg into my car, since it didn't come with the vehicle and I had to cut cables during install.

And to bring the thread back a bit to other WWDC news, it looks like the iPhone will finally be able to access files on an iDisk officially. Several various 3rd party programs have existed to do similar, however the Apple one will also allow easy e-mailing of any file on the disk to someone, by moving it into a public section of the iDisk and e-mailing a URL. Still not quite as nice as just exposing the file system and allowing files to be synced, but handy nonetheless.

source, towards the bottom.

Also, for anyone with 3.0 and MobileMe, Locate my iPhone is up and running now. I'll hopefully never lose my phone, but it's good to know I have a chance at recovering it now. I'm betting a similar feature shows up for future Mac laptops, as 10.6 has Core Location built in and uses it to set the time zone automatically.

You might also be able to make an argument for Apple's own power bricks being hacks. They might source the magsafe connector from one company, the cable assembly from another and the power brick from a third. A fourth company could put it all together for them. There's at least one company involved in constructing that brick and possibly up to 4, not including internal components. None of those companies is Apple.

Someone enterprising enough should be able to get at least some connectors from their manufacturer - without Apple's approval even.

The big difference being that Apple supports their branded products. (More specifically, they're probably not reverse-engineered. I know, it's just a power connector, but there's some facility/protocol for charging the internal battery or not, not to mention that there are four conductors.) If your MacBook power supply dies and Apple discovers that you've had an unauthorized power supply connected, you might be out of luck. Actually, that's probably in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (in the US), but have fun arguing with Apple about that. And I'm not defending Apple doing that. I'm just saying that it's another example of Apple/Jobs telling us that they know what's best. "This is all the power you'll ever need, and I don't even see the people who are telling me that's not true."

I think it's much more about engineering and design tradeoffs. It would simply not have been possible to make an enclosure as robust as the one used now in the unibody machines had they incorporated a removable battery.

There may be some deluded people at Apple that think that their way is the only way, but in all my dealings with people at the company, they know fully well when limitations exist. They're simply targetting the most consumers they can. The others, usually the more advanced anyway, can find their own way to their solutions.

There are plenty of third-party replaceable batteries available for older machines as well, and they come with their own warranties. I'm pretty sure that in the US consumers are covered by the same act you mentioned (from Apple voiding their warranties). Of course that's not likely to cover a defective third party product directly or indirectly causing damage to the computer through something like fire. But then you might just have a lot more to worry about that a broken computer.

I like the current design because it fits my usage very well. I absolutely agree that there are people out there that won't find the situation ideal. However, the battery life is significantly improved from previous generations, so those affected customers should number even fewer than ever before.

By failing to offer an Apple-branded external battery?

With their industrial designers, they could have come up with something really sexy.

But they still fail to offer a docking station. If they did, I would have pushed really hard for my office to standardize on Apple laptops, but without a docking station, I simply can't do it. And I'm far from the only IT guy with that opinion.

While I'm complaining, they really should have put a MagSafe port on both sides of the laptops.

Apple Docking Station. I have to admit, I'm really surprised to hear that the main holdup from doing a major platform shift to OS X is due to the inability to slide a laptop into some contraption to avoid hooking cables up or using wireless devices.

Or were you planning on using Windows only on the standardized Apple laptops?

Much like removable batteries, very few people have a true need for a dock. I think what Bruno was trying to say is that Apple targets the widest market they can with the smallest lineup of products. This is likely due to the disaster that Apple was in the 90s with tons of products with no clear indication what each product was good for.


I don't have a great grasp of electrical engineering, but this screams bad idea to me. I can't think of a single product that offers multiple power plugs to be plugged in, unless it is for redundancy and connected to independent power supplies. I could see wanting ports on both sides, but by the time you satisfy everyone, you have duplicated every port.

I'm sure Apple looks at the numbers of second batteries that they sell versus the number of laptops they sell, and it probably becomes very clear that there's no point in supporting such a small market segment. I'll bet it's a similar story with docking stations.

(Also, for what it's worth, I bought the docking station for my old HP Omnibook 500, and it turned out to have a roughly 10% chance of electrically frying its motherboard every time I connected it. After four replacement motherboards, I got them to swap it out for the newer Omnibook 510 and I gave up on the docking station altogether. I'm sure if Apple tried to build a modern docking station, they'd do one that actually worked, but it wouldn't be cheap.)

You've made that bogus argument before, Tom. Just because you might not find it useful doesn't mean other people don't.

Ignoring the wires trailing all over the place, I can't spend $900 for a "docking station", especially where most of the cost is something I already have and would have to get rid of. Not to mention the fact that it still won't allow me to have multiple monitors. (And, no, the laptop screen is not enough.)

With the systems I have now, when the laptop is docked, I get two 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 screens via DVI or DisplayPort, gigabit ethernet, a number of USB ports, and power, and less significantly, serial, parallel, PS/2, a VGA output, and, I believe, an eSATA port. All by simply setting the laptop down.

And, yes, dual monitors is significant. And twenty times the bandwidth. And not having to constantly plug and unplug, considering my users carry them around the office all the time.

And I don't know what we might do if we went to Apple hardware. Because there's not any point in even bringing it up without it meeting certain requirements.

I was talking about the decision to make the notebook the way it was made, not about releasing another product.

The choice to make or not make an external battery comes down to ROI. While a particular ratio may seem fine for a smaller company, Apple has much loftier requirements. They likely can't justify the costs in designing and marketing such a product. I can imagine the return would be miniscule.

The same exact hypothesis applies to a dock. I could probably use one once in a while, but it's not that big a deal for me. Most people I've worked with in a corporate environment weren't using them for their various Windows machines either. Of course notebook purchases were also far from standardized.

Personally I like not having a ton of trap doors and loose bits on my machine. I'd sooner have a multi-card reader built-in than an external battery designed by Apple, a removable battery or a desktop dock.

I'd also consider it of greater benefit to have a fuel door on each side of the car (than I would two power connectors on something as small as a notebook) rather than just on one side - but no one does that either.

The machines aren't perfect. They're just head and shoulders (and miles) better than anything else. Even the plain MacBook in the plastic casing is better than any notebook produced by any other manufacturer at any price point. Sometimes being the best still means something's the best of what's available, not as good as it can possibly be. IMO, there's no such thing as a "perfect 10" in anything.

I'll complain about something with the MBP17. If you opt for the anti-glare screen, you don't get a black bezel around the display. It's plain aluminum colored, reminiscent of the older PowerBooks and MacBook Pros. I do realize that it's because the glossy screens have a sheet of glass across the whole front of the top lid, covering the screen, but I just wish they'd anodize or paint the bezel black when you're adding $50 for the screen option.

Following Bruno, if Apple were to offer any meaningful option on its machines, I'd say they should offer matte screens everywhere. I'd much prefer a matte screen on my iMac or MacBook Air, and the anti-glare thing I put on the iMac isn't nearly as nice as a plain old matte screen.

I'm aware of that, and only brought it back up because you made it sound as if the dock connector is the reason you are holding back on switching to Apple hardware at the office. On the flip side of pointing out bogus arguments, just because you require a dock doesn't mean everyone does.

Clearly you have found solutions that meet your needs, and those needs just happen to not be met by one of many computer companies out there. In this particular case, not dealing with cables, and needing multiple monitors is higher on your priority list then running OS X. For others, including myself, the OS is usually much higher on my list, as I have grown to really dislike Windows.

Take-apart of the new 13" MBP at iFixIt.com so you can see just how rammed everything is inside that case.

It's not soldered onto the board? It's still got a plastic case, even a pull tab?

I was kind of wishy-washy about the whole unreplaceable battery thing, but there is no reason that couldn't be user-accessible.

If it was user accessible like the last model unibody 13 inch MacBook, it would be a smaller capacity battery. Mostly due to needing to isolate the battery compartment from the rest of the machine to ensure people don't damage the mainboard. The casing on the battery would also likely need to be thicker to ensure it is not punctured easily while stored in a laptop bag, once again trimming back space that could be used for storing energy. Apple has their batteries custom engineered for their machines, and they pack them as full as they can. Most other manufacturers still use round cells, and just tie them together and put them in a plastic case. On their MacBook Pro page they even have a battery video to show the difference. It's likely a bit exaggerated in the diagram, but the point is still there that for Apple, a removable battery means wasted space and less power.

That is a Lithium Ion vs Lithium Polymer difference and not something Apple is asking for specially. Other laptops which use Lithium Polymer batteries also use rectangular cells.

I think the most obvious thing is that people claiming that Apple could make this battery removable have never seen/used a new unibody machine in person.

There's no reason Apple couldn't have put a second LCD onto ever notebook either. Think about it, they could just put some hinges on the current screen so the second one would flip out from behind.

There's also no reason they couldn't have put an OLED panel into the track pad to show the current time. Or a row of green LEDs along the palm rest area, one for HD read access, one for write, one for idle, one for WiFi availability, one for BlueTooth (though this one would be blue of course, duh!), a red one to indicate that caps lock isn't being used and a one that shines super bright white to let you know when your display is asleep.

If you can imagine, somewhere to the right of that would be a physical switch to turn on/off the wifi and and another for BT.

Personally, I'm glad they didn't.

What a silly point. Saying that they "could have done X" to the Macbook Pro (where X is a crazy feature nobody has ever asked for) doesn't mean that taking away feature Y (where Y is a feature many users find useful) is a good thing.

The actual space/weight savings of going from removable battery to built-in are negligible. Two of my coworkers have unibody MBPs, and they're a bit slimmer, but I suspect that has more to do with incremental improvements in design than the removal of a little bit of materials for the battery compartment. (My Macbook Pro is a lot thinner than my old Powerbook G4, after all.)

Besides, if having a light, small machine is that important, you should get a Macbook Air. The Macbook Pro line has always been the slightly bulkier but more powerful line, where users are willing to trade a bit of size/weight for performance/features.

I didn't say anything about weight. That was Tom. There's a lot more to the the built-in battery than weight. I use a 17" MBP, so size/weight aren't of huge concern (not within Apple's ranges anyway).



I thought I'd make my point fun, but it wasn't silly. If it were silly, why would so many other manufacturers put in exactly the features I described? If no one wants those features why are they in every POS notebook made by every POS manufacturer like Acer, Toshiba, Dell, etc. ?

Seriously, you overestimate, by orders of magnitude, how many people care at all about a removable battery. I'm a power user and I don't. I'm not using myself as an extension of the market at large of course. But I know people who have used notebooks for years and have no clue that their batteries even come out, let alone how to remove them. You seriously over-estimate the notebook buying public.

As I've said previously, I saw the figure of about 1% tossed around, but I suspect it's even lower than that.

What I do care about is using the best notebook money can buy. Would the MBP still be the best with a removable battery? Damn straight. Would the battery be as high capacity as it is now? Not likely. Would the unibody structure suffer from the extra trap door? Yes it would. It would still be the best, just not as good as it is now.

As long as the battery can be replaced when it's no longer optimally functional, the current design is well suited to the 98%+ of people who don't argue about this stuff in forums and the 1% who do and can live with it. The other 1%? Sorry, I don't have an answer for them except to give it a try.

I'm not trying to say that you're wrong for wanting a removable battery. That desire can't be wrong. What I'm saying is that the decision wasn't made to screw the percentage of people who care about that sort of thing. It was made to create the best notebook experience for the largest consumer segment possible. Many things likely factor into that, including weight, size, energy capacity and of course cost.

It's just not a concern for the vast majority of customers. There are a number of things, outside the gimicky garbage I mentioned previously, that I'd really like to see in Apple's notebook line that isn't in there now or has never been there before.

And no, a biometric sensor is definitely not one of those things.

My old Thinkpad had a fingerprint sensor. I kinda liked it, in terms of sitting in a public place like an airport and not worrying about shoulder surfing. If Apple were to have a biometric sensor, maybe they'd do it in some other sort of cool fashion, like face recognition via the camera. But then they'd have to come up with some kind of make sure the person is really not just a photograph detector. Hmm... Maybe it asks you to blink your eyes in some pattern?

I know, though Apple does seem to be specifying the lithium polymer size, where as other manufactures may just take stock size X, Y or Z. I've actually been disappointed by the generally slow adoption of lithium polymer batteries, as my old iPaq in 2000 used one. Compaq also went the route of building a sealed in, non removable, form fitting battery.


I wasn't trying to imply anything about weight either. I was talking more about the volume of space required to support a removable battery. Taking a laptop with identical dimensions, a laptop with a user removable battery will have a smaller percentage of the total volume dedicated to storing energy compared to a laptop with a non user removable battery. And with the Apple laptops, it's enough of a difference to add around 40% more energy capacity based on the specs.

Going back to other aspects of WWDC, anyone else think that the lone MacBook is a sign that Apple is working on a lower priced laptop to compete against the netbook craze? It seems odd that they now have a very large Pro family, but only one model of MacBook. Even the Air offers 2 different models spec wise.

I think that's the heart of the problem. I really enjoy professional gear. Camera, scuba, computer, audio any just about anything else. Do 90% of consumers need weather sealed buttons and a special button that resets to the default focus point? No. Do 90% of consumers need firewire? No. Do 90% of consumers need headphones that started out as in ear monitors for musicians on stage? No.

I don't need any of those things. However, I appreciate them and the polish and functionality that you get for paying the premium.

"Pro" is now just a marketing term in cupertino. They're looking to sell as many macbook pros to the people walking though the mall. Is it still the best laptop available? Yes. However, it's not the best laptop Apple could have built.

I'm expecting a "macbook lite". 10 inch screen. Some combination of plastic and aluminum for price and design continuity. 32GB SSD standard. $699. Hopefully with a low end Core2Dio. In my dreams it takes standard magsafe adapters instead of the MBA ones.

Snow leopard is 6GB smaller than Leopard when installed. Who the hell cares? No one. Except someone installing it on a 32GB SSD.

Yeah, I'm just not buying that any more.


There already is such a separator.


Maybe. Then again, if one of the sides was the bottom cover, you'd regain some space. And the new connector seems to take up at least as much space as a contact connector would.


So they could reduce the battery by 1% to accomodate that stuff and only lose like 4 minutes. That's well within the margin of error on those estimates.

Honestly, I really feel like Apple has an ulterior motive with this non-removable battery thing.


Apparently because I have Quicktime 7.6.0 instead of 7.6.2, I can't watch that video. And I don't really feel like rebooting to bother. (I really don't understand why upgrading Quicktime necessitates a reboot.)

Read my message Bitt. Apple has many reasons, including cost. It's not "ulterior" though. Just a standard part of doing business.

Having an internal battery also cuts down on plastics and other waste, both pre and post consumer.



I completely agree. But I also think this is the case with products from most manufacturers, including Nikon and Canon to relate to the photo examples you mentioned.

I don't think anyone ever build the best possible. It's always the "best possible considering."

We can sit here all day, for multiple days, coming up with reasons for the change and reasons why/how they could have done it differently.

It gave me the same annoying message, but when I canceled it I was able to see the video anyway.

That doesn't piss me off nearly as much as the Windows auto-updater that refuses to remove Safari from the install list.

I don't mean to be antagonistic here, I just have an honest question: do most laptop batteries claim 1,000 recharges? Wouldn't that mean that if you charged it every night, the battery would be dead in three years? I know that's a long time for computers, but a Macbook Pro today should still be usable in three years.

Is this common for notebooks?

The 1000 charges is until the battery performance is reduced to a particular level (80%?) - it's not until the battery is dead.

Apple expects the battery to last at least 5 years.

Most other notebooks have batteries with charge cycles 1/3 to perhaps half of the rated cycles of the MBP.

"1000 charges" generally means "charging 1000 times from near 0% back to near 100%".

Overnight top-ups of, say, 20% count as fractional charges.

Or at least that's been my own experience with notebooks, cellphones, and DSLRs, all using Lithium-whatever batteries.

Cheers

Absolutely! This sort of thing happens all the time with cars. Why can't Honda/Acura sell a proper rear-wheel-drive sedan? It's not like they don't know how to build one. Why don't they offer an American version of the European Accord wagon, perhaps as an Acura? That would have much better mileage than any of their SUVs. You want it? Too bad. Let's say you're a high-performance minded car guy. How about an Audi RS4 Wagon? You can/could get one in Europe. Not here, even though you can get an RS4 sedan and an A4 wagon.

In this sense, Apple has taken a page from other big industries. They've done cost reduction and model simplification in areas where they think *most* customers won't care. And they're perfectly right to do so. Being annoyed at Apple for not having a laptop with all the right specs is just like being annoyed at Toyota or Honda for failing to sell a car with all the right specs. You can always go to another firm, or go to the aftermarket, but the fact is that you really want the proper Toyota or Honda, and it pisses you off that they don't sell what you want, even though they could.

It's not about not having the right combination of options. It's about removing features across the board. People have certainly been irritated at auto companies for reducing features before. What if Audi decided to stop offering manual transmissions altogether? Now imagine that Audi was the only company that made sports sedans.

Biometric systems for regular computers are pretty useless. They'll deter casual attempts at getting in and nothing more. I guess if you're using it for the situation you describe then it'll be good enough security.

Your blinking idea would be circumvented by cutting eye holes in the photo.

I certainly understand companies exist to make money. The bean counters know how much feature X costs, and when it's not profitable, they'll get rid of it. And, while I do dispute the idea that only 1% of users care about being able to swap batteries, I do realize it's a minority position, and not many people are going to change teams just because of it.

I think Bitt's sports sedan analogy above is apt. Apple makes great laptops that people pay a premium for above similarly-equipped PCs. And, as I said before, the Pro line is for power users who want the best Apple laptops available. The Macbook line, on the other hand, was developed to create a lower price tier with compromises like lower-res screens, slower CPUs, and fewer ports.

If Apple had let the integrated battery feature trickle up into the Macbook line, but kept the MBP removable battery design, the effect on their bottom line would be negligible, and the end user would have a choice.

Nope, that metal piece doesn't extend all the way to the bottom of the system, and the battery appears to partially sit on top of it. So right there you would have to shave off a bit of the battery along the entire length. This view helps to show that.


Maybe? The battery in the new MacBook Pro wouldn't pass any number of US or international certifications if it was shipped as a user replaceable part. Puncturing lithium batteries is a very bad idea, and I doubt Apple really wants the ire of the FAA when some dinner knife in first class falls off a tray, punctures some guys laptop bag, and starts a fire.


Yes, it's all a big conspiracy to ensure that people debate this on and on again on online forums. Glad you solved it. :-)


Correct. On a Mac laptop, it shows the cycle count in system profiler, and their support people tend to use it to determine if a battery needs to be replaced under warranty, or if it is normal.

I think perhaps a better example would be the one of removing ashtrays. After all, Apple hasn't remove the keyboards on their MBP.

Manual transmissions are actually a great example. Let's say your desired specs for a car are: rear-wheel drive, manual transmission, high performance, four-door sedan. Just that. At least in the U.S., this set of criteria narrows you down to a handful of BMWs, two GM products, and one Infiniti. That's it! (I'm probably forgetting something, and I'm deliberately excluding AWD cars, but I think my point still stands.)

You could compromise the "high performance" bit and get a Lexus IS250. You could compromise on having seating for four adults, and get a variety of coupes, etc, but if you want all those criteria together, your choices are limited.

Getting back to Windows vs. Apple, what's clearly irritating is that you can run Windows on absolutely anything. However, if you want Mac OS X, then suddenly all your options collapse, much as they might if you absolutely insisted on having a particular car brand. This is clearly one of the driving factors in the Hackintosh universe, so if you really and truly insist on a replaceable battery in a Mac laptop, then you've got an increasing incentive to buy non-Apple hardware.

I would put myself in the 99% of people who never think about removing the battery in my laptop too much. Of all the laptops I have ever owned only one, my Macbook has ever had a replacement, and that was a warranty job done at the Apple store. It doesn't seem to be a killer feature of a laptop to me, if it reduces costs and boosts battery time by having it built in then I'm up for that.

My iPhone has a battery that can't be replaced my myself and if anything the life of that seems to be strangely growing lately, I assume Apple pump millions of $$$ into the research and it seems to be paying off for me.

Anyway most trains here in the UK have power points at the tables on longer journeys so I would just use my power adaptor with me (which I have anyway) and I would much rather use my iPhone anyway as I always look at people on planes and trains with their laptops out and think to myself "prick".

A total non-issue to me the average Joe user.

To change the topic, the new iPhone 3Gs looks pretty amazing. What the hell will they find to put in there next? Hugo and team really are pulling off some amazing stuff, the iPhone has become part of my everyday life, I love it, it does everything I want it to and it looks like it's going to do some stuff that I didn't even know I wanted. Pity the upgrade path is a little rocky.

I am most excited by finally having TomTom on the iPhone along with some neat looking car hardware, finally an easy solution in the car to several problems.

Cheers

Cris.

I think you're wrong. Compare this. There's an aluminum separator visible basically the whole way between the battery and the main board. And, yes, it doesn't quite reach the bottom panel, but it would not take up any more room if it were to.


Make the battery case out of aluminum. Problem solved. Unless the current plastic case is so thin as to be non-rigid, that's not any additional space, and any issues with the battery shorting against the case are easily solvable with some insulating tape.


I didn't mean it like that. I just meant that they probably did it solely for manufacturing reasons, and are spinning it as a positive to the consumer in order to ameliorate the reduced feature set.

That said, at least the battery actually is field-replaceable, though maybe not officially. I was under the impression that it was soldered to the board and if the battery died, it was back to the factory. Of course, if the cells being used are non-standard, the chances of there being an after-market replacement are slim. Which means that when Apple EoLs it, it's a paperweight.

You're not quite following my point, which is that the model you wanted existed last year, but this year they removed the option, while everything else stays pretty much the same.

You forgot Mercedes.

I love internet forums. It's one of the few places where it's easy to argue even when the participants seems to agree with each other.

To be fair, the points Apple are flaunting with the new battery are its longevity and weight savings. And with the enclosure of the machine they're also bragging about weight and rigidity. This is different from saying something like "with a built-in battery you'll never run the risk of losing or dropping your battery again".

Our differences seem to be whether or not having the battery unremovable is made up for by increased working time. I doubt that the increased working time is significant and therefore not worth it. You seem to think that the additional time is worth it.

Personally, I feel like moving from 5.5 hours to 6.5 hours, while numerically significant, is pointless in the real world. I can't think of any useful threshold at the 6 hour mark.

Let me reword that; it's been pointed out to me that I might not be being clear. Additional battery life is never pointless, but an extra hour isn't going to change anyone's usage pattern, especially considering that that number is probably well within the margin of error for how long either battery is actually going to last doing real work. In particular, that 15% improvement certainly doesn't make up for the loss of a 100% improvement.

I don't even have a strong enough pull in my direction to say that I think the non-removable battery is made up for by "X" other property.

My previous PBG4 system couldn't get 2 hours of battery run time. I didn't own a previous generation MBP17, but even if I could only get 5.5 hours from this battery that'd still be fine by me.

My point has always been that there are multiple reasons that Apple made the decision. And that regardless of those reasons, the non-removability (non-instant anyway) doesn't affect the vast majority of customers.

If you're into wagons, then you were probably pissed when Lexus canceled the Lexus IS300 Sportwagon when they migrated to the current body style. It was there. Now it's gone. Similarly, Volvo no longer offers your wonderful S60R. So far as I can tell, the only Volvo offered today in the U.S. with a manual transmission is the C30, even though they used to offer it on a variety of other cars. Volvo has taken away something they used to offer, just like Apple.
Mercedes has manual transmissions on European cars, but in the U.S., I think the only option is the C300 Sport Sedan. You can't get a manual on the C350 or the AMG version, or on any of the other sedans.

The issue is that you also need room on that separator to deal with clasps or whatever is used to hold the bottom panel or battery in. The older MacBook had a thicker separator for that exact reason.


For the 13 inch system, the battery went from 45 watt-hours to 58. So 1/3rd more capacity, and that seems significant to me. The 17 inch system is harder to compare apples to apples, since there was never a Unibody model with a removable battery. The link you provided also fails to say how they tested. I'd expect better comparisons to be coming out soon with the 13 and 15 inch models, since one of the few changes to them was the battery.

The 3GS to me seems to be just a standard evolution. It's a good one, but at this point the iPhone is definitely locked into an annual upgrade path much like the iPods. Upgrading every year is going to be costly due to most phone carriers moving to 24 month contracts and subsidies to keep initial costs down. Personally, I'd like to have the new phone, but will probably skip this year and wait for whatever new version comes out next year. A two year jump will definitely bring more new features to my iPhone experience, while also saving me money to use on other things like new apps.

True, I guess 3.0 also adds lots of non-hardware features for us who won't be upgrading.

It looks like the camera is a fairly major upgrade, the touch auto focus looks particularly good to me. Also if what they are saying about the new speed and power is true I guess we can expect even more powerful apps on the way.

Speaking of apps, I found myself buying onOne's DSLR Remote the other day, if there was a pointless app this has to win top prize. It looks so cool, and it is, but I can't for the life of me figure out where I would use it. Even their example it pretty useless, I mean where would you put your laptop on a basketball hoop?

Cheers

Cris.

Yea. My thinking is that iFartMobile is kinda funny, at least to some people. But DSLR Remote is a fully serious app made by a properly serious company. They are selling it basically on geek factor alone, it is pretty pointless, how many situations can I think of where I would be happy to leave my DSLR and my laptop to remote shoot with my iPhone but restricted to WiFi range? All it does is extend the tethered shooting functions of the included Canon software to the iPhone. I have to admit it looks a pretty impressive thing when you are showing people.

I guess I am a PocketWizard user so that may slightly adjust my expectations

Cheers

Cris.

Okay, now we're off on a total tangent, but WTF, Mercedes? They apparently only offer 3 cars total in the US that have manual transmissions. And, FWIW, AMG doesn't offer a manual anywhere in the world, and hasn't for quite some time.

There are also two Cadillacs that fit the bill, the CTS and the CTS-V, the latter of which is a monster, at 556 HP and 551 lb. ft. of torque. It's basically a Corvette ZR1 with a Cadillac body.

It's a wonder GM is in dire straights when you look at such brilliant moves as this.

Maybe it's because the rest of the car is built out of all the same parts as a Cavalier.

Yeah, the similarities are striking.

The CTS and the revitalization of Cadillac is what's right with GM. I can't say I care for vehicles like the Escalade, but it sells well and had a huge part in turning the brand image around. The CTS, CTS-V, SRX, and XLR are legitimately good cars. The difference between them and my former 1996 Fleetwood is astounding. Perhaps the interior bits could use a little upgrade to compare with BMW or Mercedes, but the Cadillac is priced much less in most cases.

I would say there's a reason why Cadillac survived the GM collapse, but they also chose to keep Buick which I can't understand.

I haven't actually seen a CTS-V in person, but if its "interior bits" are like the ones I saw on an '04 or '05 CTS I test drove — and from that picture, they appear to be — they need more than a "little upgrade". They're all cheap black plastic with white silkscreened labels that look like they'll wear off in about a week.

That said, I really liked the driving experience, and the CTS-V, by all accounts, is a really nice car. It currently holds the laptime record around the Nürburgring for a 100% stock production car.

I'm not a big fan of the new Cadillac styling, but it's certainly distinctive in an era of similarities. Try to get your grandmother to distinguish between a BMW 5-series, a Lexus GS, an Acura TL, Infiniti M35, and a Hyundai Genesis without looking at logos.


I would assume it has something to do with sales, though I don't have any numbers, but I think it makes sense otherwise. My mom owned a mid-'90s LeSabre, and it was more well appointed than the CTS I drove by a long shot. It was a nice car, while being nicer than a Chevy and not as expensive as a Cadillac. Buick really is a good mid-range between standard and luxury, and their models are distinct.

Compare Pontiac, the other other GM brand, which currently has seven models, of which only one, the G6, is not a badge engineered version of another card sold in the US, or a captive import, and no one's clamoring to buy a G6.

They should probably dump Chevy, too, but that's their ... I don't want to say "flagship" brand, but, I guess, most prominent brand. Chevy is (was?) to GM what Ford is to Ford. So they probably can't do that.

They should definitely dump GMC, though. Or cancel the Chevy-branded versions of those trucks. I've never understood why they both exist.

Surprisingly, you can also get the Pontiac G8 GXP with a manual transmission, and it's a RWD sedan. I suppose that makes sense, since it's a captive import of the Australian Holden Commodore.

Huh ? There are plenty of faster times from 100% stock production cars than the CTS-V at 7 minutes 59 seconds.

That isn't to say that 7:59 isn't impressive, you'd never guess it from the way the car looks.

It set the record for a production sedan apparently.

Still not as impressive as the attempt to get under 10 mins in a white van How embarassing would that be to be overtaken by that...

Whoops. Yeah, sedan, not car, as Trevor says.

Except that the BMW M3 CSL is faster at 7:50 and as far as I can see that fits into the description of a sedan...

Elsewhere it said that it was specifically the record for a production sedan with stock tires *shrug*

IMO, that seems to be the problem with every American-made car I've been in.

While not in the same price category, the Hondas I've been in all had a very simple design to their interior consoles, but in my experience they use very sturdy-feeling plastic. I know that the console in my 9 year old Odyssey looks like new (which is good because I'm selling it - anyone in the Virginia area want a minivan?).

Not stock, not a sedan.

I'll give you that what you guys call a sedan/saloon might not be what I might. Generally speaking, in the US, "sedan" means four-door, not a particular body shape.

Regardless of splitting hairs, though, "CSL" stands for "Coupe Sport Light".

Here, I believe sedan means "has four doors and a trunk", as opposed to hatchback, coupe (two doors), (station/estate) wagon, etc..

Or something like that.

I wasn't clear on exactly what qualified as a sedan, so I looked on wikipedia first. From my reading of it the M3 qualified, but I guess it must be one of those cases where wikipedia differs from reality*...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_(car)




* in that it is wrong

When I was a kid, coupes were 2 door, 2 seats. In the '70s (I think), Chevy started calling their 2 door Impalas a "coupe". Of course, Cadillac has been calling their 2 door land yachts "coupe" since the '50s.

I would think anything with a usable back seat would not be a coupe, except for the rumble seat Model A.

The WP article does mention this...



And while the M3 does have a frameless front door, it does have B pillars.

I always thought that coupé, which is after all the French word for "cut", is one of those things that can't be defined by itself but only in relation to other things. So a Vauxhall Calibra is a coupé version of the Cavalier, because they took the Cavalier and cut some off to make it more aerodynamic. Rover 800 coupés were cut-off Rover 800 saloons. That BMW, because it has just the same roofline as the 4-door, would still be a saloon by that reckoning. According to Wikipedia, at least one car (the Mark 1 Ford Granada) was available in both 2-door saloon and 2-door coupé versions, both appearing from the photos to have four seats -- which would argue against defining coupéité in terms of door or seat count.

Peter

Does that make the 15" MBP the Coupé version of the 17"? But on the other hand, the 15" PowerBook came out prior to the 17" so in fact they extended it rather than cut. The world is a giant conundrum.

AnandTech's recent MBP 15" battery tests - he gets from 6:30 to nearly 8:25 (h:m) in his tests.

I think there must be a flaw in his tests. If he didn't pay close attention (his tests are looped) then his scree may have been turning off instead of staying at the brightness he pre-set.

I can't see how the new 15" can beat the 17" while equipped with a smaller battery, especially since Apple itslef claims it should have a shorter life.

I think the real answer is that coupe and sedan are ill-defined terms. If you were to ask most people in the US, a coupe has two doors and a sedan has four doors. Of course, asking the hoi polloi is not generally a great way to get to the truth of something, but it may be all we have to go on here.

Still, the M3 CSL is defined by BMW as a coupe; otherwise it would be the M3 SSL. And, even if you want to second-guess them and call it a sedan, it's still an after-factory tuned version. Well, the E36 one was. Maybe not the E46.

How about this: the CTX-V holds the record for a production 4-door car.

New model, 4 door, b-pillerless coupes... Haven't seen one outside of a car show.

Yeah, we had to do some serious tidying for them to film that commercial

I believe, and this is just my view and not necessarily anything to do with why the batteries look like they do, that if the battery is non-user-replaceable, then a whole different set of regulations covering the battery housing apply.

eg: a user removable battery has to be able to pass drop tests as a bare pack. One that is built in does not need to conform to this requirement, which means it can be made with less casing/mechanical support and hence higher capacity.

Hugo

(edit: ok, so having read the thread through now, I see others have already put the above forward as an explanation. Battery regulations are necessarily frightening things, given how dangerous a badly made pack can be)

The 13 inch and 15 inch MBPs apparently are SATA I instead of SATA II like the others. Bit weird. Not that it'll make a difference to anybody using a real HD. All the SSD people are complaining however...

Being that the new systems are using the same Nvidia 9400m chipset as the older systems, it's probably some strange firmware bug causing the issue. NVidia spec sheets only show a 3gbit part.

Especially when you consider the fact that people ordering the systems with SSD are showing 3gbit spec in System Profiler and only people buying with default HDD are showing 1.5gbit.

Hmm. Weird. Whats with all the complaints then? A HD won't hit the 1.5Gbps limit anyway.

It does look like a strange configuration or firmware bug.

Folks are assuming that if they swap out their HDDs for an SSD in the future that they'll be stuck with 1.5gbps.

I suspect that the figure might be reported differently in System Profiler when they connect an SSD. So far I haven't read about anyone trying that nor have I read anyone hypothesize anything similar.

As noted already, SSDs definitely hit the 1.5gb/s limit.

My Dell 9400 main machine here has only SATA1 (1.5gb/sec), so the 120GB Vertex SSD I installed is limited to "only" around 135MB/sec throughput. In a SATA2 (3.0gb/sec) box it manages around 230MB/sec.

Vertex SSD: Best.. Upgrade.. Ever.. !

Cheers

How are the random 4k read/writes on it? I've been considering an SSD for a bit, but have been disappointed by the number of SSDs on the market that manage to run slower then my Velociraptor drive when hit with smaller file read/write cycles. The SSD makers like to tout the high sequential speeds on large files to pull people in.

Yeah. I was wondering why the HD users were complaining but if they're upgrading to a SSD like Hybrid8 said then it makes sense.


I looked at the prices for that Vertex and its pretty expensive. I want to replace the drive in my laptop and I'm pondering going for a SSD...

The numbers they quote are also for when the drive is "fresh". Once it starts needing to do erase cycles then it drops quite a bit.

I'll start a new thread about SSDs.

Fast! This is the first non-Intel drive on the market that works really, really well!

Moving to the other thread now.

Clearly my resistance to the RDF failed this WWDC. I have a Macbook Air on the way, and grabbed an iPhone 3GS today. I decided that with the Air, even at 2gb, it's still a nice upgrade for my aging MacBook Pro. I already have someone interested in buying it at work if I do want to grab whatever revision comes with more memory down the road.

As for the iPhone, the 32gb is what made me want it initially. After seeing the Gizmodo video with the 3G and 3GS side by side doing the same tasks, it tempted me more. What finally sealed the deal is the strong market value the 3G phones still hold, so I'll be selling my old one to make up for the cost of the upgrade. Peggle is ready to play in about 6 seconds from a cold start, compared to probably around 20-30 seconds on the old phone.

I know what you mean. Second hand 3G 16GB phones are still going for £250-300 on ebay in the UK. I am very tempted to get a 3GS as the sale of my existing phone wouldn't be far off paying for my 9 month contract buy out.

I always find that amazing, pretty much the only thing I wouldn't buy second-hand is a mobile phone. Why would I pay £300 for a second-hand iPhone with no warranty that's still going to be sim locked to O2 when I can get the same thing, brand new for £350 PAYG?

Even the original iPhone is going for over £150 on ebay, crazy. I suspect it was part of the idea to keep the new models looking very similar, so that the 2nd hand values don't collapse.

I am with you on the 2nd hand thing, but don't forget that the PAYG one is the 8 GB, the only way to get a 16 GB 3G is second hand.

Because there is no unlocked iPhone officially available in the US.

That second hand phone is still sim locked, you'd still have to crack it. I'd rather crack a new phone and hopefully have a better chance of it not failing than buy one second hand (pre-cracked or not) and have it fail the day after and still have no recourse.

For something that's used as much as a phone is, and for something as non user repairable, for me it would be a huge gamble. My old Nokia N95 still works but if it went on ebay I doubt I'd bid more than a tenner on it.

I suppose if people are idiotic enough to want to spend sums of money like that on phones with absolutely no warranties on them then so be it.

Yes, just as anywhere else -- such as when buying a TV in Comet -- how much it's worth to you to get a warranty, depends on what you reckon the likelihood and expense of a failure within the warranty period is. Do phones actually ever fail -- have I just been lucky? The first phone I had, a Nokia 8890, had an internal plastic piece fail after about five years, which was easily fixed with superglue and lasted a further three years. (Plus some of the buttons and catches had worn down a bit, and I eventually replaced some exterior panels with ones from a free cast-off phone from a friend.) No imaginable warranty would have helped with any of that.

Frankly, I'll be surprised and disappointed if I don't get the same 8-year lifetime from my second phone, a Mark 1 Iphone, especially as it has far fewer moving parts.

Peter

On rereading that, I don't mean it then broke again. I mean it declared on an innings of eight years, not out. If the Iphone hadn't come along, I'd be using it still.

Peter

You've been relatively lucky, while most of my Nokia's have been reliable, the same cannot be said for my other phones. I had 6 Motorola StarTac's before Orange gave up and supplied me with another model. I had 3 or 4 T68i's which had various crashing and hanging up problems. I'm currently on my 3rd work phone (HTC Kaiser) because one overheated, and the other could no longer read SD cards that were inserted. Even my brand new HTC Touch HD was replaced after two days because of a faulty speaker. I also know of two people who bought iPhones brand new and had them replaced within weeks because of issues. Last time I checked, you couldn't fix a non-functional accelerometer with superglue.

If I'd bought any one of those phones off ebay I'd have been screwed. I have phone insurance but I get that for free because I've been with Orange for nearly 13 years now. But given my experience with various phones, I'd still happily pay for it if I didn't get it free.

I used my N95 for nearly 2.5 years before I swapped it, it still works now, but as you can see there were plenty of phones that didn't last nearly as long.....

I should point out that bought my current TV from John Lewis because it had a 5 Year warranty even though the TV it replaced is still going strong at a cow orker's house. Maybe I'm just paranoid. But I've been bitten in the ass by technology failing just outside the warranty period too many times to think it's an acceptable risk anymore. I fully expect this TV to expire in one way or another before the extended warranty period is up.

But if I buy a new one from Apple/AT&T, in addition to the cost of the phone, I'm also on the hook for something like three years of monthly service at something like $80 a month. And it's not as if Apple's going to be receptive to fixing it under warranty once you've hacked it, which is what they consider unlocking it to be.

Of course, if you can get it on a PAYG plan in the UK, that would make more sense. However, Apple refuses to service iPhones in the US that were purchased in other countries, so that's not a solution for people in the US. Of course, if you're hacking it anyway....

In the US, one might buy the used phone because their contract term isn't up. I'm selling my Blackberry Curve for $150 on Craig's List when you can technically buy one new for $99, but that requires a two year contract.

If you're not out or nearing the end of your contract with AT&T, they will happily sell you a 32GB iPhone 3GS for $499...and re-extend your contract.

24 months, and $70 a month, or less with a corporate discount plan.

Unlocking the 3G phones isn't quite as popular in the US as the first gen iPhone, mostly due to T-Mobile picking 1700mhz as one of their 3G frequencies. It's still usable, but backs down to the EDGE speeds.

As for my specific phone, it's still under warranty for a little longer, and can be extended via AppleCare if the buyer wants. Never jailbroke or unlocked it, though either process is generally reversable.

Thats because $499 is still a subsidized price. $699 is the base, no contract price of the 32GB model. The nice thing though is that AT&T did say anyone who was going to be eligible for an upgrade by as late as September can pick up the new iPhone at the normal $199/$299 prices. Also, AT&T seems to have a separate time frame for when a user can upgrade their phone vs the end of their service contract. If you have the higher per month plans, it's possible to get an upgrade every year instead of the normal 18 months.

I was aware of that, and that only helps the point I was making, which is that the used phone price doesn't include the subsidy.

Phones that were around 10 years ago were survivors. All the phones I have from that period still work.

Phones from the last few years seem a lot more fragile. The two HTC's that I had before the iPhone both died within 9 months of buying them. Most of the people I know that have owned "smart" phones in last 3 years or so have a graveyard of dead devices.

That said the iPhone feels like an exception, at least I hope so... (that said I am on my second one, the first had crap appear behind the screen and my current one has a dead pixel)

And some of the Nokias are still well built. I wouldn't touch another HTC with someone else's barge pole.

Was at a telecomms resilience talk the other day and the main speaker said that he and his team (who deal with comms aftermath of things like the London bombings etc) would only ever use the Nokia 6310i. It is still my favourite, and although I love some of the functionality of the iPhone, it doesn't have buttons, so until the iPhone has virtual button technology...I'm out.

The Nokia 6000 series were built pretty solidly. Of course you paid for that in weight and bulk because they were solid little bricks. During the late 90's when the bulk of the 6000's were most popular, they did make for interesting conversation... "is that a a phone in your pocket or are..."

What was his reasoning for the 6310i? I had one as my first work phone, and while it was an easy to use reliable phone, it was no better or more reliable than the 7110 I had as a personal phone at the time. I know of other people who still use the 6310's, but they are people with old car kits in company vehicles.

Apple has fixed the 1.5Gbit limitation for the SATA controller in an EFI firmware update.

This one. Your direct link is something to do about iMacs and doesn't mention MBPs. No clue why Apple did that.


3Gbps isn't officially supported? Are the drives that come with the MBP SATA-I drives?

My direct link goes to a page titled "About the MacBook Pro EFI Firmware Update 1.7 and iMac EFI Firmware 1.4 Updates." It's a link to the parent support database about the update, where your link is for the software download page.

Weird. It comes up as only "About the iMac EFI Firmware 1.4 Update" for me. The link you gave is in the text of the link I gave. Thats why I said that it was weird that it doesn't mention MBPs.

Country specific stuff?

Shouldn't be country specific. I'm linking to the plain page without any country sub-directory. The link is this: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3561 You should be able to get to the same page simply by searching support for "HT3561"

BTW, Apple don't specify what version of SATA drives are in their machines. It conceivable they use both SATA and SATA II, but it's not something that makes any difference to a 2.5" HD anyway. But machines with SSD have definitely reported 3Gbit interfaces, so they must "support" that interface in those cases. At least with the SSDs they sell.

Anyway, when has a computer manufacturer ever claimed to support any hard drive that they don't themselves ship or include in a published compatibility list? I think if you ever found a drive that didn't live up to expectations or didn't work, you'd be left to take it up with the drive manufacturer in most cases. Even Nikon and Canon don't officially support any media besides the ones they officially publish support for (and test against).

Still only shows the 1.4 iMac update.


No clue whats going on there. I'm getting the generic/US page because it has the 1-800 number at the bottom.


Ahh okay. That is why they say it isn't supported.


In the bad old days of IDE you would need a compatibility list but nothing really recent has needed that. Well... except some issues with buggy SATA controllers and buggy SATA drives when used together.