Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

Apple's MacBook Pro Event (10/27/16)


Note: This thread is 3198 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Administrator
  • Moderator
Posted

Short term pain for long term gain?

 

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
52 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Short term pain for long term gain?

 

Most people aren't going to need four adapters.

Just like most people didn't need to buy a USB floppy drive when the iMac killed that.

But sometimes Apple goes for the "future" a little too early. But on the other hand, that's the only real way to do it. Include one USB-A port, and everyone will just use that one.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
51 minutes ago, iacas said:

Most people aren't going to need four adapters.

Just like most people didn't need to buy a USB floppy drive when the iMac killed that.

But sometimes Apple goes for the "future" a little too early. But on the other hand, that's the only real way to do it. Include one USB-A port, and everyone will just use that one.

But no HDMI isn't that a bit much?  I figure that will be the standard for like another 20 years maybe... 

:adams: / :tmade: / :edel: / :aimpoint: / :ecco: / :bushnell: / :gamegolf: / 

Eyad

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
Just now, Abu3baid said:

But no HDMI isn't that a bit much?  I figure that will be the standard for like another 20 years maybe... 

You still need a cable, right? So get a USB-C to HDMI cable.

Plus then you lose the versatility of having two ports on each side. So then what: do you put an HDMI port on both sides? That hardly seems ideal.

Look, I'm not going to defend Apple's position on this one, but I can understand it. Most people plug in one or two things. This will advance the industry, perhaps a little prematurely, but it will. It's typical Apple in that sense (as is being perhaps a little premature).

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Apple has always made some questionable / controversial decisions regarding their hardware and assume people will accept it because they are so invested in their OS and software.  Changing peripheral interfaces is a way to generate more income for Apple and their vendors, it is part of their business strategy.  

It seems everyone complains when the changes are made and then over time everyone complies and moves on.  When they introduced the Lightning port everyone freaked out because it made their docking stations obsolete or required they buy an adapter, but they survived and the same will be true for these new interfaces and future ones as well.  

Joe Paradiso

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Apple has always made some questionable / controversial decisions regarding their hardware and assume people will accept it because they are so invested in their OS and software.  Changing peripheral interfaces is a way to generate more income for Apple and their vendors, it is part of their business strategy.

No.

You're going to disagree, at least partly because it's me, and that's fine, but no. Apple does not change interfaces as a means of generating more income. The adapters they sell account for such a minuscule portion of their revenue that they would be Grade A morons to earn a few bucks against the ill will those decisions generate. Heck, often they let other companies make the adapters.

Apple sells an iPhone like every eighth of a second. They don't care about selling a few adapters. They just don't.

If Apple is guilty of anything it's often that they try to advance things too quickly and place design on sometimes too high a pedestal.

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

It seems everyone complains when the changes are made and then over time everyone complies and moves on. When they introduced the Lightning port everyone freaked out because it made their docking stations obsolete or required they buy an adapter, but they survived and the same will be true for these new interfaces and future ones as well.  

Yep.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
48 minutes ago, iacas said:

No.

You're going to disagree, at least partly because it's me, and that's fine, but no. Apple does not change interfaces as a means of generating more income. The adapters they sell account for such a minuscule portion of their revenue that they would be Grade A morons to earn a few bucks against the ill will those decisions generate. Heck, often they let other companies make the adapters.

Apple sells an iPhone like every eighth of a second. They don't care about selling a few adapters. They just don't.

If Apple is guilty of anything it's often that they try to advance things too quickly and place design on sometimes too high a pedestal.

Yep.

Agreed, the adapters make up a small portion of their revenue but when you look at all the peripherals that become "obsolete" because of the interface change it's big business.  Planned obsolescence is a business strategy to force upgrades.  

I don't disagree with someone because of who they are, I disagree when their views are different than mine.  

The removal of the headphone jack from the new iPhone 7 requires owners buy a headphone jack adapter that plugs into (and sticks out the bottom) the lightning slot or to buy bluetooth headphones.  Most would argue the benefit of a very slightly thinner phone pales in comparison to the benefit and popularity of a headphone jack.  Is it coincidental that Apple made this move and happens to owns Beats headphones which are now focusing most of their efforts on wireless headphones?    

As for the USB-c, we seem to agree it was premature.  Adapters are a nuisance, especially for people who travel.  I have no problem with product evolution but especially for laptops, convenience has to trump design unless there's a real technological advantage, which in this case I'm not aware of.  

Joe Paradiso

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
2 hours ago, iacas said:

You still need a cable, right? So get a USB-C to HDMI cable.

Plus then you lose the versatility of having two ports on each side. So then what: do you put an HDMI port on both sides? That hardly seems ideal.

Look, I'm not going to defend Apple's position on this one, but I can understand it. Most people plug in one or two things. This will advance the industry, perhaps a little prematurely, but it will. It's typical Apple in that sense (as is being perhaps a little premature).

I agree. USB-C is the future. I will sorely miss the MagSafe adapter though. Have had the connection break accidentally many times w/o any harm to the laptop. There's a 3rd party adapter, but mixed reviews. 

Also, people are saying does it really need to be that much lighter and thinner, as someone who lugs this grey slate around everywhere, I understand the decision to go slim and light from a practical mobile lifestyle standpoint.

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
35 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Agreed, the adapters make up a small portion of their revenue but when you look at all the peripherals that become "obsolete" because of the interface change it's big business.

Not for Apple.

35 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Planned obsolescence is a business strategy to force upgrades.

It isn't, really. Not for Apple. Apple products last longer for most people than just about any other consumer electronics company's products. People generally buy when they want to (or "compelled" to), not because they're forced to. My family is still using a laptop that's eight years old and until Sierra I could update the OS on it, free, every year. And it still has resale value, too… You can use iOS 10 on iPhones as old as the iPhone 5. Apple is, comparatively, generous with not obsoleting older products.

35 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

The removal of the headphone jack from the new iPhone 7 requires owners buy a headphone jack adapter that plugs into (and sticks out the bottom) the lightning slot or to buy bluetooth headphones.

They included headphones, so the removal of a 100-year-old port that's outsized for what it does doesn't require anything. Plus, the adapter is $9, and ships free.

And, the cord with the headphone plug on one end (and the headphones on the other end) "sticks out the bottom" too.

35 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Most would argue the benefit of a very slightly thinner phone pales in comparison to the benefit and popularity of a headphone jack.

Many would. Even most, maybe. That doesn't make them right, if this heavily opinion-based thing even has a right or wrong. More importantly, or perhaps more correctly and relevant, their argument does not mean they have the same goals, design sensibilities, perception, ethos, and whatever else you want to call it as Apple.

The headphone jack is large and single-use (for the most part). Apple did not axe it because they can sell a few $9 adapters just as they didn't put four USB-C ports on the new MBP so they can sell a few adapters.

35 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Is it coincidental that Apple made this move and happens to owns Beats headphones which are now focusing most of their efforts on wireless headphones?

It's not a coincidence, but that doesn't really make your point stronger. You can buy Bluetooth headphones from any number of manufacturers, only one of which is owned by Apple. Beats competes on its own - it doesn't have a proprietary "in" to the Bluetooth standard. Also, they've been selling wireless headphones since 2012.

The entire industry is moving toward wireless headphones. Cords suck.

35 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

As for the USB-c, we seem to agree it was premature.

We do not. :-) I have no real opinion on that. It takes gumption to push a change first, because a lot of people are always going to say "it's premature." History will judge whether it was premature, not us right now in the present tense. When Apple killed the floppy, many thought it was premature. When they killed the 30-pin, many thought it was unnecessary.

Generally speaking, I'd rather they push ahead than lag behind.

I said:

4 hours ago, iacas said:

But sometimes Apple goes for the "future" a little too early. But on the other hand, that's the only real way to do it. Include one USB-A port, and everyone will just use that one.

I didn't say going to USB-C was premature.

I'm not buying this generation - my MacBook Pro is fine - so I don't really care much, but the removal of the SD card slot bothers me more, because regardless of the adapter (or whether it's SanDisk or Lexar or whomever - not Apple), I need an adapter whereas in my laptop I can just slip my SD card in.

35 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Adapters are a nuisance, especially for people who travel.  I have no problem with product evolution but especially for laptops, convenience has to trump design unless there's a real technological advantage, which in this case I'm not aware of.

You're just dismayed that your opinion or the decision you'd have made - that "convenience has to trump design" - wasn't shared by Apple in this instance.

And that's fine. You can have that opinion. I think it's clear that Apple doesn't share that opinion, and I know that they don't really consider "we can sell a few more peripherals" in the top 10 or even 20 reasons why they design something the way they do.

27 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

I will sorely miss the MagSafe adapter though.

I will too, but not a bunch. I saw some talk where some people thought it could be moved to the cable (even at the very end), but I don't know what the pros and cons of all that would be.

27 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Also, people are saying does it really need to be that much lighter and thinner, as someone who lugs this grey slate around everywhere, I understand the decision to go slim and light from a practical mobile lifestyle standpoint.

Apple seems to prioritize thin/light even when many would prefer things like expanded battery capacity, etc.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
6 minutes ago, iacas said:

I will too, but not a bunch. I saw some talk where some people thought it could be moved to the cable (even at the very end), but I don't know what the pros and cons of all that would be.

There's this, but reviews are mixed:

 

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
1 hour ago, nevets88 said:

There's this, but reviews are mixed:

Yeah, that's about the only thing I could see.

For them to put MagSafe in, I think all four ports would have to remain equals, and then you're putting magnets in more places… the existence of magnets so near to a computer alone seems possibly problematic. Y'know? :-)

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted

In related news…

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/11/04/apple-usbc-price-cuts

http://www.imore.com/apple-usb-c-thunderbolt-3-price-cut

Y'all can read for the quotes I'd likely post here. I'll just quote one (from the first): "I think Apple wants to counter the notion that moving to all USB-C is a money grab — that they did it to make money selling adapters."

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted

Some photos of the base MBP model, very light and thin it is, mmmmm. 8 GB memory, booted up ~20 seconds. Keyboard is weird, fat, no travel.

image.jpegimage.jpegimage.jpeg

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
1 hour ago, nevets88 said:

image.jpeg

Not much room even for a USB-A port. Maybe but it'd be tighter than I thought.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

More key travel than a regular MacBook?

I could adjust if I had to, but I really hate the keyboard on those. I would certainly trade the few millimeters of thickness for keys that feel better. Even adjusting to the retina MacBook Pros from the previous ones threw me off.

In my bag:

Driver: Titleist TSi3 | 15º 3-Wood: Ping G410 | 17º 2-Hybrid: Ping G410 | 19º 3-Iron: TaylorMade GAPR Lo |4-PW Irons: Nike VR Pro Combo | 54º SW, 60º LW: Titleist Vokey SM8 | Putter: Odyssey Toulon Las Vegas H7

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
jamo said:

More key travel than a regular MacBook?

I could adjust if I had to, but I really hate the keyboard on those. I would certainly trade the few millimeters of thickness for keys that feel better. Even adjusting to the retina MacBook Pros from the previous ones threw me off.

I can't remember what the travel was like on regular MacBooks, but the keys are almost flush with the surface. It's like I ask myself did I hit that key? Everyone. And the arrow keys are placed awkwardly. Dunno when the touchbar models make it to the stores. There were only 1-2 new MBPs in the store and I felt awkward hogging it I got off after I sensed a line behind me. Almost everyone asked me how light it was. 

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3198 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 610 - 2026-06-03 Got some work in between lessons today. Rare late day, teaching until 7:30pm.
    • Let's continue on… Cool. The thing is, nobody's claiming par is "reliable" and par's inclusion piggy-backs in the course rating, which is awfully close to par and, thus, brings par in to make it make sense. Once again, for those in the back… (CR - Par) just makes it really easy to know what kind of score you need to shoot to best, match, or play worse than your handicap index. Yes, when par is different, the players from the higher par tees get an extra stroke (72 vs. 71, the 72s get an extra stroke. That makes sense and is a small complication (more info at https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Committee%20Content/USGA/LG_R6d.htm). However, most of the time, this adjustment will not be needed, as many courses play to the same par for the same genders from all sets of tees. And, the rare times it is needed, par (measured in whole numbers, integers) and strokes (also whole numbers/integers) map easily and the idea is easily grasped. Dean seems to be unaware of the fact that most every golfer carries something orders of magnitude more powerful than the highest end desktop computers available the last time he consulted with the USGA in their pockets. While it is quaint that his club puts printouts by the first tee… get with the times, Dean. Look up your handicap index and course handicap in the GHIN app and get on with it. It's a better system than the one that didn't account — at all — for a difference in the playing conditions (via an algorithm, not a judgment). Dean's assertions about the "less precise system because of par" continues to make absolutely zero sense. Right, it still changed tee to tee. Now it just changes differently… and in a way that more accurately reflects the score you need to shoot to play to your handicap. Previously, a 1.1 index would get 1 stroke on a 66.7/122 par-72 course. Now they give four strokes back to the course and must shoot 68 to play to their handicap. This makes way more sense. The 18-shot difference is a pretty extreme example. Maybe a long course that also offers a par-three set of tees could play that long, but… man, that's not going to be super common. Sensationalistic much, Dean? Also, once those unhappy (complete assumption) golfers realize a) what the change shows them (playing to net par = playing to your index) and b) realizes that their differential is going to be the same… I think they'll get over their initial questions. No. And yet… if he shoots the same scores, he'll get the same handicap index he has now. But he'll know on each course what score he needs to shoot to "play to his handicap." Sheesh, Dean. This stuff isn't that hard to figure out. Enough with the sensationalistic stuff. I don't find it "unacceptable" at all. Then again, I'm not nearly 80 and seemingly incapable of doing basic math these days. No. This literally makes no sense, as that part of the differential calculation and the course handicap calculation remains identical. Good! No. Categorically wrong. They should have been adjusting their handicaps all along. Previously it was by subtracting the course ratings. Which… is still basically what's done, with the addition of the course rating being "baked in" to the course handicap calculation. Dean is wrong here, or doing some math heretofore unknown by the world. When par is the same, what determines the difference in handicaps? The course rating, which Dean loves! Sheesh! You had to things when players were in situations like this before, too. This is getting exhausting. He keeps using words like "less precise" and "unfair" but does not seem to understand what they mean. This is like the Princess Bride meme: "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The caps reduce upward movement. Committees have reign to reduce a player's handicap, and there's still an automatic Exceptional Score Reduction. I'm going through these more quickly now because… well, it's silly how badly Dean misses the mark with this blog post. Dean is literally confusing the upward movement (with the soft and hard caps) here with the exceptional score reduction which is used when lowering handicaps due to an exceptionally good score. The creators of the WHS are handicap experts. They know more about the current state of handicaps/handicapping than the Pope Emeritus. It's been shown to have almost no effect across all handicaps. Yes, some 36s under the old system are now 35s under the new system. Yawn. He should have stopped there. It's easier to apply and makes more sense. This makes no sense. It's "not complex" but players will have to guess? And, for men or women, the stroke index of each hole doesn't change because they play a different set of tees. They get a different number of strokes, but it's always been true that when you get 14 strokes you apply a stroke to stroke index holes 1-14, and when you get 11, to just holes with a SI of 1-11. Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Dean's just out here continuing to make shit up about "the inaccuracy of par" and ignoring that with Par (an integer) came the Course Rating, which he agrees is precise and accurate. No. No, this is inaccurate. Also, as noted, you can randomly assign stroke indexes, and so long as all the low numbers or all the high numbers are not clumped together at the beginning or ends of the 18 holes, matches generally work out the same. This is inaccurate. It is an algorithm that looks at scores. That's it. Also, this is better than a system like the prior one where no such thing existed at all. Wildly inaccurate and off-base. Did they do actual testing? No need. They have millions and millions of rounds and ran many, many, many simulations. That's testing. Dean seems to continue to be unaware of the fact that computers are more powerful now than they were in 2002. But, he's nearly 80, so we can understand if not going so far as to give him a pass on how much he gets wrong. Cool. Noted. For the most part that was because many countries haven't been able to rate enough of their courses. :sigh:
    • Day 3 (3 Jun 26) - More work on keeping arms connected today - hard foam balls with 7i and 5w…..
    • Day 274 6-3 flow drill getting chest through, arms in front. Arms get a little pinned to the side, not as much in front as I want them when I add speed. 
    • Shot 48 yesterday.  For me bogey golf is good.  I was 10 over through 7 and figured with a Par 3 and 4 coming on all I needed was birdie / par to get my 45. I had a great tee shot on #8 and sunk  a 5 footer for birdie, game was coming together, now just needed par on #9. Had a great tee drive and the green was within range for a hoped GIR or nGIR.  But I pulled the shot left into tall weeds and needed to take a drop.  So much for par, but a bogey for 46 is still good for me. I hit my lob wedge to get over a small tree and saw the ball riding nicely  on line to the pin when my club hit the ball a 2nd time on my follow through causing the ball to change directions and ended up @ pin high but along the same tall weeds I just took an unplayable out of.  had no room for a backswing, Just hacked at it and it shot across the green to the rough on the far side.  Needed a chip & 1 putt got a triple bogey. you can see the hole fall apart in the screenshot below.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.