New Mac Pro teardown reveals replaceable Xeon CPU
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Seriously, OWC, nobody on your staff has a tripod, DSLR, and a desk lamp or clip light?
They already did the teardown work well from their article, why criticize them like you care about the appearance but not the idea.
Not very plausible sci-fi at that...
Fortunately I gather at some point they actually switched to slight protrusions on the socket that contact nearly-flat points on the CPU.
[1] https://lh3.ggpht.com/-omZKyfVo6YE/T7IiJnDdwZI/AAAAAAAAAco/W...
When it comes to workstation graphics Nvidia drivers behave differently when using a Quadro. (Eg: duel monitor support in Linux)
3D-printers enable you to construct devices that are so intricately and tightly closed.
If 3D printing offers something novel, I'm sure Apple will be all over it yesterday. The only thing I can think of where this would work is materials like glass.
I don't understand this at all. OK, you want to hate on Apple a little, I get it. But this statement just makes no sense. Do you think they did this by accident? Is this really a problem for them?
Apple has a long history of "fixing" products by removing useful buttons (every mouse they've ever made), user serviceable battery/RAM, integrated RJ45 connectors, etc. Sometimes in the name of packaging, and other times just to increase their service revenue.
People are missing the real point -- that point being that Anandtech thinks that being able to replacing a CPU on a power user desktop is noteworthy.
It's noteworthy exactly because most people, including you, seem to think that Apple is on a mission to lock down the hardware to the maximum extent possible, and seem surprised when they miss an opportunity to do so.
Exactly my point. Anandtech's headline suggests they do too.
"This is hardly unprecedented for the Mac Pro (nor is it surprising, given that Intel doesn't sell soldered-in ball grid array versions of the Xeon). Older versions of the computers were dual-socket Xeon systems, and both processors were user-replaceable."
If you want to talk about headline click-mongering, well, be my guest, but it's kind of a boring topic....
Examples?
The only change I can think of that doesn't come down to making their products smaller is their move to the idiotic pentalobe screws on the outside of their products. And while that is surely done to keep people out of the products, I rather doubt that it's done "to increase their service revenue".
- OSX is only available on relatively expensive Apple hardware because Apple sets (high) minimum standards on quality and "official" OSX on shitty hardware would pollute the brand.
- iOS apps are sandboxed and the App Store is curated to protect users from scammy/spammy/malicious apps.
- OSX enforces code signing, again, to protect users from malware. It can be switched off by users who demonstrate clear intent and understanding of the consequences.
- Parts that are non-user-serviceable are usually that way to achieve smaller form factor and higher capacities. The reason for non-user-serviceable batteries, for example, is that batteries are bags of dangerous chemicals inside of heavy and thick protective cases. Making the entire laptop the "case" for the battery lets them get larger batteries in less space and weight. That it cannot be safely removed by a nontechnical user is a side-effect.
Your comment attributes a sort of "inverse FSF" religious sentiment to Apple, as if they make things closed and locked down just for the hell of it, because they believe in closedness the way Stallman believes in freedom.
Reality indicates that most of their restrictions are about protecting users who don't know better.... you're not going to "accidentally" replace your CPU. There's no legitimate problem that would be solved by whitelisting processors. Could they do it? Yes, but only if they exhibited some sort of fanatic obsession with preventing users from achieving what they want even when it serves no other purpose. Which would be stupid. Hence, it's as likely as Microsoft being run by lizard people :).
Apple segment their product range just like any sensible company. There's a range of products that increase in power, and in profit margin. People who can afford to buy the highest end products end up paying over the odds, because they're usually the least sensitive to price.
This doesn't mean that Apple is about user experience. Frankly, that's hogwash. They're about corporate profit, in the medium term. And if people end up buying lower end devices and upgrading it themselves, I can easily see them seeing this as a lost profit opportunity, and doing something like whitelisting. It's little different than Intel eventually getting around to locking down frequency multipliers, and selling unlocked chips at a premium.
FWIW, it wasn't the tiniest slimmest computer available, and I already had a lighter PC laptop that also had a DVD drive (Toshiba Portege). It was one of the lighter options that ran OS X, but only a handful do by design. If I could have gotten something slightly bigger, lighter and with more upgradeable components, I would have. But Apple didn't sell it.
In any case, this is missing the point. You're reacting to what you perceive as my griping. But I'm not actually griping. My point is that Apple is motivated by profit, and divides the hardware they produce with market segmentation. If they get the segmentation wrong, or if there is a bunch more profit that can be extracted by segmenting it differently, they'll extract it, like any company should. Limited hardware expandability is a part of that segmentation, as it reduces the bleed of low-margin parts into high-margin segments.
Of course Apple doesn't have a big incentive to add such ports, but the fact that they've left them on the desktop Macs and the non-retina (and bulkier) MacBooks are an indication that it's not primarily a business decision, but more likely a design decision.
There's barely enough room on there for an upgradeable SSD.
Until they make a standard DDR3 socket that's smaller, there's simply no way to fit removable memory into a computer that thin.
Remember, Macbooks used to have user serviceable memory and replaceable batteries. They also used to be 5 pounds for the 13.3". You think an appreciable percentage of people upgraded their memory back then? If not, how could Apple increase their service revenue by getting rid of a feature very few people used to begin with?
Perhaps Apple drive away buyers like me? Hell, even the mac mini I bought was next to impossible to upgrade. AFAICT, Apple make user-hostile hardware. It's no small part of the reason why I try to avoid Apple products unless the market, or my job, forces me not to.
You might not accidentally replace your CPU, but you might take up an offer from an unauthorized computer repair shop to upgrade the CPU in your Mac. Obviously they wouldn't care so much about you replacing the CPU yourself, but if you're paying money to a third party, Apple would be losing business, because Apple makes money on support and service plans. Apple would also make more money when users purchase a whole brand new Mac with a better processor, as opposed to simply purchasing a CPU upgrade for their existing Mac. Would it not therefore be in Apple's interest to consider some means of disabling unauthorized CPU upgrades? That would not be "making things closed and locked down just for the hell of it" - making things closed and locked down just happens to be a very effective business strategy.
Dell certainly don't use whitelisting, I've changed innumerable wifi and 3G cards in Dell Latitude and Vostro laptops over the years without problems. And few of them were Dell-branded versions.
So how come only two vendors have problems with the FCC?
Take it up with Intel who for years has been shipping soldered on CPUs. Apple doesn't make these chips, you know. They just work with whatever Intel can give them that fits in their desired form factor.