Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Landos Mustache · Jul 10, 2006, 11:34 AM

"Apple Computer has one of the strongest brands in the world. But are reported problems with some its newest products in danger of damaging that reputation?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5164934.stm

I have to admit my own image of them has taken a bit of a hit since the Mac Book Pros which is easily the most problematic Mac ever. No matter how much a switcher wants one I tell them not to touch it till the next rev.

And before anyone says the Powerbook 5300 there was only 3 cases of fires with them and was a result of the Sony batteries.

I don't blame the switch to Intel for the problems though as the iMac and Mini seem fine, the problem is either Apple focusing too much on iPods or that they tried to rush the intel MBP's to the market.

voodoo · Jul 10, 2006, 02:42 PM

Keyword: Intel.

Crappy hardware.

V

analogika · Jul 10, 2006, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Keyword: Intel.

Crappy hardware.

Bullsh¡t.

Person Man · Jul 10, 2006, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Keyword: Intel.

Crappy hardware.

V

No. This is no different from any other major redesign. It has nothing to do with the Intel chip, and everything to do with the fact they rushed the MacBook Pros to market.

They quietly introduced a redesigned motherboard about two weeks ago, and early reports indicate the whining is not as much of an issue, if at all.

Kerrigan · Jul 10, 2006, 03:14 PM

I imagine some of it has to do with price.

MacBooks cost nearly the same as an equally config'd Dell. They must be cutting corners or something to keep the price so low.

(Which is the exact opposite of what the problem used to be)

analogika · Jul 10, 2006, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

No. This is no different from any other major redesign. It has nothing to do with the Intel chip, and everything to do with the fact they rushed the MacBook Pros to market.

They quietly introduced a redesigned motherboard about two weeks ago, and early reports indicate the whining is not as much of an issue, if at all.

Actually, the main logic board has been through at least a half-dozen revisions since release.

Intel is MUCH faster at this kind of stuff than Apple's previous hardware engineering contractors ever were.

Landos Mustache · Jul 10, 2006, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

No. This is no different from any other major redesign. It has nothing to do with the Intel chip, and everything to do with the fact they rushed the MacBook Pros to market.

They quietly introduced a redesigned motherboard about two weeks ago, and early reports indicate the whining is not as much of an issue, if at all.

The thing is it wasn't that much of a redesign though. I mean they even kept the same case so why are the batteries swelling among the million other problems?

RUSHED.

willed · Jul 10, 2006, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

The thing is it wasn't that much of a redesign though. I mean they even kept the same case so why are the batteries swelling among the million other problems?

RUSHED.

Well still, what's that got to do with Intel? They make batteries now?

Landos Mustache · Jul 10, 2006, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by willed

Well still, what's that got to do with Intel? They make batteries now?

Actually I was backing up that it isn't intels fault but Apples.

Duh.

production_coordinator · Jul 10, 2006, 03:33 PM

IMHO, not all that much has changed... except for the fact that I can now afford a Mac.

I do think they may have rushed the MBP to market... but overall, there are many happy MBP users. To be honest, I think the information age plays against manufacturers. I've seen the same three white BM discoloration photos on about 10 different websites... I think Apple is under the microscope regarding their hardware.

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

And before anyone says the Powerbook 5300 there was only 3 cases of fires with them and was a result of the Sony batteries.

Technically, Apple doesn't make anything... if you can blame Sony for a poor battery, you should blame one of the manufacturers of their other components. IMHO, it doesn't work that way... I blame Apple for everything. Their QA didn't do a good enough job.

Salty · Jul 10, 2006, 03:38 PM

I think the big thing is that the MBPs were introed too early.

Keep in mind Apple also typically unveils maybe one redesign a year. Thy've done several this year. Especially with the laptops. New cases, new everything. So there's bound to be a lot of hickups.

Landos Mustache · Jul 10, 2006, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

IMHO, not all that much has changed... except for the fact that I can now afford a Mac.

You're a production coordinator and can't afford a Mac before they went intel?

Gossamer · Jul 10, 2006, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

You're a production coordinator and can't afford a Mac before they went intel?

Maybe he's talking about since the mid-nineties when the 5300s were out.

RAILhead · Jul 10, 2006, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

I think the big thing is that the MBPs were introed too early.

Keep in mind Apple also typically unveils maybe one redesign a year. Thy've done several this year. Especially with the laptops. New cases, new everything. So there's bound to be a lot of hickups.

What's a "hickup"?

Person Man · Jul 10, 2006, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

so why are the batteries swelling among the million other problems?

RUSHED.

Apple says they had a "bad batch of batteries." They're replacing them no questions asked.

I never denied that the MBP wasn't rushed to market.

f1000 · Jul 10, 2006, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

What's a "hickup"?

A truck that a Southerner drives?

Person Man · Jul 10, 2006, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by f1000

A truck that a Southerner drives?

Made by Shivalay

ShortSkirts68 · Jul 10, 2006, 05:32 PM

Few words:

Apple Powermac 5300CD. Worst powermac ever.

Millennium · Jul 10, 2006, 07:17 PM

Much as I'd love to blame this one on Intel, it goes back further than the Intel Macs. OSX 10.0 had some of the most blatant QA lapses I've ever seen, such as the infamous iTunes installer that could screw up a hard drive if you had a space in the name (like, I don't know, "Macintosh HD", the default name on Mac hard drives for more than ten years).

Depending on who you ask, Apple "newfound" lack of respect for quality assurance may go as far back as Mac OS 9.0, but I'm a bit skeptical that it goes back quite that far.

Kerrigan · Jul 10, 2006, 07:23 PM

Well OS 9 was horrible. Web browsing was impossible, it would crash every hour or so.

Jawbone54 · Jul 10, 2006, 07:25 PM

This entire thread = ridiculous

Person Man · Jul 10, 2006, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

OSX 10.0 had some of the most blatant QA lapses I've ever seen, such as the infamous iTunes installer that could screw up a hard drive if you had a space in the name (like, I don't know, "Macintosh HD", the default name on Mac hard drives for more than ten years).

Um, no.

It was not the fault of OS X. It was the fault in the installer itself.

- - e r i k - - · Jul 10, 2006, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Much as I'd love to blame this one on Intel, it goes back further than the Intel Macs. OSX 10.0 had some of the most blatant QA lapses I've ever seen, such as the infamous iTunes installer that could screw up a hard drive if you had a space in the name (like, I don't know, "Macintosh HD", the default name on Mac hard drives for more than ten years).

Depending on who you ask, Apple "newfound" lack of respect for quality assurance may go as far back as Mac OS 9.0, but I'm a bit skeptical that it goes back quite that far.

Uhm. It only affected users with more than one partition that were similarly named with spaces in their names:

A reader (Jesse F.) sent a note with the most concise explanation of why the 2.0 installer wiped files, with info from a post at Slashdot:

" In the installer is a small shell script to remove any old copies of iTunes. It contained the following line of code:
rm -rf $2Applications/iTunes.app 2
where "$2" is the name of the drive iTunes is being installed on. The problem is, since the pathname is not in quotes, if the drive name has a space, and there are other drives named similarly then the installer will delete the similarly named drive (for instance if your drives are: "Disk", "Disk 1", and Disk 2" and you install on "Disk 1" then the command will become "rm -rf Disk 1/Applications/iTunes.app 2
The new updated version of the installer replaced that line of code with:
rm -rf "$2Applications/iTunes.app" 2
so things should work fine now."

Landos Mustache · Jul 11, 2006, 10:20 AM

Are Apple's Customers Rebelling?
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,...l?tw=rss.index

Person Man · Jul 11, 2006, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Are Apple's Customers Rebelling?
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,...l?tw=rss.index

Did you even read the article?

From the article linked to above:

Originally Posted by Wired News

But, in fact, there's no consumer backlash at all. Apple's firing on all cylinders, and is selling more Macs and iPods than ever.
.
.
.
The downside of this oversized press profile is that bad news also gets overplayed.

I think the article is making the opposite point than you wanted to make.

Landos Mustache · Jul 11, 2006, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

Did you even read the article?

From the article linked to above:

I think the article is making the opposite point than you wanted to make.

Did I write the damn story or give an opinion on it?

NO!

I don't have a opinion either way right now other than a poor one on the MBP and I never said otherwise. Did you even read MY post?

olePigeon · Jul 11, 2006, 12:20 PM

I think the problems are two fold:

1. Apple Engineers working with Intel hardware.
2. Twice as many parts, twice as many things that can go wrong.

I think it's going to just take time for Apple to adjust to working with the Intel hardware and finding an awesome design that will complement it. By next year I think the majority of bugs will be worked out.

I'm sure there are companies lined up to be a supplier for Apple. Everyone wants a piece of the "cool" factor that Apple brings. So if Apple doesn't stick with whoever's making the swelling batteries now, you can bet there will be bids for better batteries, cheaper.

The result (I hope) will be:

MacBooks with dedicated video BTO, also available in aluminium enclosure.
MacBook Pros that come in aluminium, black, and white.

Swelling batteries, whines, and moos will be all but history.

Velocity211 · Jul 11, 2006, 01:24 PM

Apple rushed the MBPs out. They RUSHED!!

d4nth3m4n · Jul 11, 2006, 01:47 PM

that's it guys, get it alllllllllllllllllllllll out.

Landos Mustache · Jul 11, 2006, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Velocity211

Apple rushed the MBPs out. They RUSHED!!

Considering how Apple didn't even know how long the battery would last 1 month before its release I think that is obvious.

production_coordinator · Jul 11, 2006, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Considering how Apple didn't even know how long the battery would last 1 month before its release I think that is obvious.

What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

It's obvious that they didn't have months to test the system... as the CPU was new to the market. I'm sure they had samples, but what does not having the battery length directly correlate to quality of build?

olePigeon · Jul 11, 2006, 02:18 PM

Wait a minute here, guys. Just slow down. Are you trying to tell me that the intel Macs were rushed?

analogika · Jul 11, 2006, 02:22 PM

No...just the MacBook Pro.

Railroader · Jul 11, 2006, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

Did you even read the article?

From the article linked to above:

I think the article is making the opposite point than you wanted to make.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Railroader · Jul 11, 2006, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

that's it guys, get it alllllllllllllllllllllll out.

I love you man!!! [/SOBBING]

MindFad · Jul 11, 2006, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

that's it guys, get it alllllllllllllllllllllll out.

Top Notch Thread™

Landos Mustache · Jul 11, 2006, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

It's obvious that they didn't have months to test the system... as the CPU was new to the market. I'm sure they had samples, but what does not having the battery length directly correlate to quality of build?

I dunno, how about quality testing? If 30 days before something ships it is already being built. If they can't even throw in a battery to test how long it will last shows that they slapped them in on the way out the door. God only know what other parts they did the same with, like perhaps the whining, hot logic board.

And look what happens... the battery gets recalled, the logic board gets a non-whining version 7 months later.

It would have been nice if costumers were not beta testers.

Railroader · Jul 11, 2006, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

I dunno, how about quality testing? If 30 days before something ships it is already being built. If they can't even throw in a battery to test how long it will last shows that they slapped them in on the way out the door. God only know what other parts they did the same with, like perhaps the whining, hot logic board.

And look what happens... the battery gets recalled, the logic board gets a non-whining version 7 months later.

It would have been nice if costumers were not beta testers.

You want bleeding edge tech you gotta pay the price.

Why don't you go out and buy a dell running XP if you want a nice stable platform?

d4nth3m4n · Jul 11, 2006, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

I love you man!!! [/SOBBING]

1. The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 3 characters.

Kevin · Jul 11, 2006, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Did I write the damn story or give an opinion on it?

NO!

Right. You just post and run as usual.

voodoo · Jul 11, 2006, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

No...just the MacBook Pro.

They didn't take the time to put a decent graphics card in the MacBook and the Mac Mini. They feel rushed.

The Intel iMac is perhaps the only thing that doesn't feel rushed, half-baked, cop-out, second rate etc.. asides from the processor of choice of course

V

Kerrigan · Jul 11, 2006, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

You want bleeding edge tech you gotta pay the price.

And if Apple is going to sell faulty, untested products to customers paying top dollar, then Apple must pay the price in terms of damage to its reputation as a quality company.

Cipher13 · Jul 11, 2006, 06:20 PM

I've been tempted to update my laptop lately (which is an iBook 900 with a dead battery), but I've been having second thoughts for the reasons presented here.

My girlfriend just bought an iBook (about 4 months ago), and the build quality on that machine is terrible... mine is much, much better.

Funnily enough, I remember thinking how much better the iBook 600 build quality was than the machine I got, at the time.

The quality is almost certainly decreasing... I don't particularly care why, but I'm not going to spend such an excessive amount of money on something inferior to a product previously offered by the same vendor.

Grab yourself an iBook 500/600... compare it to the 700, then that to the 800/900, and on from there.

It's a shame, really.

imitchellg5 · Jul 11, 2006, 06:37 PM

The iBook G3 800 was horrible. I had one for about 3 months, during that time it spent 2 months at Apple getting 4 different logic boards.

Person Man · Jul 11, 2006, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

And if Apple is going to sell faulty, untested products to customers paying top dollar, then Apple must pay the price in terms of damage to its reputation as a quality company.

But there is not much "damage" to their reputation at the moment.

Railroader · Jul 11, 2006, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

And if Apple is going to sell faulty, untested products to customers paying top dollar, then Apple must pay the price in terms of damage to its reputation as a quality company.

No sh1t Sherlock.

Go buy a Dell and quit whining that you took a chance and bought something that was bleeding edge. Get a windows machine if you are concerned with a nice solid no bugs platform.

Or be like me and get AppleCare.

Railroader · Jul 11, 2006, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by Cipher13

I've been tempted to update my laptop lately (which is an iBook 900 with a dead battery), but I've been having second thoughts for the reasons presented here.

My girlfriend just bought an iBook (about 4 months ago), and the build quality on that machine is terrible... mine is much, much better.

Funnily enough, I remember thinking how much better the iBook 600 build quality was than the machine I got, at the time.

The quality is almost certainly decreasing... I don't particularly care why, but I'm not going to spend such an excessive amount of money on something inferior to a product previously offered by the same vendor.

Grab yourself an iBook 500/600... compare it to the 700, then that to the 800/900, and on from there.

It's a shame, really.

My MacBook is flawless. Not a single build issue or assembly flaw whatsoever.

Your argument is severely flawed.

JoshuaZ · Jul 11, 2006, 11:04 PM

So I guess the question is: would you rather apple do more product testing for 6 months before releaseing new hardware, or get it to you 6 months sooner?