Open source projects should be judged as much by their community as by their technological achievements. The code tells you what it’s good for, but the community tells you what its future is.

Communities need to be active to continue improving the project, deal with bugs and changes to their ecosystem. If no one is interested enough to talk about the project, none of that will happen. Newcomers need to meet experienced users to be sold on why to use the software, to get help as they learn their way around, to maybe be drawn into contributing to the project itself.

via Open Source Communities – Push cx.

I nice view of the dynamics of communities by Peter Harkins. One of the aspects of this, I think, is that from the communities I’ve been involved in over the years, the smaller the set of people actively involved in the decision process, design and implementation, the more sensitive that project is to fading or falling apart if the life or motivation of a key member changes. For that reason alone, communities really need to foster new members into the project and ways to recognize and enable the most effective and capable into the “inner circle” where they’re ready and able to step up and move a project forward. If you don’t do this kind of “succesion planning” from the start, when you need it, it won’t be there.

Geeks tend to think you don’t need marketing, but they’re wrong. Marketing, even of an open source project, is key to enable adoption and convince people to evaluate it and join the project. projects really should consider community growth as a key metric in he success of a community, and communities really need to look at outreach, evangelism, and recruitment to be tasked out the same way bugs, features and documentation are, and those members should be part of the “core team” whether or not they actually code.

One reason it looks to me that Rails has taken off faster than django is simple: the rails guys did a lot of talking and promoting and evangelizing of rails, where the django folks have been quieter and less self-promoting of themselves and the technology.

A technology nobody knowss about may be great, but it won’t change the world.

I can’t think of a better posting on today’s keynote than this posting from Webomatica.’

<p><a href=”http://www.webomatica.com/wordpress/2009/01/06/2009-macworld-keynote-fails-to-meet-reduced-expectations/”>2009 MacWorld Keynote Fails To Meet Reduced Expectations » Webomatica – Technology and Entertainment Digest</a>: </p>

<p><i><blockquote>In the history of MacWorld keynotes, I’ve tried to be conservative when it came to expectations, dialing them back several levels to avoid disappointment.

Well, that strategy didn’t work this time.

I felt my list of predictions set the bar so low even a Dell executive could have walked over them. Still, Apple struggled to clear it:

1. New Mac Mini: Better processors, graphics card, new form factor. (no)
2. New iMacs: Better processors, graphics card, yada yada. (no)
3. 17 inch MacBook Pro: The non-removeable battery rumor makes sense based on other products, most obviously the MacBook Air. Expect a slide with some stats about how little users actually remove their laptop batteries. That said, I still think it’s a bad idea. (yes)
4. iLife 09: Addition of some online features. (yes)
5. New Apple TV: Apple’s overdue to do something with this product, with added pressure from Netflix and Boxee. There may be some tweaks to the rental window and the addition of new services – Hulu would be a no-brainer. At most ambitious, I could see combining the Mac Mini and Apple TV into one product, but I’ll put that prediction as unlikely. (no)
6. Snow Leopard: More details and demos of this OS with a big emphasis on speed. (no)

Items 3 and 4 were fulfilled. I thought 1, 2, and 6 were no brainers, and 5 really should have happened if only to keep ahead of the competition.
</blockquote></i></p>

Now, I’m not picking on him — that’s a common expectation set for Apple. This is a perfect example, though, of why Apple has moved away from the Macworld Keynote as a marketing vehicle.

Think about that laundry list: and Jason notes he considers it a low bar to jump over! Stop and think for a second about the keynote if they’d actually announced all of that. Four hours? Five? Would anyone have been able to pay attention at the end?

Now, Apple has, in fact, pulled this kind of rabbit out of its hat in the past; it’s created this kind of expectation. On the other hand, we’re in a maturing technology reality — home runs are increasingly difficult to pull off. Mac OS X is mature; iLife is mature, iWork is maturing. The hardware continues to innovate, but Apple’s real innovation is in new product lines, not in new Macs. So the keynote of old is really almost impossible to pull off — and that’s assuming Apple could pull all of those products together at the same time.

What did Apple do?

Significantly upgraded iPhoto, to the degree that multiple pundits are saying that Google’s Picasa for the Mac had one day, and then was shot dead. That’s a rather strong statement to make, and if any other company had made such significant changes, people would probably be drooling — but for Apple, it’s “ho, hum, new iPhoto. next?”

Significantly upgraded iMovie that has movie geeks drooling a bit. Yet again, in the context of the keynote, it’s considered rather minor. Microsoft would kill to have ONE of these two products to push at CES. at Macworld, they’re almost afterthoughts.

Apple’s first serious foray into cloud interactions with iWork.com; and in case anyone hadn’t noticed, it’s really the first quiet step targeting iWork at the office environment, especially the SOHO and distributed team (web workers, anyone?) groups. Now, it’s just the first toe, but it’s a big toe, and it’s making a huge statement where Apple sees future growth and innovation. And it was almost an afterthought for Apple — and pretty much ignored by the crowd.

The new Macbook — bringing not just the unibody technology, but significantly upgraded video, display and processing. Oh, and oh, yeah — a complete re-invention of battery technology.

And this is considered a weak Macworld. In many ways — it is. And that’s the problem. And it’s the problem Apple is handling by ending the keynote; expectations run unrealistically high, and there’s no practical way to either meet those expectations, or ratchet them back to some rational level. Apple can’t win.

And that’s really my bottom line — if this set of announcements were done by any company BUT Apple, people would be ecstatic. But because this is Apple, and god help us, Apple at Macworld Expo in January, people are disappointed.

One final thought: when Schiller started the keynote, he made a comment that this was all about Macs; which is what it should be, given this is Macworld. That’s why talks about iPhones were silly, they don’t fit the event. Yes, Apple has ignored that and promoted non-Mac things at Macworld, but it’s tried to keep the focus over the years.

And I’m wondering if that explains why the Mac Mini and Apple TV weren’t here. Besides time — we really can’t do five hour keynotes, folks — what if those products aren’t Macs any more, but whatever is moving into this space is some new product line, the same way that the iPhone and iPods are? Chances are, whatever “living room server appliance thingie” Apple come sout with WON’T be a mac, even if a Mac is embedded inside. So I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see these things come out down the road, but marketed as consumer devices and not Macs. And in that case, I can see why Apple wouldn’t talk about them here.

We have to remember: when Apple started the Macworld keynotes, Apple WAS THE MAC. That was their product. Today, Apple has a number of product lines that aren’t Macs, and increasingly is about things other than computers (even if everything it does is tethered to one or has one embedded in it). Man fans have translated Macworld into “whatever Apple does”, but in reality, it should be, and needs to be, about the Mac. And so it shouldn’t be a surprise that Apple is moving away from an event that less and less matches what the company is and will be moving forward.

I thought Schiller did a decent job. Laurie’s remark was he needed the writers to script it for him and not for Steve, and I think she’s right. Perhaps the shift was a rather late decision. But overall, I have no complaints.

The worst complaint I can really come up with is that it wasn’t revolutionary (although the iPhoto and iMovie changes, and the battery technology, really are revolutionary improvements in those areas) — it’s just that when you’re Apple, merely being evolutionary is considered failure.

Be glad people don’t hold you up to the standard they hold Apple up to, folks.

Cue the complaints: 17-inch MacBook Pro without a removable battery? » VentureBeat:

One of the biggest complaints about Apple’s iPhone is that you cannot remove and replace the battery yourself. On the eve of its final Macworld Expo, it appears Apple is willing to live with that complaint for the newest version of its MacBook Pro line of computers as well.

And here’s why: this is a non-issue. Here’s why.

Way back in the days of ancient history, Apple came out with a computer called the Mac IIci – and people howled, because god help us, it only had three expansion slots, where previous computers like the Mac II and it’s brothers all had SIX. Horrors. Apple’s screwing its users, how will we ever live with just three slots? And — horrors — one is taken up by the video board! So it’s really only two! (and five, on the larger boxes)

Well, of course, the IIci went on to be one of the most successful, well-loved Macs ever. What the people complaining about the reduction in number of slots didn’t know, and woudn’t have listened to if they’d been told, is that Apple had a number of studies showing that only 3% of owners of those boxes used more than those three slots. 97% of Mac buyers were paying for capacity that they didn’t need and never used.

Now, if you ask me, THAT is the horror.

How many Mac Laptop owners ever swap a battery? How many own two batteries? I used to religiously carry a second laptop battery; I finally realized that I was using it maybe once a quarter (even though I also religiously swapped batteries every couple of weeks so they both stayed charged and fresh. do you? No, dind’t think so).

I’d be amazed if 10% of Apple Laptop owners own a second battery. I’d be amazed if half the users who own second batteries use both batteries more than occasionally.

Making a battery replacable has costs; it complicates the engineering, it adds components and connectors — things that can fail. It changes rigidity of the unit. All in all, it makes the device both more expensive and more prone to failures. How can those things be good things?

Answer: they can’t, especially when (pick a really conservative number!) 75% of the owners never use the feature and can’t benefit from it.

That’s why companies (not just Apple) move to non-replaceable batteries. Cheaper, more reliable, and for most devices, users don’t actually replace the batteries. It’s a big non-issue, except for the really loud and noisy minority — the power users.

And even for them, this is a solved problem. Just look at the iPhone. Or more correctly, look at these products from Kensington, Mophie, Richard Solo, to name just three. Battery charging systems exist — and really, have made the replaceable battery on an iPhone unnecessary. The technology has moved beyond swapping spares.

So, if Apple announces this Tuesday, the usual suspects will complain, and the usual companies will go to work and quickly announce options making this a non-issue.

Which is what it is.

—-

Comments moved from the old blog –

Wow, the comments for the replaceable battery really are very narrow minded aren’t they?

I mean a battery that lasts for 5 years which is roughly the age of the laptop on average is a bad thing? Not particularly bright there people.

There’s no reason why someone couldn’t release a battery pack that plugs into the Magsafe either so it’s not all doom and gloom.

Also, what really is the likelihood that you’re going to be away from a power source for longer than 8 hours? Seriously. Sure you might be in a third world country but then so will your replacement battery so what is going to get that charged?

I have an extra battery because I use my Mac to record FM broadcasts over the day at some conferences I go to. However, that’s because I only get 4 hours to my battery. I wouldn’t worry so much with an 8 hour battery because that is more than enough for my needs.

Posted by: Loweded Wookie | January 11, 2009 at 04:54 PM

When I read about a 17″ macbook with a 7-8 hr battery life, I was impressed. Most of the comments I read around the internet are less than impressive. Why do people whine and complain all the time? especially mac users? They sound like little children. About any new product introduction… if it doesn’t fit for you, then don’t buy it. Some people will because it makes sense for them. And people who whine about price, give me a break. If it is too expensive for you, just don’t buy it. There is no reason anyone has to buy a mac after all, just get a vista notebook if price is such an issue. Or buy a macbook, they are affordably priced and still quite powerful. Pop in a 7200 RPM 320GB drive you buy at your local computer store, and you have a pretty decent computer. Attach a 24″ non-apple monitor if you need 1920×1200 resolution… and you have a pretty decent setup. You can even buy yourself some extra batteries if that’s your thing. Personally I’m excited at the prospect of getting a 17″ notebook with enough battery to last me for sufficient time if the power goes out. I could still use the laptop with 3G during a small blackout. Even though price is steep for me, especially since I just bought a macbook pro.

Posted by: mark | January 11, 2009 at 12:20 PM

OK, fine, it’s a non-issue for you. I have 400-500 Mac users and half of them travels the world regularly and they all have spare batteries. Every university wll have an issue here. Some people even carry two spares. For these people non-removable battery is a dealbreaker. This is another boneheded decision on Apple’s part, it’s simply to force people to pay Apple to service their battery. There is absolutely no other reason to have a non-removable battery.

A.

Posted by: Adam | January 08, 2009 at 07:16 AM

I have a second battery mainly for travel, because of the limited life. I’ll happily trade the removable option for 8 hours of battery life

Posted by: koke | January 06, 2009 at 01:01 PM

IMHO this is bullshit. I didn’t pay for the convenience of swappable battery so that I can lug a replacement battery around. I paid for that feature so the day my battery died I could go to the nearest store that had Apple products and buy a new one. I don’t need that option for all parts of the machine, but I do want it for the one part that is guaranteed to fail within the useful lifespan of the product.

I expect high quality products from Apple, and I’m willing to pay a higher price for that. I certainly wouldn’t do that if I expected that, after just two or three years, I’d throw the machine away anyways. This would pretty much the opposite of the “environmentally friendly” spin Apple are trying to put on this issue.

Posted by: nex | January 06, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Okay, well… yesterday I said I’d be okay with this if the battery life was around eight hours… lo and behold, they’re claiming 7-8 hours depending on which graphic chip you’re using. I can live with that and will definitely be upgrading.

Posted by: Jeff | January 06, 2009 at 12:00 PM

The IIcx had the extra video card; the IIci had it built into the main logic board. At various jobs I used II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx, IIci. None of these had any other cards in them and even if you wanted them NuBus cards were scarce and very expensive. So yeah, I can totally see that argument.

Oh, and my old Powerbook G4 (aluminum 1.5GHz) battery still works fine. When I had an iBook G3 I bought an extra battery and I think I swapped them once while on the road. Otherwise I just rotated them every month or so.

Posted by: Forty2 | January 06, 2009 at 07:42 AM

I understand the arguments from both sides. Personally, I never saw the need of a replaceable iPhone battery.

But: A new notebook battery lasts 3 to 4 hours. That’s not very much time. And a battery gets worse with usage. A phone is typically replaced in 2 or 3 years, but notebooks, especially from Apple, last much longer (and are more expensive). My iBook is 6 years old and just fine (still using the first battery which lasts about 1.5 to 2 hours).

My PowerBook is just about 3 years old. Unfortunately, the THIRD battery is dead right now. I doesn’t even last for 10 minutes. This just sucks. I have to buy the FOURTH battery in 3 years now. And I am certainly not a power user and using the PowerBook as a desktop replacement for the last 1.5 years, not a mobile working environment.

If I had the big MacBook Pro and send it in once a year for about one or two weeks to Apple just to replace the battery, that would be very, very ugly.

Nevertheless, the big MacBook Pro is nothing I would call a “mobile” device. It is too big for me, a desktop replacement. So an integrated, non-removable battery might be okay.

What are peoples’ experiences with the MacBook Air battery?

Posted by: LK | January 06, 2009 at 06:56 AM

main problem is the hard boot. my old powerbook developed at one point the nasty habit of hanging itself everytime I inserted a DVD, as well as on some other occasions. at this point you cannot restart in any other way than to disconnect the power supply, remove the battery and put it back in. with a fixed battery, you need some other way to cut all power supply, like a pinhole button. if that is still possible, I see no problem with a fixed battery.

Posted by: mzungu | January 06, 2009 at 06:36 AM

Most complainer assume that the battery won’t be easily user replaceable. Isn’t the MacBookAir battery user replaceable?

Count me is yet another user who sticks to one battery. The one good point is the need to pull the battery to deal with a hosed computer — but I am yet to have to do such a thing with my unibody MacBookPro — maybe things have become more reliable.

Posted by: Ted T. | January 06, 2009 at 06:23 AM

I have a 15″ 2.2GHz MBP. When I used to play World of Warcraft on it, I’d have to remove the battery or else the system would get so unbelievably hot. Same thing when encoding long video clips.

With that said, I suspect any Mac laptop with a built-in battery would provide at least 10 hours of use. That’s something I think would cause people to overlook the battery issue.

Posted by: Dennis McLaughlin | January 06, 2009 at 06:21 AM

I wish more cell phones had internal batteries like the iPod. I’ve had several that had battery covers that either broke completely or were unreliable (cover could come off in your pocket) after a few months of use. There’s a big advantage in not having vital functionality (holding the battery in place) be performed by tiny little plastic clips.

Laptops, I’m not so sure about. It should be something that can be changed out either with a regular screwdriver or 30 minutes at any Apple authorized shop. It’s an errand you have to do, but not much different than going to the store to buy a new battery, and it’s not like the battery just fails instantly.

Posted by: Ben | January 06, 2009 at 06:20 AM

After less than 1 year my MacBook Pro battery now stores about 10min charge. I’m very glad it’s easily replaceable…

Posted by: John | January 06, 2009 at 04:24 AM

My Apple laptop batteries were dead more than one time. I had to replace them several times. Giving away my laptop to have the battery replaced is no option.

Posted by: foo | January 06, 2009 at 02:59 AM

I don’t have a spare battery, but I’ve had to eventually replace the battery (sometimes twice or three times) in pretty much every portable I’ve ever owned. Sending the thing in to Apple for a few weeks simply to get a new battery would be annoying (we don’t have Apple Stores over here in Europe, so we have to send the hardware to Apple every time there’s an issue).

Cell phone typically don’t survive for more than a year or two. Apple notebooks, on the other hand, often live five years, or more.

Posted by: LKM | January 06, 2009 at 01:24 AM

There is a power outlet almost everywhere you want to work. On the plane seems to be the biggest issue, but to be honest, who the hell can open the 17″ on a plane w/o hitting the person next to you? or without the person in front of you crushing it when they lean back? And if you’re in first class and have all that nice room, then you probably have a nice power outlet.

Extra batteries are becoming a thing of the past for laptops. If this rumor is true, Apple does need to ensure that proper replacement can be done within 24 hours (or less).

Posted by: John | January 05, 2009 at 09:28 PM

Two things:

1. I have a spare battery, ordered it when I ordered my MPB originally.

2. There have been numerous times when I have had to hard reboot my PB, meaning disconnect the AC AND the battery to get the damn thing back from a black display or non-responsiveness. I’ve known others who have had to do the same thing. It’ll be hard to do this with a non-removable battery.

end of line

Posted by: mike | January 05, 2009 at 07:46 PM

Two things:

1. I have a spare battery, ordered it when I ordered my MPB originally.

2. There have been numerous times when I have had to hard reboot my PB, meaning disconnect the AC AND the battery to get the damn thing back from a black display or non-responsiveness. I’ve known others who have had to do the same thing. It’ll be hard to do this with a non-removable battery.

end of line

Posted by: mike | January 05, 2009 at 07:45 PM

Unless this new battery has very impressive specs, I think it’s reasonable to be concerned. The “spare battery” isn’t the only use case.

Only a nit-wit would compare an iPhone to a MacBook.

Posted by: anon | January 05, 2009 at 06:55 PM

The one thing people suggesting external auxiliary batteries seem to forget is that the MagSafe power connector is proprietary. Unless Apple licenses the design, how will you connect such an accessory?

(And for the skeptics, I have seen many laptop batteries fail to hold a charge after one or two years, necessitating replacement.)

Posted by: Benjamin Wilkes | January 05, 2009 at 06:42 PM

The issue isn’t really whether people can carry around two batteries, it’s whether they can replace it when it fails.

Posted by: Simon | January 05, 2009 at 06:32 PM

From my experience it isn’t fair to compare iPod or iPhone batteries to the ones used in Macbooks:

So far I replaced 4 laptop batteries in my mac life: two macbook (non-pro) batteries for my girlfriend’s and my own machine that didn’t hold a charge any more after a year (of course right after the warranty expired) and two batteries for my ageing G4 Powerbook. Needles to say, I am very happy that I was able to replace the batteries myself without having to send the machines in and pay shipping + the technician. Pretty dismal experience here, especially with the Macbooks.

On the other hand, my iPhone battery still lasts just as long as the first day after a full charge, even after 1.5 years, and my girlfriend’s first gen iPod still works fine.

Conclusion: If the batteries lasts as long as iPod batteries do, and replacement doesn’t cost much more than buying the replacement part, and the swap can be done in the Apple store, I am game. Otherwise, I’ll complain.

Posted by: florian fangohr | January 05, 2009 at 06:24 PM

It will be interesting to see how they address memory/hard drive access, as these are things that I’ve upgraded on all 5 laptops that I’ve bought this decade. (I did not buy a battery, although did think about it–ended up buying a $2k replacement battery instead (entire computer))

Posted by: Matt | January 05, 2009 at 05:22 PM

I am not entirely opposed to an internal battery for a laptop. My concern is what to do when the battery dies. I am finding that my portable computers are lasting me a little longer with each generation. My wife and I are both on our third iBook, and never bought a second battery before this year.

This year we both got new batteries. We just have not yet gotten to the point that the upgrade is compelling, but the lack of power was beyond annoying.

As long as the battery is easily (and rapidly) replaceable and it isn’t going to cost me more than what a battery costs me now, I don’t have a problem with the concept.

The other argument I’d like to air is this: Just because people don’t use it does not mean it isn’t a selling point. Perhaps instead of asking how many people actually used the slots we should also consider how many people made a buying decision based upon their availability.

I think this is the same reason we keep hearing about a mini-tower mac. There seems to be a reasonable number of people who would pay for the expandability, even if they will never use it.

Posted by: BME | January 05, 2009 at 04:54 PM

Another point to add in is that 17″ laptops aren’t so much laptops as portable desktops? They’re pro machines after all. If you want something to surf the web on the couch or bring on business trips for word documents and presentations you buy something more portable! Like an Air (or a 15″ MBP if you need the screen size.)

So yes you *can* use these 17″ beasts without being plugged in but, really, i imagine most people that have one for the work they do is attached to the mains for at least 90% of the time.

Just something else to add to the mix….

Posted by: roj | January 05, 2009 at 04:27 PM

You´re so right. I don´t know ANYONE with an extra battery for their MB or MBP. And I know at least 40+ persons who has one..(MB or MBP that is…)

Posted by: Dev Singh | January 05, 2009 at 03:55 PM

EU discourages non-replacable batteries and with Apple going green these still will be removable. And what about HD replace? Alan is right.

Posted by: LMPogoda | January 05, 2009 at 03:44 PM

heh, when the Mac II was announced I started saving $$$ and two years later had the $3000 — enough for the down payment + $3000 loan (Apple’s Loan to Own) — for the IIcx.

The loss of 3 slots was SO not an issue and I don’t think ANYONE was complaining about saving the $1000 or so compared to the Mac IIx — which was still offered for sale BTW.

The IIci came out some months later (GRRR) but cost a bit more so over all the IIcx was the best choice even in retrospect. Used it on 3 continents from 1989 to 1996.

Posted by: Troy | January 05, 2009 at 03:30 PM

One more situation not mentioned so far:

If the internal battery is higher-capacity, it may be higher-enough capacity to approach two full batteries, which means you’re carrying a lot more capacity with you at all times with no need to swap anything.

Which means a fixed battery is actually something of a *convenience*.

I’d much rather not carry an extra battery, especially now that MacBooks require you to shut them down entirely when you swap batteries. You have to figure in the power required when you run through quitting apps, shutting down, rebooting the Mac, relaunching apps when swapping to that 2nd battery.

Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | January 05, 2009 at 03:24 PM

I think Apple’s thinking is that the 17″ MBP is often used as a desktop replacement, and hence will be sitting at a desk and plugged in to a powerpoint most of the time.

I’ll be curious whether they’ll move the 15″ MBP line to a non-removable battery as well.

There’s no doubt that a built-in battery has its advantages, but I wonder if it’s worth the trade off…

Posted by: Gerry Quach | January 05, 2009 at 03:04 PM

These claims of Lithium Ion batteries lasting less than a year, or a few months as one commenter claims, are simply ludicrous. What are you doing to your batteries to make them die like that? My iBook’s battery is going strong after about 4 years. I even have an ancient Powerbook whose battery still works.

Regardless of whether eliminating the removable battery is a good idea, you guys must be doing something very odd with your batteries. I use Lithium Ion/Polymer batteries for many different applications, and they are very reliable and long-lasting.

Posted by: Dave | January 05, 2009 at 02:59 PM

I’m on about my fifth “pro grade” Apple laptop since switching in 2001.

I am a hard-core power user working in IT security.

The laptop has always been my primary machine, and I travel a moderate amount for work.

I have never owned a spare battery. I would rather carry a power supply than a battery. Thinking about it: I frequently have multiple power supplies, which are far more useful that batteries.

Posted by: Richard Lane | January 05, 2009 at 02:45 PM

I see some people hinting at this, but I don’t see it clearly stated: There’s a large gap between “two tabs and it drops out” and “It’s soldered to the motherboard.”

The battery could be inside the machine, with very little housing beyond the cells, with screws (4? 8? 16? Lots) holding it in place against the chassis. It could even have a connector similar to the current one, or some other simple to detach non-solder connector.

Given the easy of disassembling the current unibody machines, I think that Apple could easily make a battery that was entirely user-replaceable, on a clean desk with a screwdriver.

I use a 17″ and I have a spare battery. I usually take it on airplanes, if I can remember where I put it. When I buy a new laptop, I expect the current battery will be incompatible. Instead of a second battery, I wouldn’t at all mind getting some sort of thin slab that goes underneath my machine.

Posted by: gopi | January 05, 2009 at 02:40 PM

The silent majority finally speaks out!

Batteries are really a non-issue for the majority of people.

Posted by: Rudiger | January 05, 2009 at 02:33 PM

Chuq: A couple of minor points from an old Mac II geek:

The IIcx was first – and yes, one of the three slots was reserved for a video card if you wanted to use the thing.

Apple DID respond to some of the complaints by putting in shared RAM on-board video for the IIci. Thus, the IIci was really a three-slot machine.

Sorry if it seems pedantic, but things seemed so much simpler then, so I wanted to make sure you got it right.

Posted by: Doug B | January 05, 2009 at 02:21 PM

I only have one battery for my 15-inch aluminum Powerbook. However, I work on lots of other people’s laptops of many makes, replacing keyboards, hard drives, DIMM’s. I always disconnect the AC adaptor and remove the battery before I do anything. If the battery is not removable, is there anyway to disconnect it from motherboard?

Posted by: crprod | January 05, 2009 at 02:09 PM

I understand that this post is from a business perspective, but even from that perspective I fail to see Apple’s logic.

First, any money and engineering toil Apple saves on by making the battery nonremoveable might very well be lost in their need to set up an efficient method of servicing every MacBook whose battery fails. That means more call center operators, more overnight shipping, more technicians. Why would Apple be so willing to create so much trouble for themselves?

Using the iPhone or iPod as a guide to how to manage without a battery simply doesn’t work for a computer. I’d love to see your design for a sleek, unobtrusive battery pack like those available for the iPhone for a 17-inch laptop.

But more importantly if we’re talking about business, the turnover rate and disposability of iPods and, to a lesser extent, iPhones is such that often one battery will last the device’s lifespan. I know many people who, on learning their iPod battery is dead, just decide to buy a new one. Why not? It’s maybe slightly more expensive and you get the new snazzy version to boot. Computers are entirely different. Nobody will throw out a computer just due to battery issues and a computer’s lifespan is much longer than an iPod.

Suffice to say, more users will be affected and it’s more trouble and exasperation for everybody involved.

I’ve never argued against the design of the iPhone or iPod batteries, but a laptop computer is a different situation entirely. Taking away the removable battery would not only be unpopular but would make much more trouble for Apple, too.

Posted by: Emmet | January 05, 2009 at 01:56 PM

I agree completely with the spirit of this piece. I expect that with a larger portable, like this 17″ model, there’s an opportunity to build the battery right into the unit in a way that enables a much larger battery. But that battery might comprise part of the portable in a way that would render it not-easily user-replaceable. So, that’s an opportunity for a third party to sell a charger unit that enables a spare battery for the smaller MacBooks to recharge the 17″-er. That spare battery does NOT go into the machine, but charges it externally. But so what? You’re hauling an extra battery around anyway!

If the internal battery actually does break down, you take the unit apart to get at it. More trouble than a smaller MacBook, where it’s on-the-go-swappable, but not like an iPod Nano where you have to throw the unit away, either.

So: Bigger, more capable battery, with better unit integrity, but more trouble to swap out. (Basically you only swap it out if it breaks down, not just because it’s out of juice.) It’s a very worthwhile – even desirable – tradeoff, and it makes all the sense in the world.

Posted by: walter | January 05, 2009 at 01:22 PM

I WANT to be able to EASILY replace my battery if the need arises. On iPods or MacBooks. PERIOD. I don’t ever plan on buying an iPod if i cannot replace my battery.

Posted by: walter | January 05, 2009 at 01:16 PM

Author, generally a valid point, although more valid for the consumer line of MacBooks than the most professional of laptops that Apple sells. In any event, people will whine and then adapt.

A few quibbles, although I generally agree that battery switching is probably only done by the very smallest percentage of users who don’t deserve to have the laptop crafted to their needs if it can lead to beneficial tradeoffs:

1) Battery packs like the Richard Solo aren’t *as* feasible when it comes to juicing a laptop, especially when you’re traveling with limited amounts of space.

2) As others have noted, part of the benefit of a replaceable battery is not the option of extending one particular laptop session, but also the ability to replace a worn-out battery. As others have noted, of course Apple will provide an option to have the battery replaced if you fork over your computer for a certain period of time. But this is a big pain in the ass that all of us would probably rather avoid.

In sum, if it happens, the loss of a replaceable battery won’t cause me to have a hissy fit, but I hope it comes with an upside, and something better than just a reduced risk of having a part fail.

Posted by: Scott | January 05, 2009 at 01:00 PM

Funny, I’ve never had a second battery for any of my laptops over the years.

(Hell, I’m still on the original battery on my 600mhz iBook!)

For those of you whom a user-replaceable (or rather, user-replaceable-without-breaking-the-warranty-or-unscrewing-anything) battery is a “hard requirement” – have fun not buying a new 17″ MacBook, then.

I agree completely with Chuqui’s belief that the cost/benefit may well not be there for Apple – and a minority of Power Users not liking it doesn’t change that.

(I’m inclined to agree with Mark that it needs to be replaceable by a user or company, but I’m not at all sure that it needs to be “pop two buttons and swap it” easy.

I’ve replaced my own hard drive and optical drive in a white plastic Core2 iMac, and if it’s easier than that it’ll suffice.

I also can’t imagine Apple making it less easy, if only to preserve sanity for their own techs.)

I’d be shocked if Apple sold a laptop that needed to be mailed in to get its battery replaced; I won’t be shocked at all if they make a laptop that needs to be taken apart with a torx driver to have its battery replaced.

That alone gets them 95-99% of the benefit of not having latches and case openings, while removing the “our company won’t buy Apple laptops because we’ll lose a week mailing them in every six months” factor.

Large benefit, low cost: no-brainer.

Posted by: Sigivald | January 05, 2009 at 12:58 PM

My guess:

The 15″ MacBook Pro are the most popular and so will remain the most flexible.

17″: not so popular. Chief complaint: big, heavy. Solution: non-removable hard-drive . . . less weight and size, more sales (perhaps)

Posted by: bud | January 05, 2009 at 12:50 PM

I routinely use two batteries (and yes, I do swap them every couple of weeks even if I don’t drain the main one). When I fly cross country, I need the second about 2/3 of the way through the trip. I have found airplane power to be unreliable with the MacBook Pros (at least on American Airlines). First, not all seats have power and second, the power is not enough to keep the battery from draining slowly.

Posted by: makfan | January 05, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Maybe the people carrying a 2nd battery/swapping batteries out is 10% of the installed base or less.

But let me pose a different scenario:

The defective battery:

I have a 15″ 2007 MBP that, upon entering it’s 12th month of usage, started to exhibit a battery that wouldn’t hold a charge of more than 30-45 minutes. I had no choice but to buy a new battery because the one that came with it was 1) no longer under warranty, and 2) unusable in it’s current state.

If that battery was sealed in the case, I’d 1) had to pay the Service Tech fee for replacing it professionally, and 2) have to wait for the machine to be professionally serviced.

Now, I know that the MBA is a super dead easy replacement. Still, if I want to replace the battery, I have to drop it off at the Apple Store and wait for them to replace.

With the current MBP, all I need to do is buy another battery and stick it in.

Oh, and as a developer, at both WWDC’s I’ve attended, I’ve always carried a 2nd battery. Apple even recommends that you do so.

Call us whiners if you like. But if Apple can engineer the 2008 MB/MBP with a replaceable battery, there is no reason they can’t do the same with the 17″.

Posted by: Ted | January 05, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Two thoughts:

1. About the only time I hit the “drop core” triggers (dropping the battery out of my MacBook Pro) is when it’s completely lost its mind and nothing else will force it to restart. Doesn’t happen often, but it’s happened a few times in the last two years, and the same had happened to the PowerBooks before it (actually, more often on the PowerBooks). Without the drop-core triggers, I’d have to just let the unresponsive brick sit there until the battery drains completely.

2. But, for the guy wondering about the flying tubes he calls “airplanes”: get a grip. If you’re taking a 17″ MacBook Pro on the airplane with you you are either (A) in first class, where there is a power connector provided for you, or (B) roundly hated by your neighbors (on whose legs your 17 inches are resting), the guy in front of you (who can not recline) and the guy in back of you (because you have to recline just to see the screen at the angle it can open to).

The 17″ MacBook Pro is not and never will be designed for air travel. It’s a non-issue.

Posted by: Tom Dibble | January 05, 2009 at 12:22 PM

I have an 1st Gen MacBook Pro. I am now on my third battery. This computer is NOT that old.

Gregor

Posted by: Gregor | January 05, 2009 at 12:14 PM

A non replaceable battery does not mean a non serviceable battery.

They aren’t going to solder it to the motherboard and some company like OtherWorld will make a replacement that you can “upgrade” to in 3 easy steps.

Posted by: Rus | January 05, 2009 at 12:06 PM

This is absurd – a battery that can be swapped out quickly is a hard requirement for a laptop. Or maybe a seven-hour battery, but that’s not happening soon.

Ever heard of something called an “airplane?” They’re the tubes that go in the sky and move you from place to place quickly. They almost never have power. You have to carry spare batteries if you fly routes that are significantly more than the life of your battery.

A battery that requires a screwdriver to change out is far beyond idiocy. Fire the fools who think this is even a reasonable thing to suggest in a MBP, much less ship.

Posted by: James Moore | January 05, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Deal breaker.

I’ve never owned a second battery, but I’ve replaced loads. The whole point of a laptop is being able to use it away from a power source, which inevitably drains the battery’s capacity.

Posted by: Church | January 05, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Chuck – you are absolutely, 100% right from a business perspective, and I would understand Apple’s decision to do this if the rumor turns out to be true.

Yet, as one of that small percentage of people who do rely on this ability greatly, I hope this rumor turns out to be completely false. I live and die by my 17″ MacBook and travel extensively, so I’m often away from power outlets for hours on end.

I will probably upgrade my computer when the new 17″ models come out, so it will seriously impact me sad to be limited to one battery unless they’ve greatly increased the battery life (up to, say 8 hours or so).

Posted by: Jeff | January 05, 2009 at 11:50 AM

People love to complain and I think the comments on here about laptop batteries lasting less than a year are simply absurd. If you’re using the machine the way it’s suppose to be used, the battery should last you years, not months. I’ve owned 2 Powerbooks in the last 8 years and not once did I have to replace the batteries and they still work just fine.

If non-replaceable produce a better overall product then I’m all for it.

Posted by: Antonio | January 05, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I don’t believe this rumor, and here’s why: Apple did a great job redesigning the 15″ MBP so that the hard drive and memory could be easily accessible. It doesn’t make sense that they would throw this away in the 17″ model.

Posted by: Alan Gabrielli | January 05, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Oh come on, just because users don’t swap batteries doesn’t mean that they don’t need to replace them. Li-Ion batteries go bad in 2 years or less. I can’t see why it would be a good thing for users to have to send one’s laptop back to Apple to get a battery that holds a charge.

Posted by: odysseus | January 05, 2009 at 11:24 AM

I think the MacBook Air is an important example to mention: it has no user-replaceable battery (technically it’s possible, but not likely to be something even the average Power User will do) and yet it sells like hot cakes. It’s hugely successful _and popular_!

Similarly, if there’s an engineering solution that would omit the replaceable battery but still allow easy access to the memory banks (for RAM expansion) and the hard drive, I have no doubt that they’d do it sooner or later.

Posted by: Faruk Ates | January 05, 2009 at 11:20 AM

I don’t use two batteries myself, but I do hold on to my laptops for a long time, long enough that I have had to replace the batteries on more than half of the ones that I buy.

I don’t know how that might affect the stats, though (nor do I know how a resale market for older Apple laptops would, or if Apple would even consider the resale market in this light.)

Posted by: Dennis | January 05, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Wasn’t the IIcx before the IIci? I remember the IIci being only ~15% faster, but yes, both were well-loved

Posted by: Derek Pearcy | January 05, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Sorry. If Apple does this, it’ll just further the notion that buying Macs isn’t cost effective. Only about 20% of my users buy additional batteries, but better than 50% have to have those batteries replaced before the machine’s lifespan is out. In our situation, that means about a week out of commission while the machine goes back to the service depot. Not cool _at all_.

I don’t care about the iPhone’s battery. But making something like the MacBook Pro battery non-user-serviceable isn’t acceptable to this .edu institution.

Posted by: Brian Little | January 05, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Don’t need a removable battery. Never once changed out the battery on any of the five PowerBook/MacBooks I’ve owned. If it makes the machine lighter, stronger, and makes the built-in battery life longer (as it likely would), then go for it.

Posted by: GregM | January 05, 2009 at 11:07 AM

When a battery lasts a year before being unable to hold a charge, but a laptop can last up to five years (I’m still using a 12″ powerbook), a replaceable battery is a must. I’m on my fourth for the laptop, and it’s time for a new one.

Posted by: Chris | January 05, 2009 at 11:04 AM

In a company, replaceable batteries are a must. It’s impossible to justify keeping a large stack of spare macbook pros on-hand due to their huge cost. Without the ability to swap batteries, we will go back to PCs for our users. Users trash their batteries every 4-6 months. We do not throw out computers that fast.

Posted by: David Jones | January 05, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Just had to deal with t-mobile germany to get my gen1 iPhone repaired, i can tell you, that i am not looking forward to ever have to send my iPhone off again for a Battery replacement. Don’t even get me started to think ybout having to send my laptop in for Battery replacement (and yes, with i had to replace the battery of every laptop i ever owned at least once – starting with the PowerBook 100).

Heck, it’d scare the hell out of me to send off my MacBook with all my life’s Data on it. Hell no!

Posted by: Stefan Seiz | January 05, 2009 at 06:48 AM

I don’t know a single MacBook owner who wasn’t forced to get a new battery, either as part of the warranty or else. Currently the capacity of my MBP battery (despite being replaced only six months ago) is once again abysmal.

I also prefer not think about being without my iPhone when its battery gets the blues…

Posted by: Nils Kassube | January 05, 2009 at 03:21 AM

On my last three portable Macs, all batteries have miserably failed after about 12 months. The last one is already dead after only 9 months (on an early-2008 MBP, a large-scale defect recognized by Apple). So I’m not really convinced about Apple’s ability to provide a good experience in terms of battery, but I stand to be corrected. The key thing is, as others have pointed out, whatever the replacement method, it needs to be immediate.

Posted by: François Nonnenmacher | January 05, 2009 at 03:16 AM

It’s totally not fair to point out external battery solutions for iPhones/iPods and say “that means those will be available for a 17″ MBP”. Why?

The iPod dock connector is licensed to a wide variety of companies. So people CAN make things with that adapter on them.

MagSafe? As of today, still never been licensed to anyone. And Apple won’t create the product itself because doing so would be admitting a design flaw in their oh-so-perfect design.

I’ve got 4(!) batteries for my MBP, and when I go to conferences where the organizers are less-than-good at deploying power, those batteries come in handy. A 17″ has a battery life of about 2 hours, give or take, and spare batteries are key to being able to get through a long conference day without ready access to AC.

Posted by: Derek | January 05, 2009 at 02:49 AM

As I’m on my 5th MacBook battery, making them user-replaceable is key. What I want in a MacBook is an HD screen. Should be easy at 17″, but if they took the dpi of my iPod Nano and put that in a 12″ it would be HD

Posted by: Kevin Marks | January 05, 2009 at 01:11 AM

I would not mind non replaceble battery if there is some posibility to charge laptop on go.

But unlike iPhone there is no chance (except one company which has to modify your charger) how to charge notebook on go, because Apple doesn’t want to allow it.

Posted by: Radek | January 05, 2009 at 12:30 AM

Since ’96 I’ve owned a PowerBook 5300cs, an iBook (G3/600), and a 17″ MBP.

All three had to have the batteries replaced under warranty. The iBook – replaced twice. The MBP battery went from 1″ to 2″ in height when it swelled up badly. What happens if there’s a swollen internal battery issue with a unibody MBP?

Also, as previously commented by @Biappi, I could care less about non-replaceable, but user-serviceable is key. In Australia warranty replacements are on a 7-10 business day turnaround period. If you’re lucky.

So if I had to go without my laptop for 2 weeks or so because of a duff battery? Yeah – I wouldn’t be a happy camper. I’ve had mobo issues in the past as well – and it is a real pain.

It’s not just about the second battery issue – it’s about the reliability of the first one…if the whole machine needs to go in for service to fix a duff battery, well in my experience that’s just daft.

Posted by: Mark | January 05, 2009 at 12:23 AM

@Biappi

If it’s engineered in a MacBook Air like way, it’ll then be user-serviceable.

Indeed, changing the battery on the MacBook Air is not very hard, as you can see on iFixIt or similar website. It only require a screw driver and to know how to use a screw driver .

Posted by: iFrodo | January 05, 2009 at 12:10 AM

I definitely agree — to me the trade off, especially if it will in fact be a Silver-Zinc battery is an easy call. But yes, as I was noting as well, everyone will start complaining

Posted by: MG Siegler | January 04, 2009 at 11:30 PM

I do not mind whether the battery is non-replaceable, i mind if the battery is user-serviceable!

I own a macbook pro, this june my battery was really dying, as in only 5 minutes worth of charge, it was just two clicks of the clips and my laptop is basically new again.

Compare that with the hassle of replacing an hard drive, last month i’ve upgraded from 80gigs to 320: i had to bring the laptop to service, and wait a couple of days, if that part would be user-serviceable (like newer macs, or like the battery) i could be up and running in a couple of minutes.

So for me a non-swappable battery is OK, but make the user able to upgrade it, it’s a computer, not a phone, and little upgrades like that really boosts the longevity of the machine.

Posted by: Biappi | January 04, 2009 at 10:58 PM