Demand for Apple's 13" MacBook Pro may be outpacing supply - Page 3

Isn't the old computer Firewire 400? Can you connect Firewire 400 on one computer to Firewire 800 on the other (no Firewire 400 on the new MBPs)?

If not, you can accomplish the same thing over the network - either Ethernet or wireless.

800 is backward compatible. You just need a 800->400 adapter or cable.

I'm not sure if people are aware of this.

You can order a 13" MBP from ColorWare (those paintjob guys).
If you get it painted by them they offer all kinds of customizations (coloring different parts in different colors). As a new feature they now also offer a 'Matte Screen' as 'Screen Finish' option.

This is probably the same as the 17" matte MBP: they simply remove the glass at the front and don't replace it.

Because of the paintjob options you could still have the aluminium bezel painted shiny black for a similar look - minus the glossy glass in front of the screen. I'd probably chose that.

Although I have not tried ColorWare, so can't really vouch for them either way. And it seems quite expensive (adds $799 to your 13" MBP price tag for the matte screen and painting).
But for people considering even the 17" just for the matte option, this might still be a viable solution.

ColorWare 13" MBP Link


Maybe helpful for some...

Out of curiosity I would love a detailed demographic breakdown between the 13, 15 and 17 'Pro' models as such:

1. Professionals who bought one as their business machine. (Not just creatives but anyone who uses it on a daily basis to make money)

2. K-12 & University students

3. Adult consumers for home and entertainment (age 21+)

If it turns out that #1 is the majority of sales for any of the line then apparently Apple has found the perfect balance of power, design and "features". (or lack thereof). But if #2 and #3 turn out to be the top demographics (which I believe they are) then take off the stupid "Pro" nomenclature if that isn't your target audience. It would be like tacking on "pro" to a Dell Mini just to do it.

My guess would be the 13in model is mainly K-12 + Uni, 15in split between all groups and 17in mostly #1. Of course I'm pulling stats out of my rear but isn't that what forums are good for?

There is. Unfortunately SONY uses them- they are a hybrid of both-called XBRITE and they are gorgeous- bright and matte.

I thought SONY had a patent but now see it's a TM.

They had a middle ground and it was called 'glossy'. The new Apple products are 'glassy' with a sheet of what seems to be untreated glass which is a lot more reflective than a plastic glossy screen. If you live near a best buy or something check out a normal plastic glossy then go check out a Macbook, there is a difference.

I would suggest that the reality of an 80:20 rule was the historical problem for Apple and what Steve Job's entire strategy for 12 years has been designed to break. When Apple was at its nadir, only the hardcore fans and "pro" users were really keeping Apple afloat. 80:20 probably applied. The massive expansion into the high-end consumer market I believe has been an attempt to reverse this position. What is replacing the traditionally dominant logic of Pareto theory these days is the "Long Tail" where you efficiently sell/market to tap the many more but less frequent/hardcore customers in the long tail of a frequency curve. Apple has done this brilliantly through its products, stores and marketing. I would very much doubt that 80:20 applies to Apple these days, especially since "bulk/fleet" orders are not as significant for Apple (except for the odd Education deal), compared to Dell/HP. They were built on a hybrid model - 80:20 applied to the corporate business, but direct consumer/small biz sales could tap the long tail. Now corp buyers are cutting back, the impacts are massive on the Dell/HP bottom line - much bigger than for Apple.

"Pros" are still significant because of their higher average spend/$ margin per head but there is no growth there - that is mostly in the tail. Thus, I don't think your math works on the $s given up for not doing a matte screen. It is obviously something but I would think it would be an order of magnitude smaller than your estimate. Can't prove it obviously... ;-)

My 15' MBP 3.02 GHz 500g 7400 rpm is awaiting me when i return from vacation. Its sitting in the fed ex office .

Why not get the 15' yourself. You get 2 chips .

9

If he uses the <n> system and has an airport extreme and and a airport express somewhere else in the same location he should a have a far range no matter what. But the setup can be tricky. BEST that he reads up first on apple site.

edit
9

The whole MBP line up are the finest laptops ever made,
From the uni-body to the software to the powerful insides

Even the MBA is very high class.

Your Complaints are silly and ill-informed.
PRO denotes a powerful device that is seamless in all ways .

9

Do us a favor will you. Instead of building a hackintosh just make a clean break and go Windows PC. Then we won't have to read your drivel here anymore.

There are, to my knowledge, no difference between the 2006 MBP batteries and the 2008 MBP batteries, so assuming that he got old batteries when he replaced the malfunctioning ones is probably not a good answer to the problem. After all, he's gone through multiple replacements.

Also, since Apple differentiates between Li-ion (Powerbooks/iBooks) and Li-polymer (Intel notebooks, iPods, etc.), and battery care for the types differ, it would be helpful to do the same.

delete.

I don't have the least bit of a problem with Apple's latest laptop offerings. They are excellent and my point, which you seem to have missed, is that one size doesn't fit all.

Not every potential buyer has the same needs and even professionals have different situations in which one offering in the Mac laptop line-up is better suited than another.

Pro, really, is a term that Apple uses to denote a certain calibre of machine and every one of their Pro laptops are justifiably being marketed by Apple as top-end devices. I was responding, evidently a little too flippantly to be understood, to the notion that if a member of the Pro family isn't ideal for every imaginable professional customer that it shouldn't be called a Pro.

The bottom line is, different strokes for different folks. Apple is offering a laptop pro line-up that covers a lot of bases. This is a good thing.

He was being sarcastic, brucep.

I never would have thought that anyone would want an internal battery, which guarantee's a service need at some point.

Nope. Apple's internal batteries are designed to last for the life of the machine.

the totally unacceptable Glossy screen.

Not according to demand. In fact, Macbooks have always sold very well, glossy or not. Seems it's only a small minority on internet forums that are making a fuss over it. It is acknowledged that Macbooks set the bar for the rest of the industry. They sell like crazy, especially now. I doubt anyone outside of the forums knows what a hackintosh is, and I seriously doubt the average consumer wants those. In fact, the Psystar fiasco is proving they don't!

Well I want to get the 13". Can I still get my chip?

What validates the glossy screens is the fact that the far majority of consumer notebooks use glossy screens. Computer manufacturers are using glossy because they sell.




What invalidates these polls is that they are not representative of the entire computer market. They are only representative of the people who visit that web site.

i have a 12" PB 1.5 too, and just got a 13" MacBook Pro 2.53/500/7200 and i can tell you that the wifi reception is massively improved! From the places in my house where my PB would have trouble the MBP gets full signal. My router is pretty old and not 'n'. And wifi reception is great when i'm and about too. So no problem there.

I hear you, people who need to use the computer for long lengths of time and don't live in a dark basement usually prefer the matte screens as it's easier on the eyes.

I've read what others have said that "turning the laptop to reduce reflections" etc., in my experience that didn't help much, as I sit in the very same chair to use either computer and there are no reflections, but still I got the eyestrain and the headaches from the glossy MacBook screen anyway.

There is a option for non-glare glass, it's called museum glass and called that for a good reason as you certainly can fathom.


http://www.tru-vue.com/Tru-Vue/Products/33/

Maybe the glossy displays reflect more interior UV than the matte screens which scatter it more?

Buying is a emotional experience and yes "oh shiny" sells to inexperienced computer newbies very well. Which over 50% of people buying in Apple stores are new to the Mac, according to Apple.

When IBM sold their computer business to Lenevo, they did a poll, asked their business customers, "matte or glossy screens?" 86% choose matte.

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2006/10/8022.ars

So it would be good for Apple to provide both.

Or provide Mac's with "Museum Glass" as it's anti-reflective and also provide all the great contrast the glossy screens currently provide.

It's Apple using cheap reflective glass that's the problem.




MacMatte is not presenting his position very well.

But on his site there is a list of links, posts and polls from all over the internet and (all but one) are overwhelmingly in favor of matte screens over glossy. Including the poll results I quoted above.

And yes those polls are not reflective (reflective ha!) of the entire computer purchasing public obviously, but it is not something to be ignored.

I would like to see Apple use Museum Glass, which is glass made to be anti-reflective for art purposes, in their computers.

It would be the best of both, the nice contrast and sharp colors of glossy, without the annoying reflections.


Seeking a solution to a widespread problem, not trying to toss out glossy, but make it anti-reflective so everyone is happy.

And I think a better quality of glass will solve that problem, thanks for helping me remember about museum glass.

Discussion is good.

When Apple first launched the MacBook Pro they did offer both. Apple stopped offering both because they discovered that Mac users overwhelming chose glossy.

The poll in that Arstechnica article was an online poll, it wasn't a specific poll for only business users. The problem with online polls is that the people who care most will answer the poll.

I seriously doubt you can simply slap a pane of museum grade glass on a screen and everything work out fine. As in everything I'm sure its more complicated than that.



The types of polls have little real usefulness. The problem with online polls is the fact that people who care the most are going to answer the most. Which is why there are specific rules to how polls are conducted to insure you gain realistic and useful information. You cannot gain legitimate or useful information from an online poll. All you learn is from the people who visit the website what issue they care about the most.

If glossy screens didn't sell, Apple wouldn't be using them.

All this matte business is a moot discussion because most notebook screens out there are glossy nowadays.

Credit crunch looming?

jk, enjoy.

I need to get out more often .

peace
9

yes one chip
the 9400
i get 9400 and
the 9600
gaming chip

dude 15 is not so much bigger than the 13 in
its the 17 in one that is too large

It's because most people in Apple's stores (by Apple itself) are new to computers an attracted to shiny objects (I see this in art stores too, the shiny glass art objects get all the attention). They don't know that glare is a problem like experienced computers users know.


The polls are reflective of the experienced online computing user base. Those people prefer having a "anti-glare" solution.


The iMac's glass can be pulled off and so can the iPhone and replaced with Museum Glass if Apple desired too.*

*(I'm using this as a illustration, I don't know any company or person doing this, but certainly is very interesting prospect, see further posts for links)

If Apple used that type of glass in the first place, then we would have all the benefits of the glossy screens without the reflections and glare.

The Museum Glass is a better quality glass and thus would cost more. But Mac's are quality computers. The glossy loving crowd would like the elimination of reflections too, so it's a win for them.

Glossy sells well to emotional buyers, computer newbies unaware of glare problem and those who prefer glossy because of the better contrast and color and wiling to take the penalty of glare and/or live with it. (edited to clarify)

However those who glare is a serious issue, think that has more importance being eliminated than the better contrast and color glossy screens provides.

And no not all notebook screens are glossy, Leveno sells matte screens and so do other makers. But it's Windows, and we know that sucks.

However, if Apple used Museum Glass, which is glass, but non-reflective. We could reap the benefits of the higher contrast and colors of glossy without the annoying reflections and glare.

Everyone would be happy, including me.

It's no use trying to be logical with the rabid pro-matte crowd. They don't want to accept that some people actually want glossy. In their narrow world view, if you don't believe what they do you are stupid, shallow, attracted to "shiny things", a newbie or any other derogatory term they can come up with.

The refuse to acknowledge that for many people, glossy screens are actually preferred for real and valid technical reasons.

Oh well. Their insisting that glossy is total crap won't prevent me from preferring and enjoying it

Thank you rosstheBoss,

I appreciate the info. I was back in the Apple store tonight, and learned that as knownikko and others stated, I just need to buy a firewire 400 to 800 adapter, and I should be fine. The apple Store has been selling so many macbookPro's that they were all out of any printer that took the $100 rebate.

Frank D.

Sorry you see things that way, and take things personally like that.

I didn't imply any of that, but I further clarified my post anyway just in case.

I have used both screens, so I'm not narrow or bias. Perhaps people are a loss for words in describing their problem of glare too. People are upset.

I'm looking for a solution to the glare of glossy screens, not knocking people who choose it or prefer it. I would take a glass screen without the glare and so would most matte people too.

It just so happens that a better type of glass would eliminate the glare and make things better for everyone.


I added you to my ignore list (temporarily) since it appears your just looking for trouble today.

http://www.powersupportusa.com/produ...macbook-pro-15

I use their anti-glare iPhone cover. I love it.

At this point I seriously doubt the majority of people who understand the difference between Windows and Mac OS X and willing to spend $1000+ are buying their first computer.



To gain any real and useful knowledge you have to poll a large and random group of people. Users of tech websites are not at all random and are completely biased in their viewpoints and in no way reflect the general computer user base.



Can you provide a link to a company that provides museum glass for the iMac or iPhone? Otherwise you are just making stuff up.

P.S. All this glossy vs. matte nonsense is just that.

One sells better now, one sold better then.... we'll never know how they compare until Apple offers both options side by side on all models without tacking on an extra price to one.

We all know that won't happen, so the argument is moot. There's no option but to deal with what Apple offers us, even though I loathe the screens glossy with a passion.

Thanks!

TechRestore replaces the glossy with a matte screen without the paint job. But no warranty. $200

http://www.techrestore.com/xcart/home.php?cat=404

But I believe the Colorware will cover the warranty if you buy the computer from them.

I like the Stealth MacBook Pro, just not the price. heh!

Yes I saw a You Tube video on it, looks good and they have a film for computers too.

Hard to get it right on though, such a shame to have to resort to that.

Yes it's difficult to accurately evaluate without doing some sort of blind test.

Although I've heard from computer lab techs that people tend to gravitate towards the "anti-glare" type screens more than the glare type ones.



I don't know of any company that provides museum glass specifically for those devices.

But I bet you could get TechRestore to do it if the specs of the glass were the same, pre-cut, smoothed and everything shipped off to them.

http://www.techrestore.com/xcart/home.php?cat=404

I do have a link to the company that provides this museum type of glass for art shops and museums.

http://www.tru-vue.com/

What I do know is that with a suction cup the iMac glass can be removed, but there are some sort of pins or something. So your on your own there or have TechRestore do it.

What I also know is Apple stores can now replace the iPhone glass in the store, what that entails exactly you would have to find out.


(disclaimer: I receive no compensation for product or company mention)

Online:

13" 2.53 250G HD : 7 ~ 10 days
All other combinations including SSD , 1 ~ 3 days

13" 2.26 The only option that is 7 ~ 10 days is 250G HD.

i.e. the issue is the 250G HD and not the machine itself.

Regards.

Apple is definitely going to beat all these Analysts expectations. That is a given. The company has been beating expectations quarter after quarter, year after year for a long time now.

Of course the new Macbooks are knockouts, just out of this world. I know a guy who bought one just to use Windows XP. He said he uses Mac OS X just for video and pictures. However, I see him as another convert. Like millions of converts before him and millions to follow, the Mac cult is growing unabated day after day until Microsoft is buried, and the whole world will enjoy computing as it is meant to be.

Viva Apple! Viva Mac OS X!