Apple predicted to discontinue 17-inch MacBook Pro - Page 4

Well that would SUCK, since the last Mac I bought was a 17" MBP, and the next one would likely be the same...  :(

 

And that does what for people who want a 17" laptop, exactly?

 

 

Remember those words next time there is a discussion about the Mac Pro, Xserve, or serviceability of iMacs.

 

I don't know of anyone petitioning for less-accessible iMacs… And I'm against the discontinuation of the Mac Pro, so I'm confused as to your point.

My last three Macs have all been 17" laptops: 2005 17" PowerBook G4, 2007 17" MacBook Pro and 2008 17" MacBook Pro. I'm anxiously (and now, thanks to this ridiculous analyst's fairy tale, nervously) awaiting the next generation of Mac laptops so I can upgrade.

 

I've been a video professional for 13 years, and I spent the first 5 of those years using 15" PowerBooks. Moving up to 17" (once they became available) was fantastic; I never want to go down a size again.

 

The only other size Mac laptop I'd ever want to buy apart from 17" is 19", 21", even 27": seriously, a portfolio case I can fold over would be heaven.

 

 

Whether that's true or not, what does it have to do with the suggestion that one should carry around an external display instead of buying a 17"? 

 

 

So your point is that you don't have enough real world experience to understand that for many people, the larger display has great value in terms of usability?

I have always found my 17" MBP to be far more practical than smaller ones.

 

 

First, your statement is false. The high res 15" is 1680 x 1050 while the 17" has 1900 x 1200. So you can put more on the screen with the 17".

But even if your statement were true, having the larger screen makes it easier for those of us who no longer have 20 year old eyesight.

Ah, those mythical "real pros" and "power users".... What exactly are they again? Why are 15" or 17" users unable to claim such an exalted status?

I ask because all the real pros and power users I know are using larger MacBook pros. Only show-offs, poseurs and snobs use Airs!

Oh no! Clashing anecdotes! What now?

 

 

The same kind of people who think eye destroying glossy displays are wonderful - and anyone who wants to keep their vision is a troll.

I can't see this happening and hope it is not true. Who knows though.

I love all this talk about rednecks and posers, that use 17" machines, and how they are so heavy. This is my 3rd 17" MBP and I spend 95%+ per year on the road all over the world, it's 6 pounds sure there are lighter laptops but give me a f'ing break it's 6 pounds, most american need a heavier laptop, its the only exercise some of my IT peers get. Now why do I like the 17? well lets see the screen for my huge architectural drawings, flow charts to name a few I'm an enterprise architect the larger screen makes it easier to shuffle crap. Second I like the screen because in the event the stupid tv at the hilton or other hotel doesn't have an HDMI or DVI cable I can if I choose to watch movies in 1080p. Third I have never had a 17" macbook pro run hot like a few of the 15s. Last but not least up until TB I liked having the express card slot.

So yeah for me it's the screen I'd hate to lose the 2", I know new displays will help with this but I figured the 17" would be the last of the full featured Apple Notebooks with optical drive, a desktop replacement of sorts. I hate carrying extra things far more than a few pounds. However I only use my Superdrive when I'm in the Middle East or China, and it's only a few times a year.

Hopefully Apple has something really special if they are going to contract their product line. If they axe the 17" with out a much higher display on the 15" I'll be pretty pissed. There is a better case to keep the Mac Pro than the 17" if you look at it, but that all depends on what comes in the way of screen on the next machine. Either way if they axe the 17" those that love it are boned and will just have to move on.

Hell this 2009 2.93 17" with 8 gig of ram is in mint condition even after all the travel, and I've only had to replace the battery under warranty because it swelled. It could last for a few more years by then we could have flying cars, and contact based displays with cell phone implants :-)

Lol. Sad but (in my experience too) true...

More seriously, as a generally pretty fit person, 6.6lbs on its own is no big deal. But added to a briefcase full of papers (alas, only so much can be digital even these days) it can get heavy. And said briefcase is just a little too small for me.

But still my next MBP will be a 17" if they are available. I do some event photography and every pixel is helpful in post.

 

 

It's all about tradeoffs. I found the 17" MBP sufficiently unwieldy on an airplane that unless hard pressed by a deadline I'd just as soon watch a movie vs working.  Lugging around a 24" display is a non-starter but a 15.6" 1600x900 monitor that's 1" thick and weighs 3 lbs. in your carry on might be a better trade off than having a 17" MBP. 

 

A 4.5 lb. 13" MBP quad-core 2.5 GHz Core i7 MBP with 1440x900 screen, Radeon 6770, dual TB ports on the airplane coupled with that external display in the field might be the best of both worlds (until the MBP melted).

 

The combo is a pound heavier than the 17" MBP and weight is always an issue but when I had the RAID drive I had to drag along an annoying pelican case anyway.  Stuffing that monitor in wouldn't have been a problem.  It really depends on how mobile you need to be in the field.  If you need to be both very mobile during the day AND have 17" to work then a 2nd monitor is a no-go.  If you set up in the AM and tear down in the PM it'll probably be better to have that 2nd monitor.  

 

I'm not a video guy so I dunno what is a common workflow for them.

 

 

No, its not false. Apparently you're 20 year old eyesight didn't read my post properly. I was assuming there would be a very high res 15" to make up for the loss of the 17" model. I know very well that currently the 17" has a larger resolution than the 15". If you can read the high res on a 17" then it shouldn't be any issue on the 15". 

 

 

If Apple offers a very high resolution 15", why wouldn't they offer an even higher resolution 17"? Since you're making things up, anyway.....

 

And for any given resolution, the 17" will be easier to read than the 15".

Lol. Apple could discontinue their whole macbook pro line up tomorrow and the'd still be people here claiming that it would benefit customers and usher them into a new era of post pc computing.


(btw, what's all that formatting garbage that huddler outputs with the quote, you can't read the original quote you are replying to this way... I hope you guys have not started paying them any money yet. )

 

 

I think that once they try a 15 inch MBP, they will realize that Apple was right.

There is little or no chance that Apple will give up the 17 inch market. as small as it may be, it is still a large number of units (not to mention accessories and applecare). No other manufacture has plans (announced) for removing their 17 inch laptop "decktop replacement".

Thinking that Apple will remove these from the market is a little like saying that mercedes is going to stop selling the Maybach because they are outrageous.

Yes they may be but that in and of itself is a marketing plus. some people just naturally want MAX everything!! if they can afford it just exactly is wrong with that. It sounds to me like there are plenty of people who just plain cant afford a 17 inch MBP and have sour grapes. Just because you cant have one or dont want one doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't sell one.

 

when it comes to the next gen it makes total sense to make MacBook Pros with no moving parts (except the fan). BIG flash Hard drives, ports a plenty, quad core processors, and BIG FLAT BATTERIES.

 

here will be a couple of disadvantages.  Video card, going to the built in intel just is not as powerful as the current offering. Hard drives that are smaller.(BUT MUCH MUCH FASTER)

 

So size for speed? A worthy trade off.  

17inch retina display will prive VERY VERY EXPENSIVE and may be the limiting factor.

Imagine a new thin and thin 17 inch macbook pro with a 640 gig flash drive and a retena 2K display. This would be nice for professional video editing. if attached to a 2k monitor? WOW that would be nice.

 

YMF

 

 

 

 

Mercedes is reportedly discontinuing the Maybach in 2013.

The only reason I bought a 17" MacBook Pro was because they didn't do a 19".

 

 

Um...maybe because nobody buys the 17"? I don't recommend them and I know a lot of people who do have them and they're just too big. If you have resolution independence then the 15" will be just as easy to read as the 17". Face it dude...the 17" is EOL. 

 

We've been over this. Your statement is false.

 

 

For them.

 

 

That's not the only point at hand.

 

 

Yes, Apple is right - since they offer both a 15" and a 17". You see, Apple realizes that some people prefer the larger screen.

 

 

Nobody buys the 17"? Really? Then how did I get this 17" MacBook Pro on my desk? I know that Apple didn't GIVE it so me.

Face it - lots of people prefer the larger screen.

Your other argument is completely absurd. Arguing that a 15" is just as readable as a 17" is ridiculous. At any given resolution, items will be larger on the 17" screen than on the 15" screen which makes them easier to read. Furthermore, at any given screen technology, it's possible to get more pixels on a 17" screen than on a 15" screen, improving readability and flexibility even further. Your argument is inane ("let's assume that we can keep getting higher and higher resolution on the 15" while we'll assume that the resolution of the 17" doesn't change).

 

Unless they are discontinued, my next Mac purchase will be an Ivy Bridge 17" MacBook Pro.

 

Do I need a 17" screen in a portable? Hell no. I don't even use my Macs, professionally. My employers equips me with a new ThinkPad every year for that. I have an 11" MacBook Air for portability and on-the-road use, an iPad for lazy surfing and an iPhone for when I didn't bring anything else.

 

Guess what? I don't have to justify buying a 17" MacBook to anyone but myself. Wanna know how that goes? "I want one. I can afford it. Add to basket." There, all done. I couldn't care less what anyone here or elsewhere thinks about that. Whether they think I should buy a 15" instead because I don't do anything, professionally, that requires a large screen. Nor for any other reason. Screw you guys, I'm going home. With a 17" MBP if Apple are gracious enough to keep manufacturing them. And here's hoping they are.

 

.tsooJ

This would be a disaster for the core group of music and creative pros that have always relied on mac Pros or the 17" big boy.

bad decision to abandon these customers because while profitable, they don't sell enough in some bean counters

ledger brain. Bad idea that will have long term ramifications. i hope it does not come to pass.

 

 

As long as you admit you don't NEED it, I'm fine with that.  Wanting one is perfectly fine.  I just issue with people that say they'll buy a PC instead, or that they "can't work" on a 15".  

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you think Retina won't show up for another year on the laptops? Intel is already ready, and the OS is being optimized for Retina, according to the rumors. Seems like the perfect time to make the transition.

 

Doesn't matter if Intel's ready. The panels aren't.

 

And do you really think an Intel 4000 is going to be able to push this stuff well?

 

 

Dunno, that's why I'm asking. I thought the 4000 was finally supposed to be half decent for most usages, and what it can't handle, well there should be some discrete graphics for that right? As far as the panels are concerned, we sure none are ready? Yes there were reports of difficulties producing the iPad screens, but they managed. Is making a 13", 15" panel that much harder?

Benchmarks are becoming available and they are painting a mixed picture of Intels 4000 series GPU. It can be seen as a vast improvement over the old intel integrated GPUs, but sadly still doesn't outperform a year old AMD integrated chip. Right now it is a bit of mystery as to how the chip would perform on a high resolution screen, but indication are we would see a regression in some ways.

In any event this is why I suspect that we will see high resolution screens on the MBPs first as they have the option of a descrete GPU or a higher clocked Intel chip. Extra battery power and fewer RAM limitations also factor in.

As to panels I think it is possible that they are ready. We have manufactures that have publicly announced such screens. Further everyone has assumed that Apples agreements with various LCD makers revolves around parts for the iPad. That is certainly part of what is going on but it would be shocking to think they haven't focused some of this tech on laptops. After all going for an iPad sized screen to a 11 or 13" screen isn't a big deal. In fact if they use larger pixels it would be easier.

No one here can say for sure if high DPI screens will come to laptops this year. Personally I think it is possible from the screen standpoint, the bigger issues is driving all of those pixels.

I think if anything, if the 17-inch isn't listed in the refresh -- it's because they can't get a high rez 17" screen in a reasonable price + quantity yet.

 

I've been using a 15" -- after having a 17", and I feel like I'm really cramped. 3D, Video, professional graphics -- you need the screen real estate.

 

17" might not seem as portable -- but neither is carrying an extra monitor just so you can lay out a palette of tools.

 

>> I both hope and think that this rumor is bogus, and it is merely fueled by delayed shipping. A 17" Retina display is also hard to believe.

 

 

Then you've got an "issue" with anyone who does 3D, Video, and high end graphics. I'm even sure spreadsheet users like larger screens. And then there are people who LIKE larger screens because they have large eyes I suppose.

 

I have to wonder at people who project only their own sense of what is important on the world without considering the "needs" of others. YES, we can all "get by" with a 15" -- but there are people on the fence and if they can't get a larger monitor, they might get a PC. Heck, I might be curious about creating a Hackintosh laptop if there is no 17".

 

 

Unless it's your iPad.  iPad retina + 15" hirez probably is as much usable working area as a 17" MBP.  

 

Lag and lack of software support is the primary issue at this point but I can see a significant advantage in many (but of course not all) workflows if the tools make use of a high resolution touch screen for some things.

 

 

I know guys who've never seen an iPad, so I conclude nobody buys iPads :D

 

 

I would love to have a 19" MacBook Pro. That screen realestate would be ideal for me. That being said, I wouldn't complain about a 21" either.

 

I have been using my 17" for about a year and a half for photo editing and spreadsheet work. To be completely honest, I find the screen size to be a bit cramped for my style. I used to use a 22" and 19" monitor combination before going mobile, which I do miss, but I have no desire to be stuck at a desk, so 17" is my option.  

 

 

There are some very common themes in the things you've mentioned. They tend to have a very large number of ui elements no matter how many things you hotkey. I mean there are programs where I have 30+ hotkey combinations just to avoid losing my place visually on the screen, and even I still have to accommodate a lot of tools on the display. With anything where a large desktop display is the common format, a laptop tends to be somewhat of a compromise to efficiency. It's just that you can minimize this with a large one if you spend a lot of time away from your office. The 17" isn't bad with a laptop case. It would be annoying to transport bare without risking damage.

 

 

You know a couple companies did try 19" laptops. They never sold well. With stuff like this it's just a balancing act. You can keep going larger until the number of people buying them is no longer sustainable. In this case there is a market. I think more of their growth went to smaller form factors, but most of the people on here have no idea how to look at data. They're just following a narrative driven by bloggers and Apple enthusiast sites. 

 

It's also important tot realize that there are layers of speculation here. We had rumors about a potential redesign last year too. This year they're much noisier. The speculation here is that there will be a redesign and that they won't dedicate the time into making a redesigned 17" model due to faltering volume. I can't seem to find where Apple breaks these things down by product.  There isn't any indication how his numbers were calculated.

Many thousands of 17" MBP are sold every quarter. They are invaluable for powerusers on Pro Tools and graphics users. 

I'm on the road constantly and my 17" is a fantastic tool. I would hate to see Apple abandon the high end user, especially because it is still profitable.

I don't know how anyone here can say Apple will discontinue a product based on how many they sell when we don't know how many they sell because Apple doesn't share the sales figures between the models.

 

 

I'm sure that was clever in your mind, but now that it's written down, it really just makes you look silly, hmmm?  

 

 

 

 

I'm not projecting any sense of what it is important.  I'm sure having a 17" is highly preferable to some people.  What I'm taking issue with is that some people are claiming they "can't work" on a 15" machine and they "need" a 17".   We heard the same comments when they redesigned the MBP in 2009.  OMG! They took away ports!  How will I function!  Screw Apple!  

 

 

Not for awhile.  Pixel density for the 17" MBP is only 133.19.  Pixel doubled would make it 266, which would be about the level of the New iPad, which should qualify it based on usage distance.  Whenever they get around to that