Apple still expected to retire 17-inch MacBook Pro in 2012 - Page 2

Applications don't handle resolution independence. Operating system does.

 

I don't know what Apple's sales numbers are but the purchasing department in the institution where I work (for a staff of about 800-900) buys and distributes 2 or 3 laptops a week on average, and over the last ten years or so I would say I've only seen a small handful of 15" MacBooks go by and only one or perhaps 2 17" ones.  Out of thousands and thousands of Mac laptops over a ten year period all the way back to the days where the logo was upside down. 

 

Obviously there are probably different industries that might favour this model like movie people perhaps but it is true that very few people want to carry around a 17" laptop of any description.  If anyone here is one of those people and they are honest with themselves they must know that they are a small and unique group.  And it's not like the 17" has suddenly dropped in popularity or anything.  It's pretty much always been that way.  

 

Also, in the last year, MacBook Air is the most popular model by far.  People who always got the Pros have been replacing them with Airs in record numbers.  Definitely a trend to let go of the giant heavy laptops.  

Why are you posting here, Waterloo?  Isn't there enough pain and suffering in your neck of the woods (RIM) to keep you amused up there?  263 posts?  WHY?  Do you just "love" being insulted in sites like these?  Isn't there enough S&M in your province to keep you humiliated in the Great White North?  Trolling a site that is antithetical to your beliefs and value system seems silly to me, but then again, each to his own.

 

Because I'm a software developer and someone who invested over $100,000 in Apple hardware over the years. I loved Apple when they catered to people like me, I promoted them and recommended them to everyone. But it looks like Apple has profoundly changed in the last couple of years with the mobile success and shift to that market almost completely. They really don't want anything to do with anyone who makes stuff and cater to people who consume only and pay through the nose for the experience.

 

Waterloo is just fine by the way. We have plenty of things going here without RIM which was dead or dying the last 5 years. We all wish they would go away already so we can snatch a few talented people they stifle.

 

 

You just have to trust Apple to make the best decisions for consumers. I am a 17" MacBook Pro owner and I love the product. But if Apple discontinues the 17" model this year, then I'll support their decision and reward their bravery by purchasing the 15" model. You can't walk away from this Apple family just because you don't get everything you want all the time. Apple is wonderful company, they deserve our ongoing support by buying the amazing products they continue to unleash upon us.

They both do. See my example above.

Furthermore, even if you were correct that apps had nothing to do with it, your original statement was wrong.


That depends. If Apple doesn't meet your needs then "well, they did their best in choosing what's best for the average consumer" is not an argument. If your needs aren't being met, then the rational move is to change to a different product.

If, OTOH, the larger size isn't truly a 'need', but is rather a preference, then you balance it. Is it better to give up your preference for screen size or to give up your preference for OS? The answer won't always be clear - particularly since Microsoft has finally managed to release a Windows that isn't horrible.

Suggesting that you should buy Apple products no matter what is foolish and short-sighted.

As a current 17" MBP user I would go for a 16" (no less) and the many people that have that i talk to that have a 13" would like more power but dont really want a 15". and the current 15" user can go lighter or more power.

This would be a wise move for apple as a Pro user is looking for power and a Student/ entry customer might care more about the legacy options (ODD and basic CPU) at a lower price point

I think they will keep the current unibody design as a a entry model with a sub $1000 price. even the current 15" Would be nice to have around for about $1299. Dumbed down of course.

Just look at how apple is keeping legacy product at lower price points. (ipad 2 at $399 and 3gs $0 and iphone 4 $99) and also notice how they dumbed down the iphone4 from 16Gb to 8gb to help reduce price.

I think this is the trend for apple to make it affordable help drive new consumers in.

Line up should be like this

MBA (Ultra-book) 11" 13" --at current price $999-$1299--

Macbook (Student/Entry) 13" ... a 15" later on"? --New price $999-$1299--

MBP (Professional Notebook) 14" 16" --$1799-$2499-- All Quad, All Retina, (would like) All Dedicated GPU's =)

I think we are both in agreement here and saying the same thing. In short the original post that claimed having 15'' screen with higher resolution will allow you to see more on screen than 17'' screen is wrong if proper resolution independent rendering is in place in the OS.

 

Even in Windows today you can change your screen DPI in the display properties to make things less tiny on high res screen. Of course this doesn't work for every app, because of absolute layouts and because images don't just automatically scale to higher res and look equally good.

We are a Mac family...have been for like forever. I've lost count of the number of desktop Macs we've owned.

 

Currently, I use a 24 inch iMac with a 17 inch external display.

 

But more to the point, my wife is on her third laptop...and guess what? It's a 17 inch MacBook Pro which she dearly loves. Her eyesight is not too good, so the extra real estate is a godsend for her. I marvel at her skills at managing multiple windows of Quicken/Excel when doing our financial work.  She's also a bank trust officer/stock analyst...bringing her work home constantly, nights and weekends.

 

For the time being, she's OK with her 17 inch MBP. But if she had to replace it with something smaller...she would not be a happy camper!

I think they should switch to millimeters or else they will be sued for false advertising since the inch dimensions are just a rough approximations.

LCD screens have a physical optimal resolution even if the OS can change the display properties. Making the system resolution larger or smaller than the designed resolution will only serve make the image, especially text, less sharp.

If the 17" makes a profit, no need to kill it. And at the prices they sell for, it makes a nice profit.

(typing this on a 17"er!)

 

Exactly, that's why it's a huge compromise between looking at tiny text or looking at big fuzzy text :D.

People say this crap all the time...and guess what...they end up buying Apple products anyways. People always find a reason or a way to make them work, mostly because of Mac OS X and its applications. 

 

I firmly believe the 17" will be dropped. Does it suck for some people, yes. I do believe the numbers of the 17"...I don't believe its a huge seller compared to the 13 and 15" models. For a lot of people its too big and cumbersome. Where I work, we've disposed of our 17" laptops for 15" models for this reason. Nobody wanted to lug around a heavy 17" laptop. I'm sure where were people who bought it. There are always people who buy certain products no matter what because it fits their needs, but if it doesn't fit the needs of the majority then unfortunately you're getting left out. Its the way it works. They can't keep products going for a niche market. I don't think the market for this size is as large as it seems...they're just being louder about this issue so it seems like its a large market. I doubt Apple would drop a product that was successful. 

 

Apple is a different company than it used to be. It caters itself to a different set of people. It can't be everything to everyone. If the market changes, they need to adapt and sometimes people get left out, even people that used to buy their products. They have to keep moving forward.

 

Do you not understand that not everyone has 20-year old eyes? The pixels keep getting smaller yet everyone (but new users)'s eyes keep getting older. Mine have gotten to the point where I can't tell between a retina and and a non-retina iPhone anymore. So all the talk of retina displays falls completely flat on me.

 

Now, that's not to say I'm a 17" MBP user; I have an 11" Air and plan to buy whatever 13" offering they announce Monday. But if it's retina, I'll just bump up all the system and browser font sizes so they're more than 1/16" high.

 

Yep, you don't get this.

17" is critical. It is an absurd argument that resolution makes up for lack of screen real estate. In workplaces now, professionals have multiple monitors for a reason.

Laptop users, like me, who need the real estate can't carry an extra monitor.

I would expect a major limiting factor in a 17" laptop is weight and the expense of a 17" retina display. Bring the weight down, especially, and 17" laptops would sell much better. No DVD, and more efficient components, and smaller and lighter battery will go a long way in making the 17" a more attractive machine.

If I were Apple, I would try adjusting the price of the 17" MacBook Pro first to see if that improves sales rather than throwing in the towel. The question is do people purchase the smaller models because of size or price? I am thinking the 17" is unpopular because of cost, not size. It starts at $2,499 which is a tad pricey for the average Joe.

Silly. If your argument were true, then 6 pt font printed at 2400 dpi would be as easily read as a 12 pt font at 300 dpi. Beg to differ.

 

Just to play devil's advocate ... having a big screen doesn't in and of itself make you a professional though.  Whether or not you are a professional in one particular field or another is a completely separate thing from whether or not you need or use a giant laptop of course.  One is either professional or not, and one uses whatever one needs to use to get the job done in whatever field one is in.  

 

Everyone where I work is a professional for example and most carry laptops.  However the person in my field that has a 17" one is more likely to be the *least* professional of the bunch because they just aren't necessary.  In my professional field the dilettantes and poseurs are the ones with the 17" screen because if you don't need the size, then to buy one is to be a sort of show-off.  

 

My only point being that "professional" doesn't always equal "giant computer" (and vice versa).  

 

While it may be expensive, I don't think this is the reason why its not selling. More like, its just not a big seller. The majority don't use big laptops. Everything is getting smaller and the 17" doesn't fit in Apple's lineup direction anymore. Are people going to get left without a 17" Mac, yes but thats how it goes sometimes. You can't cater to specific people. 

 

<sarcasm>

I wish we were all endowed with your wisdom and foresight. You obviously know what is going to happen by your firm grasp of what a retina display means and how it is used - in practice, and not theory.

<sarcasm/>

 

 

[Long reply deleted - because, quite frankly, its not worth the effort.]  

 

Great, more for the rest of us. 

And if you are so outraged why are you giving them to the end of the year. Take that money and go buy a Dell or whatever is better in your view. 

 

But things aren't drawn at the same resolution. Retina displays come with new graphics that are scaled up so you have the same size items but crisper graphics. And the system coding doubles up non Retina graphics to that size. Think like how iPhone apps are handled on the iPad

 

It also has to be obvious to even a casual observer also that almost everyone defending the 17" as "irreplaceable" here is, well ... obviously older than the average user.  

 

Most of the thread has devolved into arguments about failing eyesight and resolution effects.  Most of the people who "need the real estate" are still managing windows like it's 1999 and are seemingly unaware of the uses of multiple desktops, full screen switching or expose/mission control.  

 

What we are seeing is a battle of "old-school" computer users vs. younger, or more forward thinking users.

 

For that reason, I don't think there is any resolution in sight

(bad pun, I know)

 

1. It's not a decision at this point it's a rumor, by a guy that is probably the one that was saying that the 17 inch was being killed off for the last two years

 

2. Unless you are Tim Cook or his executive assistant you don't know what he does and doesn't read. Hell unless you were Steve Job's assistant you don't know that he read ALL his emails either. It's very possible he didn't, just the ones his people brought him that were deemed important enough for him to look at personally

"Ladies and gentlemen, AppleInsider believes in all sincerity that the Mac mini is dead."

 

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/05/24/closing_the_book_on_apples_mac_mini.html

 

AI's track record is so-so at best.

 

Kuo's is better but...

 

And folks have repeatedly pointed out that your experience does not even vaguely cover wide range of actual pros.  If you think that 17" MBP users are dilettantes and posers my only conclusion is that you have no clue and are hopelessly narrow minded.

 

That's probably the dumbest thing you've written to date. 

 

Well, let's see. They did what I just said on the iPhone. They did what I just said on the iPad.

 

They're obviously NOT going to do it on their computers. Because… why?

"The 17-inch MacBook Pro would be a logical choice for Apple to retire, as the premium professional notebook only accounted for 1.7 percent of the company's notebook sales in the first quarter of 2012."

 

So what if it was only 1.7 percent, did anyone do a calculation of what 1.7" sales is equal to its 787,610,000.00 which is a lot more than a lot of companies total revenue for a given year.

 

I think Apple is fine in keeping this model in the line-up.

 

The personal attack is so uncalled for.  

 

My argument was only that while in some industries and markets pro = 17" that for many others (if not most) it does not.  You're the one reading stuff into my posts that isn't there.  You're the one getting offended and lashing out with insults for no reason.  Perhaps my description of "dilettantes" was too close for comfort. 

 

If you're intention was to prove that 17" "pro" users are cranky, insulting and childish you're doing a great job. ;) 

 

Have a nice day. 

What's wrong with having a desktop replacement that portable?  NOTHING.  Some people want that big real estate, are wiling to pay for it, and their computer to be a Mac. Think about video editors that are on location. What about professional photographers, people that want a mobile recording studio that need that real estate, etc.?  Some people just like the additional real estate.  It may not be flying off the shelves, but there still is a market.  Since most of the people that buy that system within the first 6 months of release, how many have they sold of these and what is the bottom line to the company that they might potentially lose to the WIndows market?  Unless they aren't making any money and they are losing money on these, I don't see any reason for them to give up that business to Windows, if it is still profitable.  How many of these do they sell within a 3 year period?  I wouldn't drop a product purely on one quarter's worth of sales.  That might be stupid.  Let's say the 17inch was 1.7% of yearly sales in terms of the number of laptops sold.  Isn't the number of laptops year to year increasing?  Those are the numbers I am seeing in terms of future growth for Apple.  Everyone is saying how Apple total Mac sales (laptops being higher growth rate than desktops) is growing year to year, so however many Apple is selling might sell more from year to year, instead of less.  It might be growing at a slower rate than the other products, but still selling enough to warrant offering the product.  Of course they are going to discontinue the current 17inch model this year, they discontinued the previous year's model and introduced a replacement.  I think Apple may find themselves in a position because processors might not be getting replaced as often as they used to that they might wait a little longer between product cycles.  What's funny is that everyone early in the PC market would wait a year or longer for a new processor to come out.  The PC/XT products weren't updated for ever a year before the AT replaced the PC/XT.   Then processors started to pump out where the computer market would upgrade TWICE a year.  That is now trending down to ONCE a year.  It's wouldn't surprise me if PCs (ALL BRANDS) don't get updated until maybe every 1.5 years to maybe 2 years since I think the Moore's law is kind of slowing down. They obviously are reaching the maximum in terms of speed and number of cores they can still on a piece of silicon for laptops while keeping them warm.  So, what else does one need in terms of a new laptop?  Just because Apple releases a new version every year, doesn't mean people are going to buy one EVERY year.  How many 17 inch owners out there that plan on buying a new one?  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc Million?  Other than Thunderbolt, the last three years of laptops are pretty darned fast, so the only reason to buy a new one is because of some compelling reason.  Unless I saw more compelling reason, i don't necessarily see a reason to discontinue making 17 inch laptops.  There have been rumors (probably the same people) saying the MacPro is being discontinued.  Yeah, RIGHT.

$2000 is a lot of money only when you are broke. I paid more than that for my 15" MacBook Pro, I could have gotten a 17" but was worried about weight. I was hoping the newer could be thinner and lighter but I guess there won't be one.

This makes sense to me if they are doing a retina display line of new macbook's.  The cost of a 17" retina display screen would be too much.

 

I am hoping for a slim 15" SSD Macbook with high resolution and no CD drive, whatever name they call it.

 

Price matters. Apple needs to reduce the gap between windows ultrabook machines and macs.  The need to achieve the same gap then have in the tablet market.  the price difference between a android 10" tablet and an ipad is slim and this is why Apple is dominating the market.

Dropping three letters (pro) doesn't actually equate to dropping an entire line. They still make iPads do they not?

Ofcourse the sales on the 17" are the lowest.  ITS A VERY EXPENSIVE LAPTOP!!!!

 

The ones that buy it NEED the size. That it sells less then other doesn't say Apple should kill it.

Pro market demands it period. If you're not in that area you shouldn't even talk about it.

 

Should Apple kill the Mac Pro also because the sales are so low? Hell no.

Apple would kill itself out of the Pro market by doing so. ;)

Some things will be smaller and others not. Applications such as Adobe CS inDesign & Illustrator will need to display things according to their actual size, not pixels. Browsers do a combination of things such as scaling the type. Not saying there won't be problems. One example is CSS font-size:9px; will be a disaster unless the applications do a workaround based on detecting the density of pixels which most currently do not.

 

The current trend in web design is to specify font size in pixels rather than point size. This was partially due to inconsistencies between Mac and Windows. IE would display point sizes about 25% larger than Mac which would throw off the layout depending on which system was being used. Detecting the the browser and compensating for various factors has been the headache we have been dealing with since the invention of HTML.

 

Now with high-res screens about to be thrown into the mix and no convenient browser technology to detect it, it seems to me that we should go back to point size for base type and use em as the scaling factor. If a browser is displaying font size incorrectly, that is what needs to be fixed instead of forcing all web design to require a workaround.

 

I'm sure Apple has taken a lot of the issues into consideration just as they did when they introduced Mobile Safari, understanding full well that 9 pixel type will not be legible on a 300 dpi screen.

Cost of a 17 inch retina display would be too much?  REALLY? DId you know that the increase cost of a display might be offset by the lower costs of hard drives, or memory, or some other components that are in these systems?   These rumor mongers sometimes make assumptions purely based on fallacies.  I won't believe any of these rumors until Apple releases a press release indicating one way or another.  Apple mentioned a LONG time ago that ALL products were going to be refreshed this year.  Did Apple ever say that the 17 inch laptop will be a model that is disappearing forever? NO.  Not yet.  I remember Apple updated the 13 and 15 laptop models at a big whoopty do and people got up in arms about the 17 inch, and then a few months later BLAM.  A new 17 inch model because Apple was waiting for a new display and/or processor to ship.  Of course Apple is going to pump out the 13 and 15 inch models first, because they sell more, but sometimes there is a logistics reason to hold back the 17 inch.