Apple still expected to retire 17-inch MacBook Pro in 2012 - Page 3

Years ago I wanted the largest laptop screen possible because it would be used mostly on my desk. Eventually I owned an external monitor for my laptop and that changed my mind. My laptop is always connected to a mouse and external keyboard when at my desk. It is just easier to use it that way. Now I would prefer a super powerful tiny computer with a video out and plenty of ports. The big screen can stay on the desk. Whenever I need to go out to show someone something in person, the small computer screen is fine.

The thing that annoys me about Apple is they don't build powerful small computers. They just get by with average level processors these days on their main lines. Other brands have been using the latest tech first. The Mini is almost always a year behind. Only this year has Apple been leading with the mid level tech. At least that is an improvement. It would be more interesting if Apple would lead with really high tech items and price them well. Apple doesn't do that. They are just an alternative to Dell and HP in the computer arena. Their big draw is the OS not the hardware.

Ubuntu and the other Linux variants are extremely close to having all the same bells and whistles as OS X. In some instances they're leading with features. I've been enjoying the latest Linux offerings for just two years and I really have almost everything I can get in OS X. To me Apple has lost its appeal because of their sluggish rate of refreshing their products. They're still in the running but nowadays I'm actually looking at other brands. Now that I know how to install an alternative OS on Windows machines I can view them as hardware devices instead of crappy Windows devices. That gives me a freedom I didn't have before learning about Linux.

Alternative manufacturers such as System 76 are offering some high tech solutions equal to or better than some Apple products. As these alternative manufacturers get more capital they'll be able to offer better products than Apple. If we want to be nostalgic about how Apple started in a garage offering superior hardware, and we want to experience that again, then we could look to other small manufacturers offering expensive (but better) hardware today. Such companies exist. Are you willing to make that investment in a low volume manufacture to get something superior now? If so then jump ship and leave Apple. Embrace a new manufacturer and give them a chance. If their products work great then promote them and be able to say ten years from now that you were there near the beginning. Many people visiting this forum brag that they have been with Apple from the beginning. Maybe it's time for them to find another new company to support if Apple isn't giving them what they want anymore.

With Linux and small US manufacturers out there, we do have alternatives if we're willing to try something new and ...Think Different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario 

Yet another person that does not understand relationship between resolution and screen size. Resolution is entirely independent of screen size. iPad 3 has screen 10'' screen with 2048x1536 pixels. But you don't see more on screen than you do on a typical 13'' laptop with 1280x800 pixels. That's because more pixels (almost 3 times as many) are used to render UI elements. If you just upped the pixels and continued to render stuff with as little pixels as on a smaller resolution, everything on screen would be incredibly tiny.

 

On a 72 DPI screen 10 point font might be rendered with only 20 pixels, but on 300 DPI screen the same 10 point font might be rendered with 100 pixels. This means you see less of stuff on screen, but the stuff you do see is rendered with many more pixels, which means finer detail is better and aliasing is gone.

 

In short, if you take a typical web page on iPad and 13'' Macbook Pro, text has same physical size, but the text on iPad is rendered with more pixels looking sharper. You don't see more of text on iPad 3, in fact you see less of it.

Exactly why large screen Androids have been selling so well.  Size does matter.  And improving resolution only gets you so far.  But people will always parrot Apple's arguments...until Apple makes the change themselves.  Then it was utterly obvious.  If Apple introduces a 4inch screen on the iPhone, not a single poster here will ever talk about how size doesn't matter when you have high resolution, ever again.  But they'll keep using the same argument if Apple cans the 17" MBP and you stick up for it. 

I wouldn't blame Apple though, for the antics of fanboys.

This is a stupid article. Axe the MacBookPro altogether?  Yeah, right.  If Apple discontinued the MacBook, and they are coming out with a new Mac Book?  And now they are going to axe the MacBookPro for MacBooks?

It sounds like someone just got their 420 card and seems to be celebrating a little too much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

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?

<sigh>

Sitting in front of a computer? Great ...

Is it running OSX? Perfect ...

Go to your "System Preferences" on a OSX device. 

Look at the "Displays" settings.

How many resolutions are list for you - personally, I see 9 for the monitor in front of me, and 6-8 (if you count stretched) on the laptop LCD.

OK, now go to the "Settings" app on an iPad (I don't have an iPhone with me at the moment ... but pretend and play along anyway).

Go to the "Display" settings.

What? Can't find it?? The iPhone and iPad operate at a FIXED resolution.

If a program is written to take advantage of the retina display - it uses those elements.

If a program is written for a regular display, it uses those element.

If you are using a program written for a non retina display it does algorithmic magicipokery to scale the display and fill in the pixel gaps such that the display is smoothed out.

I wouldn't mind a 19 or 21 inch Macbook Pro.

13 inch sells more not because a smaller screen is preferred, but because its the lowest price point. If Apple would lower prices bigger sizes would sell more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eksodos 

 

 

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.

So he should surrender to a smaller screen because a multi-billion dollar company deserves his ongoing support for this "bravery"? Hopefully it is sarcasm...

As a happy owner of a 17" aluminum Powerbook G4 (the last of its kind and optioned as far as options could be taken), I have been waiting for a long time to get a new 17" MBP.

I was a bit jaded by Apple obsoleting my notebook one month after I bought it. 

But I carried on, happy for the universal binaries.  Then they died out.

Now, I can't run any of Apples last two OS releases or many programs. 

Sure, it's a long time to stay with one laptop, but it has performed admirable at what was asked of it even to this day.

but I have been waiting to replace it.  With a an UPGRADE in every area.  Not missing an optical drive and not with a smaller screen.

Just because something isn't a best seller doesn't mean to kill it off.

The only reason I can see Apple doing this is due to the expense of the larger screen with retina resolution and possible touch capability.

Even so, the professionals among us would prefer to have the option of paying more to get more, rather than using dumbed down, glorified iPads.

Sheesh.

Say it aint so, Apple!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9secondko 

As a happy owner of a 17" aluminum Powerbook G4 (the last of its kind and optioned as far as options could be taken), I have been waiting for a long time to get a new 17" MBP.

 

I was a bit jaded by Apple obsoleting my notebook one month after I bought it. 

 

But I carried on, happy for the universal binaries.  Then they died out.

 

Now, I can't run any of Apples last two OS releases or many programs. 

 

Sure, it's a long time to stay with one laptop, but it has performed admirable at what was asked of it even to this day.

 

but I have been waiting to replace it.  With a an UPGRADE in every area.  Not missing an optical drive and not with a smaller screen.

 

Just because something isn't a best seller doesn't mean to kill it off.

 

The only reason I can see Apple doing this is due to the expense of the larger screen with retina resolution and possible touch capability.

 

Even so, the professionals among us would prefer to have the option of paying more to get more, rather than using dumbed down, glorified iPads.

 

Sheesh.

 

Say it aint so, Apple!

How is the current Sandy Bridge not a nearly entire upgrade?  I would think they only holdover is the optical drive.  

Geez. We all criticize analysts for their idiotic statements. But reading through the comments on this, I'm thinking the pot shouldn't call the kettle black. It's just a rumor. A month ago the rumor was that the Mac Pro line was being axed. Let's not get too excited. I will be surprised if it goes. Niche product, but still a market for it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


That's why every other car on the street is a Ferrari or a Lexus or a Mercedes, right? And every seat in the plane is first class. And the grocery store sells only the best cuts of beef.
I nominate your statement as 'ridiculous comment of the week'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 

The 13" MBP has been Apples strongest selling laptop for a very long time. Even with the advent of the AIRs it is still the strongest selling Laptop in their lineup. So I don't see these figures as unrealistic.
Price has very little to do with what people buy.

I think what wizard69 meant was, the people who don't buy the 17" MBP isn't because its expensive. Its because of other factors. Its too large, its too heavy, too much of a pain in the ass to carry around with them, etc. If you're in the market for a 17" MBP and/or have purchased one in the past you're not necessarily worried about how much they cost. Price isn't the major contributing factor as to why the 17" MBP doesn't sell well anymore. Bigger isn't always better and its proving to be the case for most....you can see this buy looking at the break down in Apple laptop sales. The 13" is their biggest seller and has been for quite a while. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoodlesNoodlemann 

Geez. We all criticize analysts for their idiotic statements. But reading through the comments on this, I'm thinking the pot shouldn't call the kettle black. It's just a rumor. A month ago the rumor was that the Mac Pro line was being axed. Let's not get too excited. I will be surprised if it goes. Niche product, but still a market for it. 

Agreed.

I use my 17" Pro every day for graphics and photography. I have no issue with "lugging" it around because I want the extra screen real estate. I don't really need to buy a monitor since it's a nice balance of the size I like and portability. It works for me as a professional.

Anyway, I'd hate to see the 17" go, but all of this is rumors and we'll see what the real deal is next week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazoobee 

 

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)

I've often found that the 17" is harder to see, especially the high res model. People will always have their opinions and why the 17" is necessary. 1.7% think its necessary, not exactly a large percentage of the buyers. Yes, I agree...there are better ways to manage windows. You don't need windows on top of windows, on top of windows. Apple has created features such as Spaces (aka Mission Control in Lion), exposé, trackpad gestures for easy navigation to these windows and features. People just need to learn to use them. I use a 15" MBP 5 days a week with multiple windows and applications open without any issues. I have Workgroup manager windows, ARD, Windows Remote Desktop, Safari, OS X Mail, iChat, etc windows open all day long. Its really not that hard to manage them. The 15" screen still allows you to put 2 documents side by side without cutting off any part of the document. I have used Photoshop with this 15" screen without any issues. 

Apple wouldn't just kill a product just to do it. So one may think...so what..1.7% is quite a few users, but it gets to the point of where is it profitable for Apple to keep this product going. They still have to engineer both hardware and software updates specially for the 17" MBP and if they see its only for 1.7% of the Mac laptop user base (which is 1% or less of actual Mac sales) then they're going to decide to drop the product so they can focus their efforts on the products that sell. Also, like I said before, the 17" MBP no longer fits into their current/future product strategy. Every company does this and yes, it leaves people to figure out other options. For example, people love the Dodge Challenger and Ford Mustang, but Chrysler is eventually going to replace it with something else, or simply drop it altogether for various reasons. The same could be true for the Ford Mustang. So the customers who have them that want to upgrade, or plan on buying one down the road will no longer have that option. Its just how it is...

I do video editing and like to be mobile when I do it.  The 17" Macbook pro was perfect for doing so.  With time lines and a video preview it can get tight, but still doable.  If they could keep the 17" line and add the retina display, that would be absolutely perfect.  If they give us a 15" with a retina display and drop the 17" screen, this won't do much good for me because I don't want to sit 2 inches away from the laptop to see what I'm doing.  I'm hoping that rumor doesn't materialize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcdinkins 

I do video editing and like to be mobile when I do it.  The 17" Macbook pro was perfect for doing so.  With time lines and a video preview it can get tight, but still doable.  If they could keep the 17" line and add the retina display, that would be absolutely perfect.  If they give us a 15" with a retina display and drop the 17" screen, this won't do much good for me because I don't want to sit 2 inches away from the laptop to see what I'm doing.  I'm hoping that rumor doesn't materialize.

Yeah -- I liked using the 17" MacBook Pro for professional purposes such as software development on the go. I can fit more lines of code on-screen while still being readable.

I like some people's attitude that larger laptops are "old school" or a "fad". Well, no, there are practical reasons for a larger laptop. It makes an excellent portable workstation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazoobee  

 

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

 

Regards,

Señor Old-school

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

How in the world would you conclude that Apple doesn't build powerful small computers?

Dell, HP, Asus, Lenovo, and Samsung have until the last year put out the latest chips months and even a year before Apple would adopt them.

When I was shopping for a computer in late 2007 I considered the Mini. It would have been my first Apple product. On the forums the posters were regularly stating that any day now the Mini would be updated. It wasn't. It took a year and a half for it to be refreshed. During that time and in subsequent years the timelines of Apple computer updates were posted. So many models were refreshed much later than their previous history had indicated that many believed Apple had given up on the computer business in order to focus on the iPhone and iPod lines.

The chips put into the Apple computers were usually not the latest and greatest. They were close, usually the last generation. Apple did innovate with the Mac Book Air. The price was $1899 or more at the introduction. Then they kept the same chips in it for almost two years. That is what Apple has done for the last few years. They put in a decent chip and keep it for way too long before updating it. The competition updates faster. This year Apple is using the latest chips and we suspect they'll use the Ivy Bridge boards. How long will those stay in their computers? Their history indicates that they'll have them long into the next Intel update while other manufacturers will have the newest components in their high end offerings.

Apple introduced Lightpeak a.k.a. Thunderbolt. That was a good innovation but how much of the designing did Apple do? I don't know. Was Intel the designer with Apple as the consulting customer? Maybe Intel just needed a manufacturer to commit to the technology and Apple saw the vision and agreed to implement it first.

Look at the Mac Pro. It's as if Apple does some work on it every year and a half and then puts it in a closet until they come across it again. It's the same with the 17" Mac Book Pro. Apple is now a telephone manufacturer that makes computers. I bet Apple would prefer to dump the 17" laptop and retool that manufacturing floor for making iPhones. There would be fewer shortages and they would make up for the lost computer sales very quickly by selling more iPhones faster than they do now.

I want Apple to build a small Mini tower or a Mac Book Air size computer with the same components that are going into the Mac Book Pros i.e. multi-core i7 processors with hyperthreading with 8+ GB RAM. It should also have plenty of ports including USB 3. That would be a proper powerful small computer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Negafox 

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.

The 17" is unpopular because of the damn weight. I buy a laptop because it is portable. The MBA is selling like hot cakes because it's very portable. The 15" MBP is right at the cusp of being able to be carried open with one hand. I was hoping that Apple would keep the 17" around in an "Air" version, then it would be at a more manageable weight.

Somewhat disappointing news for me. I love my MBP 17". Was thinking to update my 17" this year but after reading this sad news, can't think of buying 15 incher anytime soon for sure. Probably I should now bump up the RAM and call it a day. I personally don't like optical drives so I would rather also just add another SSD and take out the optical drive. Not sure why Apple is discontinuing 17" as it was pretty obvious from day one that that machine is not for majority of users. They should not expect it to outsell smaller toys. Edited: Not to mention, I have MP, 13" 15", Air, iPad and iPhone. 95% of my time I use 17".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sensi 

So he should surrender to a smaller screen because a multi-billion dollar company deserves his ongoing support for this "bravery"? Hopefully it is sarcasm...

Agreed although many of us probably had a similar philosophy more than 7 or 8 years ago. Apple now has the largest market capitalization of any non-financial corporation in the world. If Apple stops making a product I need or want then Apple abandoned me as a customer not the other way around. High end products by their very nature have low sales so what difference does if make if particular product has less than 2% of sales in its category as long as a good profit is being made selling that product. According to the sales philosophy of some the posters here General Motors should stop making Cadillacs and Ford should stop making Lincolns because they don't have as high sales totals as Chevys and Fords.

MacBook: 11" and 13", virtually identical to the current MacBook Airs.

MacBook Pro: 13", 15" and 17". Thinner and lighter than current design, with a less reflective screen. 13" would be heavier, but would be more powerful (hence 'Pro').

That's what I think'll happen.

I think the primary factor behind poor sales of the 17" MBP is Apple's pricing scheme. If you want a large screen you have never had any choice but to buy the most expensive MacBook or switch to Windows. I don't need high end performance, but I do want as much screen real estate as I can comfortably carry.

In my office everyone has lots of screen real estate. Full time staff have a 23" 1920x1080 external display in addition to their Mac. It has allowed many people who used to carry 15" MacBook Pros to move to the 13" MacBook Air. Others have gone the other direction and chosen a 27" iMac. Most of those people either don't work from home or have a complete work environment set up at home.

Our project managers fall in between. They need to be highly portable, but cannot afford to sacrifice screen real estate when they're away from their desks. They all have 17" MacBook Pros. I'm not a PM, but I feel the same way. I normally have >10 applications open at the same time and frequently need to see information from multiple windows at the same time. Even with a 1920x1200 screen I feel cramped when I can't toss windows onto a secondary display.

I could work in a smaller space but I'd be less efficient. Plus, as my eyes age, I find myself using zoom buttons more and more each year. I need to be able to do that without half my document disappearing off the edge of the screen.

My boss wishes Apple would make a 19" or 20" MacBook Pro so he could do more when he's away from his desk, but even those of us with 17" MBPs think he's crazy ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky 

The 17" is unpopular because of the damn weight. I buy a laptop because it is portable. The MBA is selling like hot cakes because it's very portable. The 15" MBP is right at the cusp of being able to be carried open with one hand. I was hoping that Apple would keep the 17" around in an "Air" version, then it would be at a more manageable weight.

The 17" MacBookPro was design to replace the desktop. However, u can carry it around if you have to. I still love my 17" MacBookPro 2.16, which I use to develop website and run Adobe CS 5.5 on it. In the fall I was eagerly contemplating updating it, to a new model for Adobe CS 6. I ascertain I'll just get one of the recent MacBookPro,  to replace my antiquated computer. I don't how  "new school" can work on 10"- 15" screen to work in Photoshop, to 3D Animation type Apps out there. Never carry your portable computer with one hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by champ01 

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. ;)

Aren't margins on 17" MBPs higher than the equivalent 15" MBP? Why would Apple kill it?

I think you guys are all overreacting to what some "analyst" says. They aren't the final word, and neither is AppleInsider when it's republishing rumors. Please wait until Apple kills it before pressing the panic button. Then run around screaming woe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


I think you're right. I don't see it being likely for Apple to not sell a 17" laptop.
Is it possible that they'll transition to a lighter, thinner model without ODD? Sure. And it's even possible that they'll only transition the 13" and 15" now and the 17" later. I just don't see them dropping 17" entirely, though.

They could be waiting until 17" retina displays are available.

Same reason they won't kill the MacPro: an update was eventually coming.