Review roundup: Apple's Retina MacBook Pro is pretty but pricey - Page 3

Um, . . . No.

Are you suggesting that as a reasonable inference from my post? 

The fact is, nearly everyone will be visually challenged at some point in their lives. Most people by the time they are 40.

There's plenty of snark out there, so why add to it?

Edited by DESuserIGN - 6/15/12 at 9:35am

I saw a glare comparison on the web somewhere (sorry, not on my computer, so not in my cache.) It was photos of 3 or 4 different models of MB shown under the same lighting conditions. From the pictures (not well photographed) it didn't look that different, although the poster did say the difference was quite noticeable and comparable to the previous matte option. The comparison wasn't very real world because the reflected sources were too close to the screen, which is a poor demonstration of how well it would disperse glare from more typical, distant sources.

Professional reviewers seem to vary a bit in their opinions but are generally positive (but no real demonstrations.) I guess well have to wait and see.

 

Reducto ad absurdum.

Perhaps we should all use these? And those who find it unsuitable "just need better glasses."

 

That's not the kind of thing I'd rely on review for. For most things, I'm perfectly happy accepting reviews when there's a consensus on an issue. But whether glare bothers you or not is purely a function of the individual. If you put 10 people in front of any given glossy screen, the responses will probably range from "that's terrible - I can't stand it" to "looks great- glare isn't a problem". If computer glare bothers you, I would definitely wait until you see it with your own eyes.

Personally, it doesn't bother me - even on fairly glossy screens - particularly for a laptop. If you get glare on the screen, tilt the display another degree or two and it goes away - at least enough for me. If you're sensitive, that may not be enough, but I wouldn't rely on a review to tell me that.

The 15" new MBP is mediocre for a power user. many of my LA colleagues hav 17" MBPs with 16gb ram and SSDs to run Pro tools. When you're on the road or going from place to place with multiple track recording a half baked 15 inch is really not acceptable.  We'll see what happens, but it would not surprise me at all for Apple to come out with a 17" upgrade. Might take a while. How many pompous twits were predicting the death of the Mac Pro which now Apple is refreshing with reports of a BIG overhaul next year as well.

We also do the streaming, but much of the new stuff is only on disk before it hits streaming 6 months to a year later.

"half baked" 15"? Pretty interesting claim - since the 15" MBP is by far the best laptop available today in its price range (or any other price range, for that matter).

No one has yet provided convincing evidence that a 17" at low resolution is superior to a 15" at twice the linear resolution (4 times the pixels). Since you're so adamant on the subject, where is the evidence to back that claim?

Pompous twits? An ironic statement considering what you wrote. You should note what Tim Cook stated in his email reply. He did not in any way say that a new Mac Pro will be coming next year.

It depends on your usage. If you are coder dealing mostly with a text-based environment in various windows then most screen area can surely be of use. One could argue that a higher resolution means you can have more data in a smaller work area but that also means the data is smaller which could mean the user has a harder time seeing the text and/or having to keep the display closer to the eyes thus reducing efficiency in both cases.

And let's not forget that the definition of Retina Display is based on the inability to discern pixels for "perfect" vision which means they are 1) going beyond the minimum for that designation, and 2) most of the population doesn't have perfect vision.

That said, I'm not all in favor of Apple bringing the 17" MBP back if it doesn't help their bottom line. The "I've been an Apple customer for..." and "I was propping Apple up when they were going under" arguments are just silly. They owe us nothing more than they've promised at each sale and we owe them nothing if they fail to deliver what we want.

I also wonder how many people who need a 17" MBP can't get by with a 15" RMBP* and a 27" ATD. I can think of valid scenarios for wanting the largest mobile PC possible but that has to be a significantly smaller market than those that could get by with a 15" notebook plus desktop display. The cost is about the same, too, and I'd wager there is a lot more utility for the average user.



* Is there a better acronym for that?

IMHO, a "pompous twit" is someone who opines that since his needs are met, that's sufficient for everyone else. I find this POV absurd.

BTW, first law of sales, the customer is ALWAYS right, at least in the US. There is an installed base of a couple of million 17" MBP. Some of them may be happy with a smaller screen, some of them won't. Alienating hundreds of thousands of customers is not a good policy, especially as they make a profit on every one. All it takes is someone to offer a better solution combined with corporate arrogance and BOOM, Apple becomes Nokia, kings of the world 8 years ago, now in real danger. As Patton said so eloquently," Retreat, forget it. I don't like to take the same real estate twice."

More pompous twittery I see.

Try to consider the words that you wrote. You are implying that because there is a misused cliché that the customer is always right that Apple, a company, should produce exactly what you, a customer, wants. You've completely ignored that Apple has a right to choose what products it produces and what markets it wishes to sell to.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume hope that you don't think Apple should invest in creating a unique machine for a single customer — despite your juvenile assertion that they're always right — so a rational person must acknowledge that there is a point at which it no longer becomes advantageous for a company to spend money investing in a product that is unpopular.

You claim there is an installed base of millions (yet supply no data to prove this) yet I've read estimates (source: Kuo) that the 17" MBP has only sold 50,000 units during the first calendar quarter. An estimate that is 1/10th that of the 15" MBP sales and 1/30th of the 13" MBP sales.

If Apple doesn't wasn't recognize that you, the consumer, are always right then you really need to reconsider why you want to be their customer. I've personally never had an Apple product that completely fit my specific needs but I've found they fit my needs much better than other vendors so I will remain being their customer until such time that is no longer the case. I'm also holding onto an aging 13" MBP because the new 15" RMBP doesn't fit my needs and yet I'm not on here pompously bellyaching about how Apple hath forsaken me.

Thanks for so shamelessly illustrating the tortured logic of a pompously effete corporate apologist.

"Pricey" ??!!

 

I'm sick and tired of these poor sissies complaining about prices. I bought my first Mac 1988, Mac II with a 13" color display. In today's money it cost $16.747 (yes, I live in Europe). For me it was cheap and a really good investment. So, $2.200 is practically free. Please, explain me this price thing: why products should be cheap? I don't get it. Is the price important for poor people? If so, is USA full of poor people?

Aggrandized definition of value in the consumer mindset.

Yes. I'm personally awed by how many people can somehow magically afford iPhones, despite the cheapest plan being $50. I can't swing that, but they're doing it, despite having half my household income. Must be welfare.

Yes*.

*what does 'poor' mean?

In the country where I live a single person whose monthly income is less than $1.500 is poor (and we have sky high prices and taxes).

Really? Where can I find this 'law'? Because I'd like to take a copy of it into the Ferrari dealership and demand that they sell me a new Ferrari for $1,000.

'The customer is always right' doesn't always apply - and never did.

Who's in the best position to determine which computers sell in high enough quantity to justify the development expense and other investment - you or Apple? I would say that Apple knows more about making and selling computers than you do. So given their opinion vs yours, I know which one I'd believe.

You can't be an American. Do you really worship Apple so slavishly? The list of successful companies destroyed by their own arrogance is long and illustrious. Retreating from a profitable segment worth a couple of billion will definitely make competitors happy. What you believe is worth nothing. Where you spend your money is all that matters in business.

{citation needed}

1) So you, who are clearly against a free market whether you realize it or not, are calling someone who believes in a free market unAmerican. Makes perfect sense¡

2) His comments carry to any company and any consumer. If tried to be even a little objective I think you might actually see what should be painfully clear.

3) Companies make mistake every day. They are run by people after all but you 're applying arrogance to a single company because you are too arrogant to see that you are not Apple's primary focus. I'd say it's ironic if it weren't so damn sad.

4) Again, show us where there are billions in profits to be made. If there are then I'm sure Apple be making a 17" MBP, but you have yet to make a valid argument, much less show any proof, that the 17" MBP could net Apple billions without taking resources for other areas that would net them more.

5) As for your final sentence you should have realized when you wrote it that it his also applies to where businesses spend their money on investments. So you. Really should have asked yourself why aren't they doing what you think is an obvious business move. You should have have then considered that companies have a lot more data about whapich of their products sell and what profits tapes can turn.

I think it's best to see for yourself. Even in a brightly lit retail environment, the glare on the MBPR is pretty low. With the iPad next to it, the difference was very striking. I don't think proximity of a light source significantly effects the quality of reflections though.


Where did you get those figures on a specific model? Assuming you're right, that is 2 million out to 60 million total Mac installed base, making it roughly 3% of Macs. Given that notebooks are Apple's biggest segment (60% of Macs are notebooks last I heard), that's still only 5% of Apple's notebook sales. The figures just don't add up to a very strong argument that Apple is in the wrong. Don't get me wrong, I'm disappointed with the loss of a 17", but with your figure, it sounds like an easy target.


It's a balancing act. Many businesses have also gone down by clinging to outdated business models. Jobs had a statement "obsolete your own product before your competitor does". If it turns out the 17" model is holding Apple back (not saying this is true, but I'm asking it hypothetically), then why keep it? Apple seems to have done pretty well despite this apparent reputation among detractors of making fatal moves every year.

Let's assume Apple sells 1 million 17" MBPs a year, taking your figure divided by an assumed average of a two year turnover. Apple is probably going to sell 50 to 60 million iPads this year, making the sales of 17" models seem relatively modest.

Orly troll much?

So...Your a apple store employee...and a customer comes in claiming that he's here for a $99 MacBook and claims he seen it on the website?

In your theory you would have honor that?

Bizarrely flawed logic. Puerile sophistry. To refute only one of your imbecilic points: who determines what flourishes in the free market: THE CUSTOMER. Competition produces the best results. 

No, customers do, and it has to be enough of them to make it a worthwhile endeavor for businesses to act. You might think you, a lone customer, gets to dictate what products a company makes but this is a free market system so you can take your anti-competitve, socialist attitude somewhere else.

Man your a hoot! Typically I avoid feeding the trolls, but your thesaurus word search to make you appear intelligent and sophisticated was hilarious!

This isn't a rebuttal for anything. If you're just going to reword what you've already said without bothering to respond to or counter any specific statement, then there is little point in this discussion.

You obviously have trouble comprehending English. What did I write??? The customer determines the market. This is as anti socialist as it gets, duh. BTW Forbes Business Magazine just published this: In an email  sent to a Mac user, Apple CEO Tim Cook says a new Mac Pro will be released in 2013. Forbes has the the full text, which notes the "revolutionary" and "incredible" features recently added to Apple's Final Cut Pro X and Aperture software. 

Gee, I guess Apple decided that those pitiful few Mac Pro users should have an upgrade, which pretty much demolishes your strange "Apple is always right in abandoning market segments and I worship them" philosophy.

Hey Flash beezy: Did you graduate kindergarden?  Your is misspelled. (You're is correct)

Ooo zing from the troll...

1) Cook never said there will be a new Mac Pro in 2013. He clearly wrote "working on something really great for later next year." Something, not necessarily a Mac Pro.

2) This goes against your claim that the customer, from your perspective you, dictate markets. Apple will produce a new Mac Pro, or 17" MBP, or something else entirely if they feel they can make a healthy profit on it or it's good for the longevity of their business model. You have no say in it other than being someone who buys their product or doesn't buy their product. You owe them nothing, they owe you nothing, and you certainly don't command their actions simply because your arrogance dictates you are always right because you are 'a' customer.

Again you demonstrate an inability to understand English. When I use the Term "The Customer" I am obviously referring to the aggregate. The most feeble of intellects should understand that. Market SEGMENTS generally include a number much greater than one. The fact that you are so fiercely defending some computer company's corporate policy of hypothetically abandoning a large number of users begs several questions, which at this point I am too mind numbingly bored to pose.

It's been said before..obviously if the 17" was a money maker or large seller they would have kept it on the line. Unfortunatly it didn't fit in the current offering and was axed. Good! Makes more room for industry changing product!

Can't make everyone happy!

My past employment at Google, I rarely saw 17" machines...mostly air's and 15" MBP's and the graphic design dept in my building were using iPad's with Macpro's

I know what you meant to imply but it's not what you were you actually implying with your baseless assestion that Apple was abandoning a large number of users that would net them billions per year in profits. You've still failed to provide any evidence that the 17" MBP was a huge profit center for Apple or supplied any theory as to why Apple, a very successful company that isn't afraid of being profitable, would denounce this immense "aggregate" of users. All you've done is complain and restate a stupid cliché about how you, the consumer, are always right without giving the slightest thought as to why Apple might have stopped selling the 17" MBP as a current model notebook.

I am pretty sure this is a straw man argument. I don't remember anyone one here saying Apple is always right. I didn't see any blind worship of Apple here, even if you want to see it that way. People gave reasonable explanations, even if they're inconvenient to your view, and you've not addressed any of those reasons except in emotionally charged responses. I do feel for you, but sometimes business is business, there is such a thing as opportunity cost, among other things. If Apple is making a mistake, then Apple will pay the price. And sometimes, they do reverse course. I think the best way is to give them feedback, arguing with people on forums isn't the way to show them who's boss.

I wouldn't suggest anyone bet on what will come next year. It's executive speak. It's just one of those stay tuned, we're working on something  responses, as it's obvious that regardless of what projects they really are working on,he can't really offer comments.

You're KIDDING me, David Pogue! Really? You're disappointed by no Ethernet, FireWire, optical drive and "only" 2 USB ports? That was the whole point with this new MBP. No more optical drives. I haven't used them in almost TEN years and when I did, I always hated the experience, so good rid-dens.

Only 2 USB ports? Get a HUB. Get a Thunderbolt dock! Same goes for Ethernet and FireWire, although for the latter two, you can get dedicated adapters. I also like Ethernet, which is why I purchased a Thunderbolt-to-Ethernet adapter, which works just perfectly.

("But then you can't chain in more devices, because the adapter has no 2nd Thunderbolt port") Well, that's why this gorgeous piece of art has a 2nd Thunderbolt adapter! You won't need to waste one for DisplayPort or HDMI either, because much to my amazement, it actually has a DEDICATED (Full-size no less!) HDMI port. That's incredible that David Pogue of The New York Times would cry about the lack of compatibility or options with a notebook that has perhaps the single highest range of compatibility of ANY notebook and, I dare say, MOST desktops.

("But Crunch, you can hardly argue with the expandability of a desktop!?") There are now multiple external PCIe enclosures available for Thunderbolt, which, again, you have TWO ports of with this new MBP. This is a BIG deal to have two vs. one, even considering that you can daisy-chain 7 devices. I wonder if that means we can hook up 7 devices PER Thunderbolt port for a total of 14?