or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple expected to launch 13" Retina MacBook Pro by early Oct.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple expected to launch 13" Retina MacBook Pro by early Oct. - Page 2

post #41 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

Worthless for gaming, fine for everything else. Moral of the story? Don't game on a laptop, you'll always be disappointed if not now, then in a year or two.

I wouldn't want them for anything OpenGL intensive either for a variety of reasons. Integrated graphics have become increasingly common. They're even used as base options in consumer desktops. This will only increase given the lack of software scaling beyond 2-4 cores on applications that don't do a lot of heavy lifting. Intel is likely to keep on pushing improvements on integrated graphics over more cores in this segment to the point of eating the low end of the graphics card market. I'm not that big on gaming, but some things run fine on the 15" models (I've seen friends' kids game on them plenty of times, as unlikely as kids owning these might sound). Obviously if you're using a tower with swappable cards, you can expect a much longer service life. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by internetworld7 View Post


Clearly you need to be educated.

He makes a lot of troll posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

I don't.  I'm just saying that if doesn't have a discrete GPU I still wont consider the 13" MBPR.  Which won't upset Apple much since it means an upsell to the 15" MBP as intended.  Well, maybe.  If I can't get a discrete GPU anyway I might as well get a MBA.


Everyone has different priorities. I think much of the desire

post #42 of 115

That resolution will stress the HD 4000 GPU. 

 

From apple website:

 

  • Intel HD Graphics 4000
  • Dual display and video mirroring: Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display and up to 2560 by 1600 pixels on an external display, both at millions of colours

 

It will work but performance is going to be horrible if you do anything other than desktop use.  Video editing is going to be too much.

post #43 of 115
No discrete graphics no buy

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #44 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post

Looking at the current pricing scheme, I can guess that the 13" MBPR will start at $1,599

 

 

My guess is that Apple may use the introduction of the 13" MBPR to drop the price of the 15" by a hundred dollars while bringing in the 13" a hundred or so lower then the market expects.

 

Keep in mind that Apple is more likely to be a disrupter these days and if they can roil the water enough they can keep their competition off balance like they have been doing with the tablet market. Although, Apple has been doing this mostly by raising the spec bar more so then lowering the price bar. 

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #45 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Is there an integrated GPU that is powerful enough to drive a 2560X1600 screen?

Intel HD 4000 is sufficient to drive the retina display. The specs for the 15" RMBP say that it has:
Quote:
Intel HD Graphics 4000
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB of GDDR5 memory and automatic graphics switching

http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/

Graphics switching means the HD 4000 must be able to drive the 2880x1800 retina display for simple applications, without help from the GPU.

The question is whether the HD 4000 can drive three displays (internal and two external), all at 2560x1600. It can do 1280x800 plus two 2560x1600, in the classic 13" MBP.

I suspect it can, so a 13" retina MBP will not require a GPU. It would be very nice if Apple could squeeze one in, but I can't see how it would fit in a body design similar to the 15" RMBP (either in board space or more heat to deal with and larger battery). If the 13" model was a little thicke than the 15", it might be possible.
post #46 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

FIrst off, if Appleinsider hasn't checked with Apple for a validation on this, I would NOT have released this article.  It has too many specifics without being validated BY APPLE.  What's Kuo's track record? 

Kuo's track record is exceptionally good. 

 

Keep in mind that (1) this is a rumor site, and (2) Apple almost never comments on an unreleased product. 

 

I suspect that Apple may use integrated graphics here for several reasons. (1) Intel integrated graphics has greatly improved from their earlier terrible speed. (2) The new thin laptops by the competition will most likely use Intel's integrated graphics. This spec will keep Apple from being two high a jump to pull over some buyers. (3) While the 15" MBP-R has a lot of pixels to juggle, it is less so on the 13" version, so it may be easier to get the job done.

 

Apple's competitors may be living in interesting times.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #47 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The lack of a discrete GPU really keeps me from considering the current 13" MBP.  It'll keep me from considering a 13" MBP Retina as well.

Ah well.
With the ODD removed there should be room for one. With the inclusion of a 2560x1600 display will the latest Intel iGPUs even be able to feasibly push 4.1 million pixels?

edit: Pipped by tundraboy and answered by dempson.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Integrated graphics = worthless.
That's a relative statement. For my needs the GPU in all the 13" MBPs were more than sufficient but going to a larger and heavier notebook with worse battery life added cost and lessened its worth.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #48 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post

 

I wouldn't hold my breath on that.  Apple is KNOWN to hyper-inflate things.

In that case, my figures are based on the already "hyper-inflated" (your term) price of the 15" MBPR. So what's your argument again?

We'll hopefully get the ultimate answer from Apple in a few months, though.

post #49 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Wonder how much the 13" would weigh in at....?

 

15" Retina weighs 4.46 lbs. ( 0.71 x 14.13 X 9.73 ) which has a slighly smaller 2D footprint compared with the 15" MBP (14.35 x 9.82 ). The current MBP has a footprint of 0.95 x 12.78 x 8.94. Guessing the 13" MBP will be 0.71 x 12.6 x 8.8

 

Adding a little math:

 

Density = 4.46 / ( 0.71 x 14.13 x 9.73 ) = 0.04569 lbs/ inches^3

 

Weight of 13" Retina = 0.04569 lbs/ inches^3 x 0.71 x 12.6 x 8.8 = 3.6 lbs

 

0.6 lbs heavier than the MBA 13".

post #50 of 115

Guys, stop defending integrated graphics. Just. Stop.

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply
post #51 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post

Guys, stop defending integrated graphics. Just. Stop.

If you have a case to make as to why no iGPU has ever or will ever have valid usability in adequate performance, power usage, or cost for any application then please make it.

As previously stated I have been very happy with my 13" MBP but would not have been happy with the larger, heavily and costlier MBPs for the reasons previously stated. So why are my usage needs not valid?

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure most Macs sold are accounted for under the MBAs and 13" MBP so for that mean these are bad or worthless devices because you feel their is no defending the GPUs they use?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #52 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Is there an integrated GPU that is powerful enough to drive a 2560X1600 screen?

Do you realize that the 15 MBP retina is powered by integrated graphics? It runs the standard intel graphics, and when you run a game it switches. But normally it's just running plain ol Intel graphics.

Some of these questions are ridiculous. The Airs which also have integrated graphics power those resolutions on thunderbolt or LED displays.
post #53 of 115

I don't really follow Apples' logic here. I would have thought it made more sense to have an 11" & 13" MBA as the ultra light portable and a 15" & 17" MBP with retina display as a desktop replacement for pro users.

 

A 13" MBP Retina would be neither one thing nor the other. If the 15" MBP Retina is anything to go buy it's still going to be much heavier than the 13" MBA, it will certainly be a lot more expensive and how useful is a retina screen going to be on a 13" laptop anyway. What are you going to do with it that you can't do with the current 13" MBP.

 

Apples' product matrix seems all over the place at the moment.
 

post #54 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post

Guys, stop defending integrated graphics. Just. Stop.

Guys, stop whining about integrated graphics. Just. Stop.

Maybe you don't realize it, but not everyone needs discrete graphics. If you're buying the computer for hard-core gaming, discrete graphics are pretty much necessary, but you probably wouldn't be buying a Mac. The small number of people who would buy a 13" computer for professional graphics are really the only ones out of luck - but most pros would choose the larger 15", anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

I don't really follow Apples' logic here. I would have thought it made more sense to have an 11" & 13" MBA as the ultra light portable and a 15" & 17" MBP with retina display as a desktop replacement for pro users.

A 13" MBP Retina would be neither one thing nor the other. If the 15" MBP Retina is anything to go buy it's still going to be much heavier than the 13" MBA, it will certainly be a lot more expensive and how useful is a retina screen going to be on a 13" laptop anyway. What are you going to do with it that you can't do with the current 13" MBP.

Apples' product matrix seems all over the place at the moment.

 

It seems pretty clear to me. MBP - more RAM, better CPU and world class screen. MBA - focuses on super-ultra-light, sacrificing RAM and performance for the sake of reducing weight.

Do you have trouble picturing someone who wants a 13" computer but still wants a great screen?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #55 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koifim View Post

I hope the resolution is wrong, because if it isn't it will suck. That means the screen will still be 1280 * 800, which is too small for my needs. Why not make it 1440 * 900, just like the Air and the (R)MBP.

 

Agree completely. I really wish they would raise base res of the 13" MBP to the same as the 13" Air, before they go to retina.

 

Of course, they could do both in one move. 

 

If they did, I'd be first in the queue for one.

post #56 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Do you have trouble picturing someone who wants a 13" computer but still wants a great screen?

 

No but I wonder ultimately how many of them will be willing to pay the hundreds of dollars premium over the standard 13" MBP just for the Retina screen.

 

The current 13" MBP sells well because it's the cheapest model in the range.

post #57 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Maybe you don't realize it, but not everyone needs discrete graphics. If you're buying the computer for hard-core gaming, discrete graphics are pretty much necessary, but you probably wouldn't be buying a Mac. The small number of people who would buy a 13" computer for professional graphics are really the only ones out of luck - but most pros would choose the larger 15", anyway.

If he's using it for gaming, he'd be better off with a desktop tower that could be kept up to date much longer with a gpu bump after the first year or two. For anything that is heavily reliant on OpenGL, going to a quad core machine would not be a bad thing. Even many desktops come with integrated graphics in their base configurations. Integrated graphics ate a lot of the $50-60 graphics card market which always ran on thin margins..

post #58 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post

Guys, stop defending integrated graphics. Just. Stop.

It is the future for mainstream computing. If you take a serious look at AMDs chips you will see that integrated GPUs can be very good.

Think about this; Trinity could easily power a 13" retina machine and provide respectable CPU performance. Maybe not Intel state of the art performance but certain an increase in CPU performance over last year. Along with the GPU graphics you get OpenCL functionality that actually works.

As to Intel there are already negative reports about intel trying to drive the retina display all alone. I'm not surprised because the new Intel GPU has been overhyped by many web sites. Intels marketing dollars sure can change people's objectivity.
post #59 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

FIrst off, if Appleinsider hasn't checked with Apple for a validation on this, I would NOT have released this article.  It has too many specifics without being validated BY APPLE.  What's Kuo's track record? 

 

Depends. Should we just count the times he got it right?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #60 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


It is the future for mainstream computing. If you take a serious look at AMDs chips you will see that integrated GPUs can be very good.
Think about this; Trinity could easily power a 13" retina machine and provide respectable CPU performance. Maybe not Intel state of the art performance but certain an increase in CPU performance over last year. Along with the GPU graphics you get OpenCL functionality that actually works.
As to Intel there are already negative reports about intel trying to drive the retina display all alone. I'm not surprised because the new Intel GPU has been overhyped by many web sites. Intels marketing dollars sure can change people's objectivity.

AMD does seem to balance it better. At the same time Intel seems to be throwing the extra weight behind the gpu for this revision and the next. I've always liked AMD, but it may be that I tend to favor (relatively) smaller companies. We'll probably see third party apps updated to turn off graphics switching in the RMBP, but it would be nice to see integrated graphics that are fully capable given their proliferation and focus in consumer cpu designs.

post #61 of 115

I had hoped without the optical drive they could squeeze in a discreet GPU. The HD4000 is decent - for normal resolutions. Fine for composing a static desktop but anything more demanding would certainly have to run at  a much lower res.

If not a dGPU, I hope for at least a quad core Ivy Bridge processor, there is a 35 watt one now so  it could easily fit in, the 13" mbp already used 35w CPUs.


"expects it to have an Intel Ivy Bridge processor with a clock speed greater than 2 gigahertz."

O RLY?

post #62 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

AMD does seem to balance it better.
Their APUs have been very successful in laptops. As you note balanced performance and very good power profiles. If you can't have a descrete GPU in a laptop, the AMD APUs are the far better choice for many users.
Quote:
At the same time Intel seems to be throwing the extra weight behind the gpu for this revision and the next.
Maybe that is their intention but I don't really see success yet on Intels part. Even though they say they are supporting OpenCL on this revision they are still behind actually delivering. Thankfully they are doing a bit better 3D wise, but the reality is they didnt even surpass last years AMD APU.
Quote:
I've always liked AMD, but it may be that I tend to favor (relatively) smaller companies. We'll probably see third party apps updated to turn off graphics switching in the RMBP, but it would be nice to see integrated graphics that are fully capable given their proliferation and focus in consumer cpu designs.

I'm generally after the best solution as such AMD is a better choice for low end machines. Again that I'd due to a more balanced approach.

I'm distracted by watching the keynote right now and they are talking laptops. Everything tells me that Retina will be coming to many more machines as quickly as Apple can get them to market. I'm drooling again!! It is obvious Apple knows they have a jump the industry and as such I see them getting the 13" MBPR out as soon as possible. It is anybody's guess what will be in there, but realize there are many options or paths to follow.
post #63 of 115

I would love to see a slimmer 13" MacBook Pro.  I've been waiting for this ever since the MacBook Air came out.  I never liked that tapered/clamshell look.  

post #64 of 115

News about the impending arrival of a 13" RMBP is most welcome.

 

It strikes me that Apple has had quite a job cramming all the hardware it needs into the new slimmer enclosure on the 15" RMBP, so you can understand why doing the same job with the 13" might take longer.

 

I agree that all this nonsense about Intel's integrated GPU not being good enough is ridiculous. The 4000 is a step up. Haswell will be another. Intel gets it. They know that GPUs are a big deal, so they're working on getting them right. In the meantime, Ivy Bridge processors with the 4000 are doing a more than acceptable job running external hi res monitors. 

 

The other point I don't agree with is that Apple's product matrix is a mess. I think it is extremely coherent. Professional and Consumer users are both well catered for in the laptop space. If the difference between professional and consumer models is screen quality more than GPU quality, that's ample justification for a price premium between the two lines and thus two 13" models can easily co-exist. 

 

I certainly don't think that the a 13" RMBP spells the death of the 13" MBA. 

 

Can't wait for the 13" RMBP to arrive, but maybe the new RMBP range won't hit its stride until REV A sees it get Haswells plus even better GPUs. We're probably talking about another 12 months before this happens, by which time, we should be able to get larger 1 TB SSDs and maybe cheaper retina displays that consume less electricity. These things will definitely differentiate the two line-ups. In the meantime, the 15" is a brilliant step in the right direction. 

post #65 of 115

so much confusion..was first waiting for retina 13" mbp...finally some solid news about october launch..was happy until you all again confused me with haswell arriving mid next year.GOD

post #66 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The lack of a discrete GPU really keeps me from considering the current 13" MBP.  It'll keep me from considering a 13" MBP Retina as well.

 

Ah well.

First off, I won't take this speculation that seriously unless the announcement came directly from Apple.  Now, in terms of the GPU, if were Apple and was coming out with a 13 inch retina display model, since it is a high model, I would probably have to have the GPU added as well, but I don't know if they have enough room for it.  But, I could swallow that they would come out with a 17 inch model before they would come out with a 13 model retina.  That's just me and the reasoning behind it would be that I think more Pro users would want a larger screen for the higher end photography, audio, video, and games.  This is just MY speculation rather than some analyst's.  Analyst's have been wrong, just like us Joe Blow on the street can be wrong as far as future models and release dates.   Apple likes us guessing.  ;-)

post #67 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Kuo's track record is exceptionally good. 

 

Keep in mind that (1) this is a rumor site, and (2) Apple almost never comments on an unreleased product. 

 

I suspect that Apple may use integrated graphics here for several reasons. (1) Intel integrated graphics has greatly improved from their earlier terrible speed. (2) The new thin laptops by the competition will most likely use Intel's integrated graphics. This spec will keep Apple from being two high a jump to pull over some buyers. (3) While the 15" MBP-R has a lot of pixels to juggle, it is less so on the 13" version, so it may be easier to get the job done.

 

Apple's competitors may be living in interesting times.

Yeah, well, I've got a great track record when I compare it with analysts, especially with stock price.  A lot of my predictions i many times keep to myself.  From a what WOULD I DO, if I were Apple. I would make a 17 RMBP rather than a 13 RMBP for the simple fact that more of the guys using Native ProTools, Logic, FCP, and games want MORE Screen Real Estate than less.  These new systems are much thinner and lighter than the previous high end MBPs.  I've talked with various people and they said that for the Native Pro Tools, FCP, Logic users, they are typically into 17inch screens for the real estate.

 

For the record, this is NOT speculation, but what I would do if were Apple more than it is, THIS IS WHAT IS SPECULATED TO COME OUT AND WHAT TIME FRAME...  OK?

post #68 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tlowe999 View Post

 

15" Retina weighs 4.46 lbs. ( 0.71 x 14.13 X 9.73 ) which has a slighly smaller 2D footprint compared with the 15" MBP (14.35 x 9.82 ). The current MBP has a footprint of 0.95 x 12.78 x 8.94. Guessing the 13" MBP will be 0.71 x 12.6 x 8.8

 

Adding a little math:

 

Density = 4.46 / ( 0.71 x 14.13 x 9.73 ) = 0.04569 lbs/ inches^3

 

Weight of 13" Retina = 0.04569 lbs/ inches^3 x 0.71 x 12.6 x 8.8 = 3.6 lbs

 

0.6 lbs heavier than the MBA 13".

And what would it be if they came out with a 17 inch instead?  Which some people want as well, and I think there is just as much chance of that happening since the analyst might be wrong.

post #69 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Integrated graphics = worthless.

For basic apps, it's OK, but in terms of more powerful apps, yeah, we would be much happier with discrete GPU.  I think that if Apple were to come out with any other retina displays, it would make much more sense to have the discrete GPU because this model is power user model.  Personally, I would much prefer a larger screen over a smaller screen.  It's just a matter of how much and if I could afford it. If I could afford it, it would be no brainer on this model since it is slimmer and less weight.  I was actually surprised at the form factor and weight of the new RMBP, it was slick as snot.  Just a beautiful job. For $3749 for a maxed out (RAM, SSD, Processor Speed) system, which is what is to be expected.  It's basically put a fork in me, I'm done.

post #70 of 115

Not only does Intel graphics perform poorly, but on the software side, their drivers are known to perform even worse, compared to the competition.

I bought my MB Air 13" featuring Nvidia 320M to play games among other things. I would NOT switch for a Retina Mac without decent, discrete graphics (Nvidia or AMD).

 

Diablo 3 - you know, the famous 3D, highly GPU-demanding game - is said to be adapted for Retina display in the coming months (information given during the presentation of the MB Retina 15"). I wish good luck to Blizzard to perform the trick on the sole, underpowered HD 4000. Taking into account that they promised us a game, not a slideshow...


Edited by kristofferson - 6/15/12 at 7:18am
post #71 of 115
If this were to come out, I'd like it not only because of the size and better screen, but also because I'm not a fan of the bezel around the screen of the MBA...so much dust gets trapped there. A nuisance to keep clean.
512MB Shuffle
4GB iPod mini (2nd Gen)
Reply
512MB Shuffle
4GB iPod mini (2nd Gen)
Reply
post #72 of 115

To me it doesn't seem likely that we'll get a 13" MBPR this calendar year. Going off memory alone, when they've updated twice in one year it's been early in the new year and then several months later in time for the holiday season.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Do you have trouble picturing someone who wants a 13" computer but still wants a great screen?

 

I'd take the current 13" MBA's screen over the 13" MBP's at the moment, to be honest. Whilst it seems some prefer the color gamut of the Pro's screen, the resolution of the Air's trumps that for mine. Considering that they both run the same integrated graphics chips, I can see the next generation of MBA being retina as well.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #73 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

First off, I won't take this speculation that seriously unless the announcement came directly from Apple.

Apple almost never comments on future models, so you might was well stop visiting this site if you're not interested in rumors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Is there an integrated GPU that is powerful enough to drive a 2560X1600 screen?

Yes. HD 4000 will do it:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/quick-reference-guide-to-intel-processor-graphics/
That's just on the main screen - it will also handle external monitors at the same time.

(some earlier reports said it could go as high as 4096x4096).
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #74 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Is there an integrated GPU that is powerful enough to drive a 2560X1600 screen?

AMD's APUs can, but the CPU performance is subpar compared to Intel's.

post #75 of 115

This is classic Apple (actually, classic Tim Cook since this is more of a supply chain issue).

 

Apple knows they will sell many more 13" retina MBPs than 15" (they did pre-retina, and they will post-retina). So roll the 15" out first, let it drive the cost of retina panels down, then introduce the 13" version once the economies of scale are where they need them. I'll be buying one.

post #76 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevoid View Post

This is classic Apple (actually, classic Tim Cook since this is more of a supply chain issue).

Apple knows they will sell many more 13" retina MBPs than 15" (they did pre-retina, and they will post-retina). So roll the 15" out first, let it drive the cost of retina panels down, then introduce the 13" version once the economies of scale are where they need them. I'll be buying one.

I wonder where everyone gets the idea that Apple would sell many more 13" MBPs. The only breakdown I've seen says that 13" and 15" sales were roughly comparable (50% to 47%).

I think it's far more likely that Apple simply needs to gain more experience before they're ready to cram things even more tightly into a 13" case.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #77 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I wonder where everyone gets the idea that Apple would sell many more 13" MBPs. The only breakdown I've seen says that 13" and 15" sales were roughly comparable (50% to 47%).
I think it's far more likely that Apple simply needs to gain more experience before they're ready to cram things even more tightly into a 13" case.

They've introduced things on high end models before while leaving the lower ones with the old thing. It's not uncommon. With the RMBP look at how they bundled a lot of new with the design to help justify a high cost of entry. You gain an additional thunderbolt port, thinner machine, IPS display with greater resolution, the higher vram configuration on the gpu, and an SSD standard. I don't agree with it being more difficult on the 13" at all. Percentage-wise SolipsismX pointed out a while back that the ODD on the 13" takes up a much greater percentage of the interior space. Beyond that we're talking about a line which uses cooler cpus without discrete graphics. The design work here might be easier rather than harder. If it's an issue of the heat generated powering the display, display engineering tends to run into way more snags as they're scaled up relative to uniformity and color stability where stability degrades due to temperature increases and the power used to stabilize  it further contributes to this problem. It was a huge problem with LEDs. I wanted to link a white paper from a few years back on the topic, but I can't find it right now :(.

post #78 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

They've introduced things on high end models before while leaving the lower ones with the old thing. It's not uncommon.

I agree. I was simply pointing out that the explanation being given (that they sell far more 13" MBPs) isn't supported by facts.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #79 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I agree. I was simply pointing out that the explanation being given (that they sell far more 13" MBPs) isn't supported by facts.

 

I misinterpreted you there, but yeah I've noticed the analysts don't really publish their raw data. It seems like their numbers are just conjecture, and the distribution seems weird. Beyond that it's not always clear if they're leveraging the Air in there as it's unlikely that distribution is almost even between the 13" and 15". So did you decide to migrate to the RMBP or stay on a 17"?

post #80 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailpipe View Post

News about the impending arrival of a 13" RMBP is most welcome.
iit is most certainly good news.
Quote:
It strikes me that Apple has had quite a job cramming all the hardware it needs into the new slimmer enclosure on the 15" RMBP, so you can understand why doing the same job with the 13" might take longer.
Something will have to give. Most likely this will be RAM & battery capacity.
Quote:
I agree that all this nonsense about Intel's integrated GPU not being good enough is ridiculous. The 4000 is a step up. Haswell will be another. Intel gets it. They know that GPUs are a big deal, so they're working on getting them right. In the meantime, Ivy Bridge processors with the 4000 are doing a more than acceptable job running external hi res monitors. 
This however I have to disagree with. The 4000 series isn't all that great and as noted elsewhere doesn't even beat last years AMD solution. Of course the real test isn't against AMD rather it is ability to drive a retina display. It is not a given that Intel will be acceptable here.
Quote:
The other point I don't agree with is that Apple's product matrix is a mess. I think it is extremely coherent. Professional and Consumer users are both well catered for in the laptop space. If the difference between professional and consumer models is screen quality more than GPU quality, that's ample justification for a price premium between the two lines and thus two 13" models can easily co-exist. 
I would agree that they have the best laptop line up in the market. On the desktop they have nothing but crap.
Quote:
I certainly don't think that the a 13" RMBP spells the death of the 13" MBA. 
I don't get this either. There is no overlap now, both machines seem to be strong sellers.
Quote:
Can't wait for the 13" RMBP to arrive, but maybe the new RMBP range won't hit its stride until REV A sees it get Haswells plus even better GPUs. We're probably talking about another 12 months before this happens, by which time, we should be able to get larger 1 TB SSDs and maybe cheaper retina displays that consume less electricity. These things will definitely differentiate the two line-ups. In the meantime, the 15" is a brilliant step in the right direction. 

Best laptop on the market by the looks of it. Time will tell of course, but if one fell into my lap I wouldn't complain.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple expected to launch 13" Retina MacBook Pro by early Oct.