or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The future of the MacBook Pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The future of the MacBook Pro

post #1 of 199
Thread Starter 
This is continued from the mini/iMac wishlist topic but I want to keep them separated. Can we all pretty much agree that the retina MacBook Pro is the future and that eventually the unibody MacBook Pro is going away.

So it would eventually look like this in about 2-3 years or so.

Base 13" retina: $1,199
Higher-end 13" retina: $1,499
Base 15" retina: $1,799
Higher-end 15" retina: $1,999

I still don't feel that the 15" retinas should have integrated graphics. They need discrete and people should be allowed to do good to great gaming on them as well as great professional work.
post #2 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

This is continued from the mini/iMac wishlist topic but I want to keep them separated. Can we all pretty much agree that the retina MacBook Pro is the future and that eventually the unibody MacBook Pro is going away.
Actually I'm not too certain that the Unibody Mac Book Pro (MBP) will go away completely. The thing is laptops are like 80% + of Apples Mac sales. They have benefited tremendously from the diversity of models they now have. I could see the MBPs morphing into yet another on going set of models in the line up for some time.
Quote:
So it would eventually look like this in about 2-3 years or so.

Base 13" retina: $1,199
Higher-end 13" retina: $1,499
Base 15" retina: $1,799
Higher-end 15" retina: $1,999
Prices need to trend down obviously but I'm not sure they can get there that fast with retina.
Quote:
I still don't feel that the 15" retinas should have integrated graphics.
Next year probably not. Two or three years from now though is another story.
Quote:
They need discrete and people should be allowed to do good to great gaming on them as well as great professional work.

This may be a breaking point for the retina machines and the traditional screened MBPs. If the screens continue to be expensive then a professional machine built around integrated graphics and a standard screen may be in order. The biggest advantage the MBP has right now is in secondary storage. Just the simple ability to accept disk drives, maybe even two, make the MBP a go to machine for many.

To put it another way, I still believe that the MBP sells well because some have the need for massive storage that is only cost effective today in magnetic media. At some point the retina machine will configure with enough flash to truncate the MBPs sales. It will likely be 2015 before the MBP gets axed for this reason.
post #3 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Actually I'm not too certain that the Unibody Mac Book Pro (MBP) will go away completely. 

 

They will because thinner.  Apple are also undoubtedly pissed that they still have to sell laptops with optical drives in them, so there is another reason to ditch the thicker MBP.  They even gimped the iMac to make it thinner, and that's a desktop where there is no functional benefit to it being thin.  There are good reasons to make a laptop computer thinner and lighter, but logical design has nothing to do with it.  Ive wants thin, Jobs gave it his blessing, that's how it is. 

 

As soon as Retina display prices drop, the standard MBP w/ODD and HDD is history.  

post #4 of 199
Apple has the most successful line of laptops on the planet. As such they have incentive to keep the lineup fresh and diverse. The MBP will only go away if they have something to replace it with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

They will because thinner.  Apple are also undoubtedly pissed that they still have to sell laptops with optical drives in them, so there is another reason to ditch the thicker MBP.  They even gimped the iMac to make it thinner, and that's a desktop where there is no functional benefit to it being thin.  There are good reasons to make a laptop computer thinner and lighter, but logical design has nothing to do with it.  Ive wants thin, Jobs gave it his blessing, that's how it is. 

As soon as Retina display prices drop, the standard MBP w/ODD and HDD is history.  
Maybe maybe not. MBP may go, but I still see Apple having a three prong strategy with respect to laptops in the future. Laptops are 80% of Apples Mac sales, they really don't want to screw that up. Part of that means Laptops with large secondary storage capacity.
post #5 of 199
Thread Starter 
Although you have to believe that by 2015, 512 GB flash drives will be standard with an option for 1 TB or more.
post #6 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Although you have to believe that by 2015, 512 GB flash drives will be standard with an option for 1 TB or more.

Sure but that doesn't stop the growth in storage space demand. For example I've been installing XCode for some time which you would think would be easy on disk space. It isn't though, by the time you have very thing installed you have gone through Giga Bytes of disk space. This for an IDE. Down load a couple of videos from apple that support the use of XCode and even more disk space is gone. It isn't just XCode either, install Eclipse with a lot of extras and you will chew through another GB.

I know that 512 GB or even 1TB sounds like a lot of space to many but the reality is it isn't these days. Take this from a guy that dumped huge sums of money into a 5MB hard disk for his Mac Plus all those years ago. I haven't even touched upon office productivity apps, TEX or special purpose apps. When I first got the MBP a few years ago about 90 GB was used up just by app installs before I really had any data on the machine. Eventually I dumped open office simply to save disk space.

So what I'm saying is that 512GB won't remove the need for bulk storage.
post #7 of 199

What happens when we hit the perpendicular storage limit? There's gonna be a gap there, where SSD capacities both aren't large enough nor cheap enough to make up for it. I haven't heard of any new spinning disk techniques.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #8 of 199
Magnetic disk technology has a few more years to go. Hopefully by then one of the new solid state technologies will ate over both magnetic storage and flash. After all flash is pretty close to hitting the wall too. Flash is really a stop gap measure for high speed secondary storage, the basic technology has been around a long time just like magnetic drives.

The real question is which of the up and coming technologies will get industry acceptance the way flash has and thus support the R&D that flash and magnetic technology have gotten. If you had a crystal ball and some money to invest you could easily retire rich in ten years or so. Just invest in the right solution.

By the way this is one of the reasons I promote the idea of a major overhaul of the Mac Pro. The expectation
Is that the secondary storage market will change dramatically over the coming years, probably more so than it has since the days of the floppy. This means SATA will die gracefully while high performance systems move to solid state arrays connected over fast PCI Express channels. Such a move will provide some users with a rather significant boost in system performance that can be likened to the move to the first dual core systems.

The sad reality is that when you look at the so called Pro computers we are seeing that the choke point these days is secondary storage. The funny thing here is that Apple demonstrated that very nicely on the low end AIRs, where the puny processors in those machines are able to mask their low performance by the fast access to secondary store. For many pro users the problem is one having enough capacity in a SSD, so many have to compromise knowing full well that they could benefit from a SSD.

So for these users that need large volumes of storage you can see demand for the traditional MBP remaining strong. If Apple where to offer tiered storage on the machines from the factory I suspect sales would remain strong for a very long time. Now offering a Fusion drive in the classic MBP is something Apple has not decided to do yet, however such an offer would make the machines very attractive for certain types of users and would certainly help maintain sales. From my perspective it makes a lot of sense to maintain a wide range of laptops due to the high percentage of Mac sales that go that way. Now Apple may not see it that way so who knows. To be honest I don't see them dropping the classics this year no matter what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

What happens when we hit the perpendicular storage limit? There's gonna be a gap there, where SSD capacities both aren't large enough nor cheap enough to make up for it. I haven't heard of any new spinning disk techniques.
post #9 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
What happens when we hit the perpendicular storage limit?

That's when we go into the

( •_•)-⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

4th spatial dimension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
I haven't heard of any new spinning disk techniques.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/19/seagate-hits-one-terabit-per-square-inch-compares-self-favorabl/

There's also this kind of thing:

http://www.gizmag.com/hitachi-glass-data-storage/24301/

for incorruptible storage. I always remember sci-fi films having glass pen-drive sized storage devices. That can replace tape storage and Blu-Ray.

Some of these density increasing methods are bound to help SSD too though. We can already get 64GB microSD cards in 165mm^3. The 2.5" form factor is 48895mm^3 so they should be able to get 296 x 64GB = 19TB in a 2.5" form factor, obviously minus the controller and board and other connections. Maybe half that total volume to about 10TB.

I think it's price more than anything holding it back but reliability will be a factor at lower sizes:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9225064/OCZ_talks_up_2TB_4TB_SSDs_previews_Thunderbolt_enabled_drive?taxonomyId=234&pageNumber=2

The density will progress like with computing power as they go to lower fabs.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/SSD-Prices-to-Go-Low-as-0-4-dollars-per-Gigabyte-267666.shtml

"Once the NAND flash industry moves to the 10 nm manufacturing process, the density of flash cells per wafer will be more than double."

Apple can already get 768GB into their blade form factor so at 10nm, 1.5TB and the volume is 9670mm^3 so about 5 of those fit into a 2.5" form factor = 7.8TB and about $3000.

That's a little ways out yet though, next up should be 16nm:

http://www.myce.com/news/manufacturers-preparing-for-16-nm-nand-by-2013-64993/

So possibly affordable 1TB SSDs in the next year or two, 2TB in the next 5 years.

I'd like to see the 11" Air go. Although it's not quite a netbook because of the shape and performance, it's too small. The SSD prices should allow the 13" to get down to the 11" price point with 64GB. That means it would top out at $1299. They'd leave the entry 13" MBP at $1199 and 15" at $1799 and just make the Retina models replace the higher-end older MBPs, cutting the price $200-300.
post #10 of 199
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I'd like to see the 11" Air go. Although it's not quite a netbook because of the shape and performance, it's too small. The SSD prices should allow the 13" to get down to the 11" price point with 64GB. That means it would top out at $1299. They'd leave the entry 13" MBP at $1199 and 15" at $1799 and just make the Retina models replace the higher-end older MBPs, cutting the price $200-300.

I agree with this 100%.
post #11 of 199
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
That's when we go into the
( •_•)-⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
4th spatial dimension.

 

🎸 🎼 🎵 🎶 🎵

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

 

Also, I'd like to see a tachyonic hard drive. It'll have files on it before I've decided to download them, but we'll have to wait until the thiotimoline hybrid version comes out before it can cache things before I want to open them.

 

3.5-inch hard drives… …up to 60 terabytes

 

😲, also 💰


"Once the NAND flash industry moves to the 10 nm manufacturing process, the density of flash cells per wafer will be more than double."

 

If the heat assisted whozawhatsis can be done properly, would SSDs run into a shrinkage wall before they reach capacities comparable to 3.5" drives? 


We're almost to the really interesting part of a lot of technologies. Processors will hit a physical wall, so they'll have to go quantum, solid state storage hits a physical wall, so it'll have to adapt, and connectors… well, they're the bottleneck now that we've gotten rid of optical discs, right?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #12 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

If the heat assisted whozawhatsis can be done properly, would SSDs run into a shrinkage wall before they reach capacities comparable to 3.5" drives? 


We're almost to the really interesting part of a lot of technologies. Processors will hit a physical wall, so they'll have to go quantum, solid state storage hits a physical wall, so it'll have to adapt, and connectors… well, they're the bottleneck now that we've gotten rid of optical discs, right?

 

Many of the predicted problems there are NAND related, not necessarily related to the concept of solid state storage. NAND is just what is currently used. There is a lot of room for improvement. NAND is far from a perfect solution. In fact too many people just assume it to be more reliable than spinning drives and make the stupid mistake of neglecting backups.

post #13 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
If the heat assisted whozawhatsis can be done properly, would SSDs run into a shrinkage wall before they reach capacities comparable to 3.5" drives?

You can get a 4TB SSD in a 3.5" form factor already:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5322/oczs-4tb-35-chiron-ssd

That pretty much matches current HDDs. Once they double it again, they'll be able to fit 8TB.

We're at about $0.70/GB:

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-sata_6_0_gb-2-5-Inch-MZ-7TD500BW/dp/B009NHAF3I

so 4TB would cost $2800 and HDD is 1/10th of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
Processors will hit a physical wall, so they'll have to go quantum, solid state storage hits a physical wall, so it'll have to adapt, and connectors… well, they're the bottleneck now that we've gotten rid of optical discs, right?

Intel has plans to go to 5nm. The same will be true of GPUs. Once they reach that level, you're talking about computers that are 30-60x faster than what we have now so they'll be way beyond what most people need.
post #14 of 199
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Intel has plans to go to 5nm. The same will be true of GPUs. Once they reach that level, you're talking about computers that are 30-60x faster than what we have now so they'll be way beyond what most people need.

 

That's true of today, and yet here we are. The constant shrinking is for the techies and businesses; the people who need that power. That everyone else can buy it is how it's made cheap, yeah?  

 

Skymont won't be the end of the story, even for consumer stuff. I just wish they'd jump straight to it, but I've always wanted to be a time traveler… 

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #15 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
That's true of today, and yet here we are. The constant shrinking is for the techies and businesses; the people who need that power. That everyone else can buy it is how it's made cheap, yeah?

I think at present there's still somewhere we can go to. Integrated graphics are still not great, mobile battery life isn't more than a day. Once we can get a certain realism to real-time graphics and take away any remaining bottlenecks for productivity software, I think people will be content. I think this will happen before we get all the way to 5nm too.

Take video games as an example, the upcoming consoles are supposed to be around 8x faster or more. The difference won't be all that noticeable because they still have the same storage limits. Processing power is really just one part of it and they are fixing all the other bottlenecks so the need will be left for raw processing but that can be off-loaded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
Skymont won't be the end of the story, even for consumer stuff. I just wish they'd jump straight to it, but I've always wanted to be a time traveler… 

Skymont is 10nm, there would be 4 iterations after that - 2 on 7nm, 2 on 5nm. Beyond that, they'll probably struggle but overall power will be a lot by then. The CPU and GPU should work together as a single unit fairly soon.
post #16 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



Skymont is 10nm, there would be 4 iterations after that - 2 on 7nm, 2 on 5nm. Beyond that, they'll probably struggle but overall power will be a lot by then. The CPU and GPU should work together as a single unit fairly soon.

They absorbed sound cards in the past. They absorbed the entire northbridge into the cpu package. This seems like a natural evolution. It's possible discrete options will hold out for a while depending on performance, but the cost would most likely be higher due to the lack of ability to sink development costs through volume sales.

post #17 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think at present there's still somewhere we can go to. Integrated graphics are still not great, mobile battery life isn't more than a day. Once we can get a certain realism to real-time graphics and take away any remaining bottlenecks for productivity software, I think people will be content. I think this will happen before we get all the way to 5nm too.
I don't buy this idea that people will be content with anything that Intel can put forth in the next couple of decades. Hardware and software run in cycles that often don't sync up well. In the end software will drive hardware needs as it always has even if we are in a dwell right now with respect to software demands. In the not to distant future I'm expecting that the demand for locally running AI's, expert systems and other things out of the research community will become the norm. Even "simpler" things like naturally language processing and voice interaction will demand better hardware.
Quote:
Take video games as an example, the upcoming consoles are supposed to be around 8x faster or more. The difference won't be all that noticeable because they still have the same storage limits. Processing power is really just one part of it and they are fixing all the other bottlenecks so the need will be left for raw processing but that can be off-loaded.
Skymont is 10nm, there would be 4 iterations after that - 2 on 7nm, 2 on 5nm. Beyond that, they'll probably struggle but overall power will be a lot by then. The CPU and GPU should work together as a single unit fairly soon.

I know AMD is rushing head first into heterogeneous computing and frankly seems to be dragging Intel along. We should be there in a few years. At that point hardware will begin to look dramatically different. Discrete GPUs will actually end up being the low performance choice for some workloads.
post #18 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

 

Also, I'd like to see a tachyonic hard drive. It'll have files on it before I've decided to download them, but we'll have to wait until the thiotimoline hybrid version comes out before it can cache things before I want to open them.

 

 

Except when three or more tachyon drives are mounted on the same Mac system, bad things can happen that threaten the future of humanity...

post #19 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Although you have to believe that by 2015, 512 GB flash drives will be standard with an option for 1 TB or more.

I hope SSD sizes grow faster than that.

post #20 of 199
Thread Starter 
In the base 13", 512 GB would be a godsend. Keep your expectations low with Apple. Although if things backfire, maybe they do start giving more for people's money.
post #21 of 199
Thread Starter 
Bump.

Okay 15" Retina MacBook Pro, possible scenario for when the prices drop slightly.

Higher end 15" currently sits at $2,799 and the only difference by default is a slightly faster processor and double the amount of flash storage. Perhaps either by default (doubtable) or as a CTO option, double the graphics memory. At the very least for an extra $100, the 650M should have 2 GB instead of 1 GB for the retina screen.

Thoughts?
post #22 of 199
Thread Starter 
Bump again. I'd like to hear someone either agreeing or disagreeing with me. If you disagree, let's hear your thoughts on where the retina MBP will go?
post #23 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Bump again. I'd like to hear someone either agreeing or disagreeing with me. If you disagree, let's hear your thoughts on where the retina MBP will go?


I don't have thoughts about the question you ask, but I hope they solve the image retention issue that still plagues these portables. In fact, because of this, I am not going to buy a MBP although I will soon need one.

post #24 of 199

To summarise some of the thoughts here:

 

- We need retina display sizes to come down

- We need SSD storage prices to come down so that 512 becomes the base and 1TB optional 

- We need integrated graphics to become a whole lot better so that discrete graphics (and the packing constraints they impose) are no longer necessary

- We need battery life to improve (10-12 hours)

- We want machines that are even thinner and lighter without sacrificing power

- We want 13" machines to sell between $1,000-$1,500 and 15" machines to sell at $1,500-$2,000. (Have you seen the cost of a 13" rMBP with 500 GB hard drive?)

 

I am sure, in time, all these things will come. 

 

I wonder if a 15" iPad will ever replace the laptop computer? The question behind this is what is the future of the keyboard?

 

I guess we can expect a haptic keyboard to become part of the iPad reasonably soon. Assuming it works in the way we all hope it will and provide tactile feedback that enables speedier input / typing on touch screens, then perhaps touch screen devices will begin to supplant the laptop as we know it. 

 

So maybe we are headed for an iPad world? If we are, screen sizes will have to grow. 

 

But there's another important ergonomic factor here. Try holding an iPad 3 in your hands for a length of time and it starts to get heavy. Balance it on your lap or on a desk and it also becomes a bit clunky. The really clever thing about the clamshell laptop design is that the keyboard unit serves as a screen support. This format certainly has legs.

 

So assuming that the clamshell configuration has a future, perhaps we'll see devices with dual screens. One screen will serve as a traditional viewing device, the other as a key board or menu screen with haptic response. If you imagine two iPads facing each other - that could well be a future laptop configuration. Just an idea. 

post #25 of 199

I don't think the retina MBP is going anywhere until they can ship the machine with an IGZO screen or other improved "retina" screen technology.    The retina MBP is sort of like iPad 1 to me, that is a proof of concept machine.  As such I learned my lesson with iPad 1, wait for the technology to mature.   

 

Beyond that the MBP still needs far more secondary storage.   In fact I see it as a mistake to offer a machine like the retina MBP without a conventional disk drive slot.  Magnetic drives are still the only way to get the storage density required especially these days when the small SSDs can be filled to the brim just with apps and OS features.   Now obviously the next generation of flash is about to arrive which should lead to denser storage but that is likely just a doubling of storage.  

 

Many would see such a machine as a step backwards after all magnetic drives are so yesterday.   I don't see it that way though, for me the goal is to reduce or eliminate the need to drag around external drives for document storage.   

 

At some point Apple will likely go integrated only graphics.   I don't think this will happen with Haswell but that is because of the lack of a clear performance picture for the Haswell processor.  It will eventually happen though.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Bump again. I'd like to hear someone either agreeing or disagreeing with me. If you disagree, let's hear your thoughts on where the retina MBP will go?
post #26 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I don't think the retina MBP is going anywhere until they can ship the machine with an IGZO screen or other improved "retina" screen technology.    The retina MBP is sort of like iPad 1 to me, that is a proof of concept machine.  As such I learned my lesson with iPad 1, wait for the technology to mature.   

 

This happens with everything Apple. The first iphone lacked third party apps and 3G. The first macbooks had far more complaints. They did do a pretty good job with the first mac pro.

 

Quote:

At some point Apple will likely go integrated only graphics.   I don't think this will happen with Haswell but that is because of the lack of a clear performance picture for the Haswell processor.  It will eventually happen though.  

 

Some people are using these in areas that were once firm desktop territory. As long as the cost of entry is high, I don't think they'll cut some of the more demanding users as they still have the 13" rmbp available. You also have quite a spread in terms of gpu performance between integrated graphics and discrete gpus without hefty spending. The 680mx in the top imac and the HD 4000 remain in different stratospheres. I'd expect we need to aim a little further out before they completely homogenize the 15" notebooks. It would surprise me less if they did such a thing on a less expensive model. The entry 15" used NVidia's form of integrated graphics at one point. They were just integrated into the chipset rather than the cpu package.

 

Quote:
Beyond that the MBP still needs far more secondary storage.   In fact I see it as a mistake to offer a machine like the retina MBP without a conventional disk drive slot.  Magnetic drives are still the only way to get the storage density required especially these days when the small SSDs can be filled to the brim just with apps and OS features.   Now obviously the next generation of flash is about to arrive which should lead to denser storage but that is likely just a doubling of storage.

At some level external storage is inevitable, but I can see how this would be irritating. You have thin notebooks, yet they lack storage. This reduces the ability to grab the device and go, which has always been the goal with mobile technology.

post #27 of 199
Thread Starter 
Apple needs to stop using Rev. A products as write-offs though. They need to be a bit better in my opinion for the cost. Or perhaps the 13" retina should have been introduced first.
post #28 of 199

I think I mad that comment abut iPad one a little too strong.   IPad one was an eyeopener as it demonstrated that tablets could be a real product that people would want.   The proof of concept was very convincing to say the least.

 

As to integrated GPUs, yes the difference in performance is real.    However what I was keying on is when will they be good enough for me.   Me being someone that expects a bit better than todays integrated solutions.    HD 4000 might not be there yet but HD 5000 might be.

 

As to external storage the thing that kills me here is that the limited storage on machines like Apples AIRs is probably the number two reason why I reject the machines.   The number one being the overall lack of decent processing power with both the GPU and the CPU considered.   It is my hope that Haswell will address this issue of processor performance.   Storage is a different animal of course so the question becomes how far will Apple go with the next rev of these machine.    Doubling storage is not enough really.

 

Why is doubling not enough?   Well I currently run a MBP with an old 200 GB drive with all of my media on an external drive.   Even with those large files split off onto a different drive I still end up with to little free room on my machine.   Obviously a normal person would want to avoid this on a new machine so at a minimal I'd want to see 2X or 400 GB.   But it gets worst than that as i really need to run virtual machines for alternative operating systems and these OS'es eat up their own disk space.   So in the end 400GB isn't really enough either.   That is the SSD, I'd still like to be able to carry the equivalent of my external magnetic drive internally.   So yeah a grab and go laptop is a fine idea but trying to do so with todays machines is asking a lot.   One really needs the benefits of of SSD's these days for the performance gains but the lack of space is very significant.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

This happens with everything Apple. The first iphone lacked third party apps and 3G. The first macbooks had far more complaints. They did do a pretty good job with the first mac pro.

 

 

Some people are using these in areas that were once firm desktop territory. As long as the cost of entry is high, I don't think they'll cut some of the more demanding users as they still have the 13" rmbp available. You also have quite a spread in terms of gpu performance between integrated graphics and discrete gpus without hefty spending. The 680mx in the top imac and the HD 4000 remain in different stratospheres. I'd expect we need to aim a little further out before they completely homogenize the 15" notebooks. It would surprise me less if they did such a thing on a less expensive model. The entry 15" used NVidia's form of integrated graphics at one point. They were just integrated into the chipset rather than the cpu package.

 

At some level external storage is inevitable, but I can see how this would be irritating. You have thin notebooks, yet they lack storage. This reduces the ability to grab the device and go, which has always been the goal with mobile technology.

post #29 of 199

I'm not sure what you are saying here, this isn't a situation that is common to Apple only, the whole industry does this.   The first stepping of a new chip is always more expensive than latter even if the latter chips include improvements or bug fixes.   Frankly the industry has operated this way for decades even before Apple was around.   New technologies require early adopters willing to pay through the noise to have that technology.   A year or two of high margins is need to pay for development cost and revs to the product.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Apple needs to stop using Rev. A products as write-offs though. They need to be a bit better in my opinion for the cost. Or perhaps the 13" retina should have been introduced first.
post #30 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I think I mad that comment abut iPad one a little too strong.   IPad one was an eyeopener as it demonstrated that tablets could be a real product that people would want.   The proof of concept was very convincing to say the least.

 

I know what you meant. Revision B is typically better. I couldn't stand anything below a 512GB ssd. I have one.  Eventually they will cost less. It still doesn't take the place of ram. I can definitely feel when the system is low on memory and I need to close applications.

post #31 of 199
Thread Starter 
wizard69 - What I mean is they are not taking full advantage of the specs available and that is a simple issue. No excuse for not including at least an option to double the graphics memory on the $2,799 rMBP.

2 GB 650M would have been better equipped to run things on the retina display. The screen retention and HDMI issues however are another matter.

Also include better CTO options.
post #32 of 199

As far as SSD's go I think Apple could push a little bit harder.   For example they own anobit now and frankly that technology should be combined with a PCI - Express to give us a card based SSD standard that would be good for a few years into the future.   Frankly the card could look like regular PCI-Express cards but I'd prefer to see something more modern and compact.   Apples blade concept is pretty good but they need to move to PCI-Express and support larger cards for desktops.   In a nut shell Apple simply isn't innovating on the desktop and has left that for the laptop models.

 

RAM is another thing altogether.   Here like in solid sate secondary storage a lot of research is taking place.   Some may not like what we get, as most solutions would require soldered in parts, but for the majority the future solutions should lead to a  big win.

 

Right now the perfect Mini would have a large SSD backed up by a bulk magnetic device.   It would use 3D ram technologies to save space and increase bandwidth.   An SSD based "disk' for speed with enough space.   Ideally the main processor would have a GPU fast enough to make me happy, but I'm not convinced that will happen with Haswell.   A Mac Book Pro would be similarly configured.   3D RAM to save space and increase bandwidth, a PCI Express based SSD.

 

**********************

As a side note I just updated Xcode.     Just one of the doc sets came in at 558 MB in size which is probably before any decompression.   Since i like to download all of the current doc sets it is pretty easy to see where some of my disk space goes to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I know what you meant. Revision B is typically better. I couldn't stand anything below a 512GB ssd. I have one.  Eventually they will cost less. It still doesn't take the place of ram. I can definitely feel when the system is low on memory and I need to close applications.

post #33 of 199

Believe me there is no one more frustrated by Apples GPU configurations than me!   However I look a the MBP with retina display and frankly i'm surprised that they managed to stuff as much tech as they did into that laptop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

wizard69 - What I mean is they are not taking full advantage of the specs available and that is a simple issue. No excuse for not including at least an option to double the graphics memory on the $2,799 rMBP.

2 GB 650M would have been better equipped to run things on the retina display. The screen retention and HDMI issues however are another matter.

Also include better CTO options.

The lack of build to order options is a problem but then again Apple is selling everything they make.   It really looks like they have tried to balance power as in wattage against power as in performance in the retina MBP.

post #34 of 199
Thread Starter 
Here's hoping by the time Q3 of this year hits, the Rev. B rMBP is a huge jump.
post #35 of 199
Thread Starter 
Is Apple limiting LG as a display supplier and moving towards Sharp?
post #36 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Is Apple limiting LG as a display supplier and moving towards Sharp?


As much as the Apple sites tend to spin this, there isn't a good way to predict it. Sharp has been through a lot of trouble in recent years, and LG is pretty much the largest in this space, especially in terms of IPS panels. Hitachi developed IPS initially, but they pulled out a few years ago as margins shrank.

post #37 of 199
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


As much as the Apple sites tend to spin this, there isn't a good way to predict it. Sharp has been through a lot of trouble in recent years, and LG is pretty much the largest in this space, especially in terms of IPS panels. Hitachi developed IPS initially, but they pulled out a few years ago as margins shrank.

Are LGs panels really as bad as people say?
post #38 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


Are LGs panels really as bad as people say?


They aren't always as consistent as I'd like. Other display oems use them too. I'm not sure how Apple seems to have the most problems with them. I've had screensavers fail to come on, and I've never experienced image persistence. The only place I've personally seen it in recent years has been imacs. I'm not sure why it has been so common. The 2011s didn't seem to have so many complaints. Many of the others did.

post #39 of 199
Thread Starter 
I want at least an option for the max amount of memory to be available in the next retina MacBook Pro. If not for (what is now) the $2,199 model than (what is now) the $2,799 model.

You have the iMac with the top card available in it, there is no excuse to only have 1 GB in the next MacBook Pro as with last time.
post #40 of 199
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
…there is no excuse to only have 1 GB in the next MacBook Pro as with last time.

 

Well, the laws of physics.

 

We're talking about GPUs, right?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The future of the MacBook Pro