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 - Page 4

post #121 of 199

I'm   tied to the Apple eco system for Avid and Pro Tools. No one wants Windows in the pro audio world. 

As I said before, eventually Apple will either support those users or an alternative will appear.  As far as sniveling, many posters whine about how burdensome it is to carry a 17" around.  To me that sounds pitiful, but I do see people in their 30s who are too fat to walk. What I don't understand is the ridiculous arrogance of one person telling another what he or she should be satisfied with. 

I have no interest in what you do with your computer whatsoever, or what you may or may not prefer.

post #122 of 199
Thread Starter 
Let's say Apple did have a 17" rMBP, what would you want in it TL to separate it from the 15" and how much would you price it at?
post #123 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

I'm   tied to the Apple eco system for Avid and Pro Tools. No one wants Windows in the pro audio world. 

As I said before, eventually Apple will either support those users or an alternative will appear.  As far as sniveling, many posters whine about how burdensome it is to carry a 17" around.  To me that sounds pitiful, but I do see people in their 30s who are too fat to walk. What I don't understand is the ridiculous arrogance of one person telling another what he or she should be satisfied with. 

I have no interest in what you do with your computer whatsoever, or what you may or may not prefer.

 

I understand that. Sorry you're tied to Apple. I get the frustration in feeling like their focus is in a different area, but I disagree that it started with Cook. They've been on that track for some time. It works well for them. Regarding the weight of the 17", I've used them. I don't think they're heavy. I think they're slightly awkward and would use a notebook case to keep from denting it as I'm clumsy.

post #124 of 199

I would happily pay $4000 for one loaded with SSDs, etc. I would love to see one with the absolute best of everything. I use them for a living so it's a work tool. I'm on the Jan 2012 17" maxed with 512 gb SSD and 16gb ram at the moment so it should be good for another year or so. 

post #125 of 199

I wish Apple never killed the 17" MacBoo Pro, it was a sweet machine…

 

I actually wanted to see a LARGER laptop, like what Dell did with the XPS a good bit back; what was that a 19" or 20" model…?!?

 

Yes, it would be heavier, but it would REALLY be a portable desktop replacement solution; and, room for an internal RAID…!

 

I say someone needs to engineer and Kickstarter a combination battery pack & keyboard/magic trackpad that attaches to the iMacs; turning them into giant 'laptops'…!!!

 

Imagine the looks one would get plopping a 27" iMac 'laptop' onto the table at the local Starbucks…!

Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #126 of 199

I'm sure you're joking but you don't need a battery pack at Starbucks.

post #127 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

I actually wanted to see a LARGER laptop, like what Dell did with the XPS a good bit back; what was that a 19" or 20" model…?!?

They had a 20":

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/crave-tv-20-inch-laptop-on-the-london-underground-49284379/

Interesting idea with the keyboard as it cuts the base size down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

Imagine the looks one would get plopping a 27" iMac 'laptop' onto the table at the local Starbucks…!

An actual iMac doesn't seem to phase people too much:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/imacs-in-inappropriate-places-starbucks-edition/251738/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long 
I'm tied to the Apple eco system for Avid and Pro Tools

They make Pro Tools for Windows:

post #128 of 199

I know. However not one producer I have worked with uses Windows, and engineers discourage it, at the moment.

post #129 of 199
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

I would happily pay $4000 for one loaded with SSDs, etc. I would love to see one with the absolute best of everything. I use them for a living so it's a work tool. I'm on the Jan 2012 17" maxed with 512 gb SSD and 16gb ram at the moment so it should be good for another year or so. 

I think $4k is an obscene price to pay for a laptop. As it is the high-end 15" retina at $2,799 is too much.

To me the 17" retina if it existed should be no more than $3k, have 768 GB flash minimum with an option for 1 TB, 32 GB of RAM, and 2 GB of the 680MX.

I mean if we're going to throw things out there, let's set a realistic price.
post #130 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post




They make Pro Tools for Windows:
 

There are certain fields that tend to be extremely Mac heavy. It's usually that something originated on the Mac and everyone stays with it. People must still buy the Windows versions, but there's a tendency to use the same thing as those around you. In some cases it may be something as simple as files being delivered on a hard drive (typical if it's GB of data) that uses a format that isn't well supported on or the other. It can be driver quality of specific peripherals or other small details or it could just be convention.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


I think $4k is an obscene price to pay for a laptop. As it is the high-end 15" retina at $2,799 is too much.

To me the 17" retina if it existed should be no more than $3k, have 768 GB flash minimum with an option for 1 TB, 32 GB of RAM, and 2 GB of the 680MX.

I mean if we're going to throw things out there, let's set a realistic price.

 


There is a market for it. It's just you can't sell as many at $4k as you would at $2k. I think the 680MX came out later than the 680M or just wasn't picked up by other oems. I just tested that and you can spec out a 17" Alienware within $3k with a 512GB rather than 1TB ssd and a 680M 2GB DDR5, just not an MX. Lenovo offers similar options on the thinkpads, but those use workstation graphics (not meant for games) and the cto pricing on things like ram can be much higher.

post #131 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

I'm   tied to the Apple eco system for Avid and Pro Tools. No one wants Windows in the pro audio world. 
Unfortunately Wimdows is becoming worst with time, I suspect the resistance to using Windows will only grow
Quote:
As I said before, eventually Apple will either support those users or an alternative will appear.
Maybe maybe not, they trend industry wide is to smaller machines. I suppose a niche player could always do good business with a largish laptop but then you are dealing with backwards technology in most cases. That is niche players simply don't have access to the technology the way big players like Apple do.

I do wonder though if you have even looked into the use of a current retina MBP?
Quote:
 As far as sniveling, many posters whine about how burdensome it is to carry a 17" around.  To me that sounds pitiful, but I do see people in their 30s who are too fat to walk.
The comments you receive are directly related to the image you present. I fully understand how a 17" MBP could be useful to some users, however in your case you have presented nothing to support your position. Like it or not it does sound like sniveling.
Quote:
What I don't understand is the ridiculous arrogance of one person telling another what he or she should be satisfied with. 
Look in the mirror here. What sort of iparrogance gets on line to demand that Apple produce a laptop specifically to support their needs?
Quote:
I have no interest in what you do with your computer whatsoever, or what you may or may not prefer.

You are obviously worked up over this but look at it this way, Apple has been very quiet about the missing 17" MBP. They may very well be working on something to replace it. Apple has not said that it is gone forever.

Don't mis understand me I'm not at all happy with the current rMBP as it gives up to much in the way of secondary storage space and has strived for thinnest in a Pro laptop which isn't exactly why Pros choose laptops. It is also frustrating in the fact that Apple already has thin laptops available in the AIR line up. The thing is I don't sit here expecting Apple to build a laptop to support my personal desires.
post #132 of 199
Pricing is a huge issue with Apple. Nobody knows what the retina screens retail for so I can't say what the price should be on an Apple laptop based on component value. What we do know is that Apple has thick margins on what is mature technology. Just the fact that Mac OS runs in the hardware justifies some of that margin, but that might amount to $50 a machine over the rest of the industry. Anything beyond that starts to look like greed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I think $4k is an obscene price to pay for a laptop. As it is the high-end 15" retina at $2,799 is too much.
Yep, way to much. Contrary to public opinion that rMBP doesn't contain technology that much more advanced than the rest of the industry uses. Even if those retina screens cost Apple $500 a piece the $2800 mark is still way to high for a 15" laptop.
Quote:
To me the 17" retina if it existed should be no more than $3k, have 768 GB flash minimum with an option for 1 TB, 32 GB of RAM, and 2 GB of the 680MX.
What should have happened is that the retina machine came in at exactly the same price as the traditional 15" MBP and the traditional 15" MBP taking up a position at a significantly lower price point.
Quote:
I mean if we're going to throw things out there, let's set a realistic price.

Pricing most likely has stunted the 17" MBP sales potential in the same way pricing has killed the Mac Pro. Both of these machines suffer from rip off pricing structures that are not justified based in hardware costs. Interestingly neither machine really seemed to have lead with technology introductions or unique features to justify the prices on their stickers. People see the rest of Apples product lines moving forward and tend to say ho hum when it comes to the machines do to the neglect.
post #133 of 199
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

What should have happened is that the retina machine came in at exactly the same price as the traditional 15" MBP and the traditional 15" MBP taking up a position at a significantly lower price point.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
post #134 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

To me the 17" retina if it existed should be no more than $3k, have 768 GB flash minimum with an option for 1 TB, 32 GB of RAM, and 2 GB of the 680MX.

I mean if we're going to throw things out there, let's set a realistic price.

You need a realistic spec too. The 680MX has a 122W TDP. The 18" Alienware has more than a 245W potential load. You even get a 330W adaptor for it. An adaptor of that power looks like this:



Apple's PSUs are about 85W tops. If you don't have a power brick of the above size, then it wouldn't be powerful enough to run the laptop. The Alienware also comes with a 96Wh battery, pretty much the same as Apple's 95Wh Retina Macbook Pro (and the 17" MBP). With a heavy load, the Alienware would drain in under an hour, possibly half an hour.

You really have to keep the spec within the 85W limit of the power supply and Apple's current spec just slightly exceeds it already. The i7 and 650M have 45W TDPs each so can draw 90W on full load plus the screen and powered ports.

It's not likely that the performance spec of the 17" would exceed the 15", which has been the case in the past.
post #135 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
 What sort of iparrogance gets on line to demand that Apple produce a laptop specifically to support their needs?
 

This comment really made me laugh.  A customer who spends many thousands of dollars on his work tools to make a living has every right to express their desires to the company

he PAYS and who PROFIT from his trade. BTW their are MANY in my field who feel the same way. This is business 101. I find it utterly bizarre that this disturbs you.

post #136 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

 What sort of iparrogance gets on line to demand that Apple produce a laptop specifically to support their needs?
This comment really made me laugh.  A customer who spends many thousands of dollars on his work tools to make a living has every right to express their desires to the company
he PAYS and who PROFIT from his trade.

You know roughly how many units sell and the related profit and you suggested that it shouldn't matter that they make so little profit because it's not about bean counting. Then when asked about why they should make one, you say it should be because of the profit.

You'd have to make the assumption that no 17" MBP owner would migrate to a 15" and so it's lost business. This isn't the case as you've noted - some people don't want to switch to Windows so the only options are to wait and see if it comes back or move to a 15". A few people on the forum moved to 15" models already and found no difference.
post #137 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


You know roughly how many units sell and the related profit and you suggested that it shouldn't matter that they make so little profit because it's not about bean counting. Then when asked about why they should make one, you say it should be because of the profit.

You'd have to make the assumption that no 17" MBP owner would migrate to a 15" and so it's lost business. This isn't the case as you've noted - some people don't want to switch to Windows so the only options are to wait and see if it comes back or move to a 15". A few people on the forum moved to 15" models already and found no difference.


Part of that is that the idevices have been greatly octpaced Macs in terms of growth and overall sales. Seeing as you used a figure of $53 million, that would have been huge during the era where they made only Macs. At the moment I'm now curious what other guys working with Protools are planning for their next replacement machines. To me that is often a more productive point of discussion. It's a greater point of contention when it comes to Apple as it's a much greater change than switching between two oem builds, although in most cases once you're working within a specific piece of software, it's 90% the same. I haven't used protools so I can't comment on that one specifically. Personally I liked the 17". I'm used to a 24" display, so really the closer to that the better. if you ever have to use a graphics tablet for anything, you start to end up with too much wasted screen space past 24" as even the large tablets would be uncomfortable mapped out that far. I also know a couple people who migrated from 17" macbook pros to 15" rmbps. If Apple came out with a 17" IPS version with similar design, they probably would have purchased that.

post #138 of 199
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Apple's PSUs are about 85W tops. If you don't have a power brick of the above size, then it wouldn't be powerful enough to run the laptop. The Alienware also comes with a 96Wh battery, pretty much the same as Apple's 95Wh Retina Macbook Pro (and the 17" MBP). With a heavy load, the Alienware would drain in under an hour, possibly half an hour.

You really have to keep the spec within the 85W limit of the power supply and Apple's current spec just slightly exceeds it already. The i7 and 650M have 45W TDPs each so can draw 90W on full load plus the screen and powered ports.

It's not likely that the performance spec of the 17" would exceed the 15", which has been the case in the past.

Ouch, so much for that. Well whatever the best graphics card that can fit in a specific computer is, please max out the memory. It's the least one can ask for. Right?
post #139 of 199
I work in an industry where you do have the option of buying custom made tools for the job or of the shelf units. Of the shelf hardware is cheaper by a large margin at times multiple magnitudes cheaper. Sometimes it is justified. In any event if you think a 17' laptop is so damn important to you then have someone go out and build one to your specs.

Now if you are not willing to pay for it don't come whining here. As configured, not enough people where apparently buying the 17" laptop so Apple dropped it. No surprise there, companies drop losing products all the time, that is in fact business 101, you can't make bread on stale products that don't sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

This comment really made me laugh.  A customer who spends many thousands of dollars on his work tools to make a living has every right to express their desires to the company
he PAYS and who PROFIT from his trade. BTW their are MANY in my field who feel the same way.
Maybe! I suspect that people just don't want to suffer your personality and agree in the hopes that you will go away.
Quote:
This is business 101. I find it utterly bizarre that this disturbs you.

What Apple is doing is business 101, would you expect Chevy or Ford to continue to produce a money losing product just because you wanted it? You really have to get over the idea that the world revolves around you, it doesn't. Never has really, in Apples case they need to serve the needs of their many millions of customers first. The also need to serve Apple, its share holders and its employees with profitable products that keep the company afloat.
post #140 of 199
Winer this is a fundamental design issue for every PC made, that is to fit the machine into a desired power envelope. Even a Mac Pro has a limit on its design centered on power that a standard AC outlet can reliably supply, not to mention the ability to remove that power reliably from the machine chassis.

Now a Mac Book Pro is marketed as a high performance portable computer, that mean that power use is allowed to be higher than what is possible on some other machines. The problem is laptops are expected to run on batteries from time to time and as such the have tight constraints on what those batteries can power. Mix in rather questionable design powers from Intel and you get less than ideal run times when the hardware is being ran hard.

This highlights one important fact. Power dissipation in modern electronics is not constant and can often exceed the wattage ratings stamped on a part by a large margin. Even memory can impact the power usage in a platform so it isn't always wise to max that out. In the end laptops are about trying to balance performance against power use and that is not something that will go away any time soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Ouch, so much for that. Well whatever the best graphics card that can fit in a specific computer is, please max out the memory. It's the least one can ask for. Right?

Now if we flip this over to a discussion about a beefed up Mini or an XMac we could focus a great deal of the discussion on what is proper video support. In a nut shell my biggest problem with the Mini has been terrible video support, even 2011's Mini with GPU was a joke. Maybe the 2013 Haswell Mini will address that but I'm not putting any bets on Apple doing the right thing here nor do I trust Intels leaks and suggestions of performance. Proof is in the pudding. Even here though the limit is on power in the Mini, which is one reason I support the idea of a bigger Mini or a XMac. I don't want to go after 130 what processors in either of these machines but lets be honest the Mini severely limits, based on power dissipation what can realistically be built into a Mini today.

Now all of our hand wringing may be addressed in the near future by process shrinks that lower power and double what is possible on a chip. This is the one caveat that limits the possibility of new hardware formats from Apple, a Mini like machine will be pretty impressive with 14nm processors, 3D memory and other shrinking components.
post #141 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Seeing as you used a figure of $53 million, that would have been huge during the era where they made only Macs.

It was $47m but the rest of the models make up $2-3b. They sell 5 million Macs per quarter with ~40-50% being the MBP.

The bottom line is, if it was profitable enough, they wouldn't have dropped it. The people who work at Apple know what they're doing as far as turning a profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

At the moment I'm now curious what other guys working with Protools are planning for their next replacement machines.

In terms of raw performance, it probably doesn't matter much these days:



Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Personally I liked the 17". I'm used to a 24" display, so really the closer to that the better.

You mean closer like plugging in a 24"? That's pretty close. That's why they have display outputs on them.
post #142 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


It was $47m but the rest of the models make up $2-3b. They sell 5 million Macs per quarter with ~40-50% being the MBP.

The bottom line is, if it was profitable enough, they wouldn't have dropped it. The people who work at Apple know what they're doing as far as turning a profit.
 

Notice that I said prior to the days of the idevices. Macs have obviously grown too. Even with the percentages, the number of imacs  today likely dwarfs the total macs sold 10 years ago. I can't find the graph I was looking for, but I did find an old AI article. The presence or absence of a 17" macbook pro doesn't mean much to me personally. In this case I just wanted to comment and mention that screen size may be a critical point for some.

Quote:

 

 

In terms of raw performance, it probably doesn't matter much these days:

That video is cool, but I don't know enough on the subject to get context out of it.

 

 

I would add that the Air is quite capable. I think one of the biggest restrictions for some time was the 4GB ram limit.

Quote:
You mean closer like plugging in a 24"? That's pretty close. That's why they have display outputs on them.

I think you know that I meant when they're away from their desks. A big reason people like notebooks is due to their being less restrictive, but I've also mentioned that if you have a bunch of other peripherals, it can get somewhat restrictive anyway.

post #143 of 199

Apple made money on every single 17" macbook pro they ever made.

post #144 of 199

I had respect for the 17 inch Macbook.

 

It looked very alluring.

 

But I eventually went iMac rather than waiting for Apple to show any motivation for the Mac Pro re: prices, updates, gpus....etc.

 

If you want value AND performance, you buy an iMac or a Macbook Pro.  But it still won't come cheap.  That's Apple.  You'll pay way over £1000 for getting in.

 

I guess they canned teh 17  inch Macbook because of sales?

 

If so...I guess the Mac Pro must look vulnerable.  Seeing as Apple are selling far more laptops than desktops.

 

The 17 inch 'book' looked imposing for laptop.  It was mighty fine.  

 

I tend to think of laptops as next generation 'desktops' as many people I know use them on tables and rarely use them on their laps at all.

 

And to me, that's what they are.  Slim-line desktops AIOs.  The iMac is a bigger slim-line desktop AIO.

 

You get the value of the screen in with decent performance...

 

...portability and elegance.

 

The pro and mini are clunky by comparison and offer far less value.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #145 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

Apple made money on every single 17" macbook pro they ever made.

I bet they made more money on it then they did the Cube.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #146 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

I bet they made more money on it then they did the Cube.

Lemon Bon Bon.
This would result in an interesting discussion. The first question you have to ask is how much does it cost Apple to engineer a new model rev. I wouldn't be surprised if it hit several million dollars. Just paying for the salaries of the engineering teams would cost a small fortune. This due the suspicion that lead developers at Apple make well over $100,000 a year plus the overhead for each person. So maybe a half million in salaries would have to be allocated for the 17" rev. Throw a lot of other expenses on top of all of that for R&D and contractor activities and you easily exceed a million dollars.

So the question is how many 17" MBPs do you sell to cover the expense of a new rev to the machine? Lets say the profit $1200 dollars on a $3000 dollar machine, that may be a little high, so if the engineering cost is $3,000,000 then they need to sell $2500 machines to cover engineering costs. If the profit is $500 they may need to sell 6.000 machines.

Mind you I'm only talking about the cost of engineering here and the profit over the cost to have each machine built. Once you add in marketing and all the other overhead costs it gets pretty ugly. They could easily be put into a position of having to sell 50,000 a year to start to make a profit. I really doubt they have been selling that well. Why? Pretty simple you don't see that many 17" machines around. You will see AIRs and MBP of a lesser size by the hundreds before you see a 17" MBP.

So yeah they may have made some money on the machine but I bet it was very hard for them to justify the engineering effort at this time. In a way it is sad because with the advent of the retina MBP the 17" could have been reengineered into something that filled a niche left with the retinas shrinking capacity. Specifically the 17" machine would have been the perfect p,ace to implement a Fusion type drive in a laptop. Apple really had a lack of vision here as the one shortcoming Apples laptops have is bulk storage.

In any event the way Apple has handled the 17" MBP has me wondering if it is really dead and gone. Carrying around a 17" machine has all the utility of carrying around a sheet of plywood yet I can still see people leveraging a machine of this size. If the demand is really there, that is people are bitching at Apple instead of on these forums, we might see the 17" come back.
post #147 of 199

I'm writing this on my 2009 unibody anti-glare 17-inch MacBook Pro that I received exactly 4 years ago.  I don't find it a hinderance to carry around & at the time I bought it there were plenty of smaller 15-inch laptops from all of the other manufacturers that were heavier than this one is.  I tote it with me every day to work.  There have only been a handful of times I can recall thinking maybe I should down size. I'm now forced to go smaller if I want a faster, new laptop from Apple. It's not a deal breaker by any means but I really like this size.  If Apple brought the 17-inch MacBook Pro back I would get another one.  I hope they do, but realistically that's probably not going to happen.

You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #148 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHagan4755 View Post

If Apple brought the 17-inch MacBook Pro back I would get another one.  I hope they do, but realistically that's probably not going to happen.

It depends really. There were technical limitations that made it not such a good idea too. The native resolution on the 17" was 1920 x 1200. If this was made Retina, it would require a 3840 x 2400 render resolution, which the original HD 4000 drivers couldn't handle (they got updated in Windows later). While the Macbook Pros have discrete GPUs, they all switch down to Intel IGPs to save power. One of Haswell's marketing tags is being able to support 4K resolution.

I suppose they could have used the same resolution as the 15" but 1920 x 1200 wouldn't be the optimal mode. That's another thing that the 15" Retina model added - the 1920x1200 resolution so it has the same desktop space as the old 17".

There's also the yield to think about. The possibility for dead pixels on such a high res display is quite high. It would also start at $3099 if not higher. Combine all that with the low audience and it didn't make sense.

At this revision, the IGP will handle the high resolution, the dedicated GPU will get a speed boost too, they seem to have sorted production issues with the current laptops ok and there will potentially be a price drop to eliminate the old model, leaving a gap at the top. With the new slimmer, lighter design there's more reason than ever to make one but only they can decide if the volume of sales justifies it. Now that the 15" handles the higher screen resolution, there's not much to separate the 17" from it besides being physically bigger.
post #149 of 199

I wouldn't mind the same form factor, IPS display at 1920 x 1200.  They could even do the same screen bonding as on the retinas. But instead they just gave up on the 17-inch model.

You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #150 of 199
Originally Posted by DHagan4755 View Post
But instead they just gave up on the 17-inch model.

 

It was the other way around.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #151 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It was the other way around.

You have been hard to follow lately, what does this mean. Apple gave up on the 17" MBP just like they gave up on the Mac Pro and Mini. The only difference is that they canned the 17" MBP while the Mac Pro was put into hibernation.

Frankly I'm not convinced that we will never see anoth 17" MBP, but to be successful Apple has to do more than plug in a bigger screen to what amounts to the same old hardware. I still think something like a big fat Fusion type drive would set a 17" MBP apart enough to drive sales. At least in my case I don't get worked up over screen size as much as I do on board storage. One problem Apple has is that they can't seem to come up with feature sets that really distinguish one model from another. Retina is really the only thing they have really used hardware wise to set those models apart for the rest. Skinny SSDs don't cipurrent the mustard and frankly are quickly becoming mandatory technology on all platforms.
post #152 of 199
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
Apple gave up on the 17" MBP just like they gave up on the Mac Pro and Mini.

 

Right, in that they didn't do that in any respect. Exactly.


One problem Apple has is that they can't seem to come up with feature sets that really distinguish one model from another.

 

That's a problem? That's their point. Think of them as different sizes of the same model.


Skinny SSDs don't cipurrent the mustard and frankly are quickly becoming mandatory technology on all platforms.

 

Is there a single PC that uses stick-based SSD over 2.5" form factor?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #153 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Apple gave up on the 17" MBP just like they gave up on the Mac Pro and Mini.

Buyers gave up on it, Apple is just acknowledging that by stopping selling it. Apple has no reason to sell products that people aren't buying and they have no reason to discontinue products that are in high demand. I know you like to take the point of view that they should do everything possible to make products sell but they have limits to what they are prepared to offer at a certain price point and probably have minimum volume targets.

They haven't given up on the Mini at all. It's a great entry level machine. It's not a high-end desktop to replace a $2400 iMac for $800 but it's not supposed to be for that very reason.
post #154 of 199
Thread Starter 
What I wonder is whether there will be as much fanfare on the Rev. B edition of the retina MacBook Pro as there was when it was introduced. Certainly the discrete graphics won't be too much of an improvement until next year with nVidia's Maxwell series.

I still am going to lock horns with Marvin (I believe it was him) on the idea of a 15" rMBP with just integrated graphics. The cost needs to go down and the graphics are not ready no matter what Intel claims.

I stand by my opinion of less is more. Two 13" rMBP models and two 15" rMBP models. The 13" stay with integrated and the 15" have integrated/discrete.

Also I am against the idea of a retina MacBook Air, however I would absolutely love to possibly see a $999 13" retina MacBook Pro at some point.
post #155 of 199

Mini is a decent computer and hopefully Apple will make it even better soon. Put in a SSD and more memory perhaps.
 

post #156 of 199
Thread Starter 
That's more for the other thread. : P

If it stays the way it is, memory isn't an issue since even with DDR3 memory prices going up, it will still be cheaper to upgrade yourself vs. upgrading with Apple.

The SSD just needs to have a 512 GB option perhaps at $400 and drop the 256 GB option to $200 from $300.
post #157 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

If it stays the way it is, memory isn't an issue since even with DDR3 memory prices going up, it will still be cheaper to upgrade yourself vs. upgrading with Apple.
 

The mini doesn't seem very diy upgrade friendly in terms of ram and SSDs. I've never tried it, but I've read about many people breaking things. The ifixit photos don't make it look terribly difficult, but at the same time I've never read of such problems with other models from Apple or any other oem.

post #158 of 199
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

The mini doesn't seem very diy upgrade friendly in terms of ram and SSDs. I've never tried it, but I've read about many people breaking things. The ifixit photos don't make it look terribly difficult, but at the same time I've never read of such problems with other models from Apple or any other oem.

The mini is easy as hell to upgrade the memory on, those who broke the clips were careless. Don't get me wrong, you have to be careful with the clips though if you follow the OWC video, you should be fine.

The SSD I feel is another matter but the only reason I didn't pay Apple's price in 2011 is because they were charging $600 for a 256 GB SSD and a year later they cut that price in half.
post #159 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


The mini is easy as hell to upgrade the memory on, those who broke the clips were careless. Don't get me wrong, you have to be careful with the clips though if you follow the OWC video, you should be fine.

The SSD I feel is another matter but the only reason I didn't pay Apple's price in 2011 is because they were charging $600 for a 256 GB SSD and a year later they cut that price in half.


My comments were speculative. I haven't watched OWC's videos, but I've looked through the ifixit teardowns. I'm personally pretty thorough with these things. I have labels for everything and place screws on double sided tape with notes. It could be something like "bottom case T6". Other oems have gone the toolless access route with some computer lines, but that doesn't always lead to the best possible construction (not that fragile clips are that great either).

 

Also you can get a Samsung 840 512GB ssd as low as $450 or so. It's much different than it was. They're cheap enough to replace things like small raided scratch disk systems with single ssds, assuming they can take the wear and tear of that many GB.

post #160 of 199

KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo (who's been very accurate with Apple's product roadmap plans in the past) claims that there is going to be a new design retina MacBook Pro this year & that everything's going retina in the MacBook Pro range.  I'm not sure I buy this  Given his track record he may just be right...again.  I've been wondering what exactly qualifies as a new design.  Clearly, Jony Ives considered the retina a new design even though it was size reduction of the previous model.  I would consider a new design made out of an entirely different material.  It should be interesting regardless.  Apple's been pretty quiet lately on the hardware front.

You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
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