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 3

post #81 of 199
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Now that they have the manufacturing line setup for Retina displays, they shouldn't have the same problems they did before and they have no reason to change the design again.

Who is making them now?
post #82 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Now that they have the manufacturing line setup for Retina displays, they shouldn't have the same problems they did before and they have no reason to change the design again.

Who is making them now?

I'd expect the same suppliers but this is obviously a fairly new process for all of them.
post #83 of 199

I'm curious how much of the market thinks like that, but I noticed the people upgrading 1,1s listed in there. Many may not be original owners, but regardless they really aren't a substantial market factor.

 

Quote:
You know what the problem is. When you hold onto hardware for 6 years, the resale value is gone so it's a much better option to upgrade components than to buy new.

I have told people before to treat computers as sunken costs. If they're too concerned with residual value, it's likely that they spent too much initially. Considering the number of 1,1s, some of those could also be secondary owners who don't really drive sales anyway.

 

 

Quote:
That doesn't explain the desire to upgrade.

I think many of those upgrading really don't know what they need. In the case of the 4,1s, they probably do so due to price. Intel launched the W3680 at $1000. The 5,1 was over $4000 by the time you added ram, tax, etc. Let's say they bought a 4,1 in 2009 and regularly upgraded every 2-3 years. Most of these guys were probably upgrading from 1,1s aside from new customers. It's unlikely that most of them would go for a 2010 model the following year as it was basically a revision B. They dropped in new cpus and gpus. Nothing else changed. Like the other vendors the sub $3000 segment retained the same cpus they used the prior year, so unless they both went for the upgrade and increased their budget, there wasn't anything of significance. Given the Sandy Bridge E delay and price drops from intel that didn't really filter down through most of the oems to the customer level, is it really that surprising that they made simple upgrades there as stopgap measures?

 

In terms of actual sales, it is a matter of how many people would buy an updated version this year or next year. Anyway I've stated before that the market for workstations will hold longer regardless of whether Apple makes one. It's not likely to drive their growth either way, but it is somewhat healthier than the low end of the PC market. Sometimes you get a bit hyperbolic with your assertions.

 

There's little chance that the people upgrading 1,1s are ever going to be purchasing 12 core models. If they started with the dualcore 2.66 models, they spent $2500 + whatever on memory at the time. The fbdimms were quite expensive at the time, but not all of them will be looking at much higher pricing tiers. If anything the past few years, I've considered the lower mac pros models to represent poor value unless you're locked in. I've never suggested Apple would be doomed without the mac pro. Really that kind of market should be more interesting for smaller companies.

 

Quote:
It depends on what technology comes along:

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-qubit-bodes-future-quantum.html
 

Articles and speculation on quantum computing theory go back many years. Considering your wealth of links (not sure how you find so many) you probably already know this. I find them more interesting when they're close to being something that could be implemented in the near future. Right now gpu technologies interest me more than anything due to the way they can handle parallel processes.

 

Quote:

 

 

The CUDA revolution started with just a single research project:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ian-buck-nvidia,2393.html

I didn't know about that. I noticed it details some of the features in CUDA relative to OpenCL. I like some of the questions asked there, like the one below. What is interesting to me is that certain things that would have lagged on the 2009 era 8 cores can be driven by some of these gpu technologies when implemented. In a couple areas it's really interesting if you deal with a lot of still image and video data in raw formats. It allows you to apply quite a bit more adjustment without baking things like gamma and debayering. Of course it's software dependent, but I can see a lot of this stuff emerging.

 

Quote:
With OpenCL, you gain the advantage of cross-platform support, but lose automated tools, such as memory management, that are found with CUDA. It seems that as a scientist, you'd want to decrease your startup development costs, but at the same time, you'd want support for multiple platforms. What's the best way to reconcile this challenge?

 

 

 

Quote:
The smaller form factors will keep eroding away the large ones, especially the more that GPU computing takes hold:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphics/display/20130412175120_Nvidia_Next_Generation_Maxwell_Architecture_Will_Break_New_Grounds.html

I never disagreed with that, although I wonder how aggressively Apple will move to IGPs only. They often move 1-2 cycles  earlier than technology is really ready figuring that whatever people need more will just upgrade the following cycle as it's not possible to expect everyone will upgrade annually. 3 years is probably a typical assessment. Many oems set up their available warranties to go as far as 3 years out including Apple.

 

 

Quote:
Servers will always exist but they don't use the tower form factor.

I'm not as hung up on form factors as you seem to think. I don't know why this comes up again and again. When I refer to a tower, it's what is there today. There are certain features I like such as independent keyboards as they allow more freedom in terms of placement. I have certain preferences in terms of displays and peripheral devices, but sometimes it's just a matter of flexibility.

post #84 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I'd expect the same suppliers but this is obviously a fairly new process for all of them.


Missed this one. I suspect you'll eventually see some kind of reference implementation, which will make them cheaper. 1080 is not uncommon today. You even find it on 13" models. I personally placed far more value in the improvements in viewing angles and the reduced color temperature. The high res 15" models measured roughly 8000K whites for me. The rMBP is more like D65. The stock models were a bit low in resolution for my taste, but the high res ones were good. Of course we all have different priorities. I just hated the super cool whites and weird screen gamma.

post #85 of 199

I am not an Apple worshipping corporatist. In my world, the customer is always right. Apple sold hundreds of thousands of 17 inch MBPs the last year they were available so there is demand. Fail to satisfy a market segment long enough and it will ALWAYS find an alternative. Apple can easily afford to service these customers so why lose them? Good enough for most people is a dismal philosophy. Successful companies don't cede market segments. They fight for the whole pie. Their stock has taken a ferocious beating this year so no one is immune to failure.

post #86 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I'm curious how much of the market thinks like that.

I have told people before to treat computers as sunken costs. If they're too concerned with residual value, it's likely that they spent too much initially. Considering the number of 1,1s, some of those could also be secondary owners who don't really drive sales anyway.

I don't think anyone would consider a computer to be an item to eventually throw away. Some of the MP1,1 owners tried to sell it and couldn't so that led them to upgrade the parts, which suggests they were the original owners. Here's another original owner wondering why his machine won't run Mountain Lion:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4879441?start=0&tstart=0

"I can't just throw my Mac Pro in garbage because I can't upgrade. Why do I have to upgrade? Well, Sibelius 7 works only in Mountain Lion, and soon, many other software will.

What do I have to change in my mac pro to make it compatible for upgrading to the latest version of mac OS?

I think Apple should be proud to help 7 year old expensive computers, and not just tell you "buy a new one, your computer is old". I guess that's how they can make more money"

This just seems to be the recurring theme of the Mac Pro owner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Given the Sandy Bridge E delay and price drops from intel that didn't really filter down through most of the oems to the customer level, is it really that surprising that they made simple upgrades there as stopgap measures?

But they're upgrading to chips that are slower or the same as new machines that are available.

The Westmere 3.33GHz MP (2012) costs $2999. This is the same chips used in the upgrade thread:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156913/my-new-mac-pro-a-2009-with-a-intel-xeon-westmere-3-33-6-cores

So, after having a computer for 4 years, rather than sell it for $1000 and pay $2000 to upgrade, the choice is to pay $610 and get some thermal paste to do the upgrade or worst case, consider a $1500 upgrade from OWC. Anything to save paying Apple the full amount. I don't blame people for wanting to save $500-1400 but these people can't be described as big spenders or loyal to Apple.

The reason Apple charges so much is because people aren't buying from them often enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

the market for workstations will hold longer regardless of whether Apple makes one. it is somewhat healthier than the low end of the PC market.

I don't believe this is the case. You've seen the sales figures for the workstation market. By 2015 they'll have the equivalent of a GTX 680 in a MBP and easily double the performance of the CPU, which is currently at 8-core 2009 MP level and they'll have DDR4 memory supporting up to 32GB. 512GB SSDs will be very affordable. More and more people will migrate down to nicer form factors and more affordable hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I wonder how aggressively Apple will move to IGPs only.

I think they'll use Haswell's IGP in more machines. Even the entry iMac can get away with it, although it would have to be the GT3 version. I'd like to see them get rid of the 21.5" and bring out a 27" for $1299.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

There are certain features I like such as independent keyboards as they allow more freedom in terms of placement. I have certain preferences in terms of displays and peripheral devices, but sometimes it's just a matter of flexibility.

You can get a laptop or iMac and have all of these things. You can even buy a Mac Pro enclosure, shut the MBP and sit it inside it and just pretend you have a 2009 8-core Mac Pro when people come over. They might wonder how you got SATA 6G and USB 3 but you can say you have PCI cards for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long 
Apple can easily afford to service these customers so why lose them? Good enough for most people is a dismal philosophy. Successful companies don't cede market segments.

It's unlikely they'll lose all of the 17" customers. It's the same deal with the glossy/matte MBP. Steve Jobs mentioned that most people were buying glossy models so they dropped the matte versions. The Retina display makes it pretty much a non-issue now. 17" MBP owners have the option to buy a much larger external display - you even get USB-powered 20"+ displays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long 
Their stock has taken a ferocious beating this year so no one is immune to failure.

That isn't because of how they're doing though. That's because of how people think they are doing. They are still making record sales every quarter and are still the most profitable company in the world. You're right that no one is immune to failure but the number 1 company in the world is the last company to be concerned about.
post #87 of 199
Thread Starter 
Or maybe have a single 24" iMac and 2 27" iMacs?

I still don't want integrated graphics in the iMac. I want the best possible stuff Apple can put in for the price they choose to have not "what is good enough for the masses."

To use a sports analogy, I want me a Joe Montana in my Mac and not a Steve Young even though a Steve Young is good enough.
post #88 of 199

I disagree. Top of the line halo products have a benefit that goes beyond that market segment of audio visual professionals, something Steve Jobs understood. He always wanted to be at the top, without excuses or rationalizations,or telling customers to buy something they really weren't excited about and just make due.

post #89 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

I disagree. Top of the line halo products have a benefit that goes beyond that market segment of audio visual professionals, something Steve Jobs understood.

You know what else he understood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-rnWNZxKu8&feature=player_detailpage#t=26s

Even way back in 2007 they said that 2/3 of their lineup sales were notebooks and at that point, the PC industry was at 40% notebooks.

In terms of 'halo products', that gets mentioned a few times and the analogy is to sports cars but it doesn't hold up. People don't aspire to own a 17" laptop or a Mac Pro. They are cumbersome and unattractive form factors. The 17" MBP didn't perform any better than the 15" so its appeal was purely down to screen size. The entry Mac Pros don't perform much better than the iMac and by the time you hit the ones that do at $3000-4000, they are too expensive.

Apple's halo products are the ones that people admire the most and those are the iPhone and iPad.
post #90 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


It's unlikely they'll lose all of the 17" customers. It's the same deal with the glossy/matte MBP. Steve Jobs mentioned that most people were buying glossy models so they dropped the matte versions. The Retina display makes it pretty much a non-issue now. 17" MBP owners have the option to buy a much larger external display - you even get USB-powered 20"+ displays.
That isn't because of how they're doing though. That's because of how people think they are doing. They are still making record sales every quarter and are still the most profitable company in the world. You're right that no one is immune to failure but the number 1 company in the world is the last company to be concerned about.

 

Jobs said a lot of things. He was a salesman, so it was to be expected.

 

Quote:

 

I don't believe this is the case. You've seen the sales figures for the workstation market. By 2015 they'll have the equivalent of a GTX 680 in a MBP and easily double the performance of the CPU, which is currently at 8-core 2009 MP level and they'll have DDR4 memory supporting up to 32GB. 512GB SSDs will be very affordable. More and more people will migrate down to nicer form factors and more affordable hardware.

Well technically you can get 32GB into a notebook today. Thinkpads seem to be popular for that. The main reason seems to be for multiple VMs. Your numbers are quite aggressive though if you're comparing them to current specs. Haswell is supposed to be around a 15% cpu boost. Will broadwell make up the rest? Also 2014 would be a secondary revision of Maxwell. Have they projected something similar in tdp to the 650m today will match a GTX 680 within 2 years? I've read the links on that one, and that is a pretty bold prediction.

 

Quote:

 

You can get a laptop or iMac and have all of these things. You can even buy a Mac Pro enclosure, shut the MBP and sit it inside it and just pretend you have a 2009 8-core Mac Pro when people come over. They might wonder how you got SATA 6G and USB 3 but you can say you have PCI cards for that.

That comment of mine wasn't specific to the mac pro.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


In terms of 'halo products', that gets mentioned a few times and the analogy is to sports cars but it doesn't hold up. People don't aspire to own a 17" laptop or a Mac Pro. They are cumbersome and unattractive form factors. The 17" MBP didn't perform any better than the 15" so its appeal was purely down to screen size. The entry Mac Pros don't perform much better than the iMac and by the time you hit the ones that do at $3000-4000, they are too expensive.

Apple's halo products are the ones that people admire the most and those are the iPhone and iPad.

Would you really buy a porsche if the dealer wouldn't sell it to you with pirelli tires? I too grow tired of endless car analogies. The last funny one was an exhaust pipe joke from Futurama.

post #91 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Jobs said a lot of things. He was a salesman, so it was to be expected.

I wouldn't say that's an apt description. There was an element of that but a salesman is solely there to sell you something with a value lower than you are expected to pay. Steve Jobs rationalised the product choices and there's a very important design process behind that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Your numbers are quite aggressive though if you're comparing them to current specs. Haswell is supposed to be around a 15% cpu boost. Will broadwell make up the rest? Also 2014 would be a secondary revision of Maxwell. Have they projected something similar in tdp to the 650m today will match a GTX 680 within 2 years? I've read the links on that one, and that is a pretty bold prediction.

I don't expect Intel to stick to 15% year on year with their CPUs but I guess that will depend on how much they focus on the IGP. Say that they go 1.15 (2013), 1.30 (2014), 1.30 (2015), then it's about double by 2015. NVidia claims 75% increase this year but I'd say it's closer to 30% for the refresh. To match the 680, it would need something between a 3x-7x speedup, depending on what's being measured. They plan to more than double Kepler with Maxwell so if they hit 50% at the Maxwell refresh, that at least gets to the lower end of the requirement to match a 680 in 2015 and they definitely will by 2016 with Volta.

It is a bit optimistic but it's reasonable to suggest that laptops will be in that class of performance by that time.
post #92 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I don't expect Intel to stick to 15% year on year with their CPUs but I guess that will depend on how much they focus on the IGP. Say that they go 1.15 (2013), 1.30 (2014), 1.30 (2015), then it's about double by 2015. NVidia claims 75% increase this year but I'd say it's closer to 30% for the refresh. To match the 680, it would need something between a 3x-7x speedup, depending on what's being measured. They plan to more than double Kepler with Maxwell so if they hit 50% at the Maxwell refresh, that at least gets to the lower end of the requirement to match a 680 in 2015 and they definitely will by 2016 with Volta.

It is a bit optimistic but it's reasonable to suggest that laptops will be in that class of performance by that time.

In terms of mainstream components, their focus appears to be on IGPs and power management. I can't find any truly interesting tech articles on the subject. The numbers claimed are once again pretty far out there, but none of the tech sites are very clear on sources. Personally I think by the time mobile graphics make it as far as you're suggesting, Apple will be in the process of pulling discrete graphics from more notebooks. As I've said they often do things just before a big change. Most people don't upgrade annually, so many will wait for the following year if the initial version is disappointing. The 27" imac is the only one where I'm totally sure discrete graphics will be around a while longer. It's supposed popularity suggests that it's being used by those with higher performance requirements. Other than that I don't see a terribly bright future for consumer desktops. I mentioned that I think things like ergonomics tend to be better, but when was the last time you saw anyone in their 20s that owned computer furniture? They have their notebook set down wherever and just look their phone much of the time (speaking partly from experience, I'm not that much older).

post #93 of 199
What makes you think that they sold that many 17" laptops? I ask because they are seldom seen out in the wild.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

I am not an Apple worshipping corporatist. In my world, the customer is always right. Apple sold hundreds of thousands of 17 inch MBPs the last year they were available so there is demand. Fail to satisfy a market segment long enough and it will ALWAYS find an alternative. Apple can easily afford to service these customers so why lose them? Good enough for most people is a dismal philosophy. Successful companies don't cede market segments. They fight for the whole pie. Their stock has taken a ferocious beating this year so no one is immune to failure.
post #94 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Or maybe have a single 24" iMac and 2 27" iMacs?

I still don't want integrated graphics in the iMac.
I thought you wanted a Mini?
Quote:
I want the best possible stuff Apple can put in for the price they choose to have not "what is good enough for the masses."
At some point having an external GPU will be a bit of technology saved for extreme cases. There is nothing extreme about the markets the iMac services. Now if you re talking about the subject of this thread, the Mac Book Pro, the discussion gets even more interesting.

Apple still needs to make strides in power savings and at the same time increase performance significantly. Again we come back to what is more important , ultimate performance or simply an incremental improvement over todays hardware? If the next rev of the MBP came with a Intel chip that bested todays combo of an integrated chip and an external chip would you really object to such an APU based machine? Especially in the intro model.
Quote:
To use a sports analogy, I want me a Joe Montana in my Mac and not a Steve Young even though a Steve Young is good enough.

Here is where we could easily be satisfied with a two model strategy from Apple. One motherboard with Integrated only and one with an external GPU. In the end I'm willing to bet the vast majority of sales will go to the integrated MBP, especially if that allows them to widen the price differential between the entry level machine and the top of the line machine.

This doesn't even get into the discussion of heterogeneous computing as hardware slowly moves to support that type of functionality widely. The reality is in the not to near future a discrete GPU might actually end up being a performance negative for many users.
post #95 of 199
Thread Starter 
Maybe I want both a Mini and an iMac. : )

Having said that, I want Apple to use the best possible stuff available in general without anything sub-par.
post #96 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

What makes you think that they sold that many 17" laptops? I ask because they are seldom seen out in the wild.

It was reported as an estimate in 2011 by one of the main Apple analysts, that around 300,000 were sold that year. I find the the mentality of those who defend companies who don't satisfy customers bizarre, to say the least. I would not be a total surprise that at some point Apple will release a monster notebook because the pent up demand will warrant it.

post #97 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

It was reported as an estimate in 2011 by one of the main Apple analysts, that around 300,000 were sold that year. I find the the mentality of those who defend companies who don't satisfy customers bizarre, to say the least. I would not be a total surprise that at some point Apple will release a monster notebook because the pent up demand will warrant it.

I really doubt those numbers. For one thing you would walk into the local Apple store and have a hard time even finding the 17" MBP. That is a sign right there of limited demand.

As to defending Apple that isn't my intention, the fact is you cant satisfy all the people all the time. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

As to a monster notebook that might be possible. It should be noted that Apple hasn't really commented much on the 17" MBP going missing, that could mean they are working on something new to replace the old model. That would still be a surprise though as I just don't believe the demand was as strong as you have indicated. I've seen a bit of a trend away form really large notebook PC's at work as people simply don't want to lug around all that mass.
post #98 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Maybe I want both a Mini and an iMac. : )

Having said that, I want Apple to use the best possible stuff available in general without anything sub-par.

Then they would never have a range of products to draw in a breath of customers. To survive as a company Apple needs to provide real choice from which all of the possible customers can choose from.
post #99 of 199
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Then they would never have a range of products to draw in a breath of customers. To survive as a company Apple needs to provide real choice from which all of the possible customers can choose from.

What I am simply saying is allow the best for the money. For example, I thought putting a 650M with just 1 GB of video memory into the 15" rMBP wasn't good enough. I thought they should have went for 2 GB.

If they can put a faster quad-core processor into a computer even by a few hundred megahertz, put it in over a slower one.
post #100 of 199
Some wold argue that what is best for the money would be something other than Apple hardware. Others would say some of that money goes to better build quality in Apples hardware. In the end it really comes down to are you willing to pay Apples margins.

My personal opinion is that Apple has the advantage of quality in both hardware and software with respect to Windows and thus people see enough value to pay Apple high prices. We will only get quad cores in Apple products like the low end Mini and AIR when it is profitable for Apple. Of course the technology has to be there too, AIRs won't get quad cores until after the GPU issues is solved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

What I am simply saying is allow the best for the money. For example, I thought putting a 650M with just 1 GB of video memory into the 15" rMBP wasn't good enough. I thought they should have went for 2 GB.

If they can put a faster quad-core processor into a computer even by a few hundred megahertz, put it in over a slower one.
post #101 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I really doubt those numbers. For one thing you would walk into the local Apple store and have a hard time even finding the 17" MBP. That is a sign right there of limited demand.

As to defending Apple that isn't my intention, the fact is you cant satisfy all the people all the time. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

As to a monster notebook that might be possible. It should be noted that Apple hasn't really commented much on the 17" MBP going missing, that could mean they are working on something new to replace the old model. That would still be a surprise though as I just don't believe the demand was as strong as you have indicated. I've seen a bit of a trend away form really large notebook PC's at work as people simply don't want to lug around all that mass.

Did you read my posts? This is about audio video pros who need a larger screen and ALL the power possible. 17" MBPs are incredibly convenient for this group. I don't even notice carrying mine, but yes if one is so feeble that a few pounds sends one to one's knees, I sympathize. Again the closest estimates for the last full year of sales for the 17" are between 200-300 thousand units. This was  about 2% of the total.

post #102 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

It was reported as an estimate in 2011 by one of the main Apple analysts, that around 300,000 were sold that year. I find the the mentality of those who defend companies who don't satisfy customers bizarre, to say the least. I would not be a total surprise that at some point Apple will release a monster notebook because the pent up demand will warrant it.

Apple was selling around 4 million Macs per quarter at that point so 300k out of ~12 million is a small amount. The 13" and 15" MBP make up about 40-50%.

When it comes to options, you might find a small group that wants an 18" laptop like the Alienware, which has an option for dual 680M GPUs. You might find a group that only likes pink laptops. Every option comes with an audience of some kind but Apple has to weigh up whether it's worth the manufacturing resources to accommodate it. If one particular option only has < 3% market volume then it's probably not worth them bothering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long 
This is about audio video pros who need a larger screen and ALL the power possible.

A 17" screen isn't a large screen though and the 17" was never significantly more powerful than the 15":

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2011/02/macbookpro-benchmarks-early-2011/

They had the same processors.
post #103 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Apple was selling around 4 million Macs per quarter at that point so 300k out of ~12 million is a small amount. The 13" and 15" MBP make up about 40-50%.

When it comes to options, you might find a small group that wants an 18" laptop like the Alienware, which has an option for dual 680M GPUs. You might find a group that only likes pink laptops. Every option comes with an audience of some kind but Apple has to weigh up whether it's worth the manufacturing resources to accommodate it. If one particular option only has < 3% market volume then it's probably not worth them bothering.
A 17" screen isn't a large screen though and the 17" was never significantly more powerful than the 15":

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2011/02/macbookpro-benchmarks-early-2011/

They had the same processors.

What business is it of yours if  a few hundred thousand power users are not happy with current offerings? This is competitive free market place. Its not mainstream but it is still worth significant revenue. Bean counter mentality is not what Apple used to be about. Analysts are already criticizing Apple for falling behind competitors that didn't exist until recently. This market segment of professional users will eventually find alternatives if Apple does not respond, and history has shown this is never good for the company. If you're happy with what's offered good for you. Many of my colleagues are not.

post #104 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

What business is it of yours if  a few hundred thousand power users are not happy with current offerings? This is competitive free market place. Its not mainstream but it is still worth significant revenue. Bean counter mentality is not what Apple used to be about. Analysts are already criticizing Apple for falling behind competitors that didn't exist until recently. This market segment of professional users will eventually find alternatives if Apple does not respond, and history has shown this is never good for the company. If you're happy with what's offered good for you. Many of my colleagues are not.


You should remember that these were estimates from an outside source. Combine this with the fact that 2011 was a big improvement for both 15" and 17" models as both of them migrated to quad cpus. Out of those numbers (still unconfirmed) some amount would be replacing those models with  rMBPs. You probably want a 17" version of that, but I suspect Apple doesn't implement too much custom work unless something sells in large (relative to Apple) numbers. The screen is still not as good as what I could purchase in a higher end desktop display 5 years ago, so either way, I'm personally anchored due to that.

post #105 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

Its not mainstream but it is still worth significant revenue.

300,000 per year = 75000 per quarter x say $2500 = $188m x 0.25 net margin = $47m net income per quarter. Apple made $13b last quarter. The potential income is not significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

Bean counter mentality is not what Apple used to be about.

Yeah that comes up a lot but like I say, you can use that statement to justify them making any product. They have to base their supply choices on demand. That's how supply and demand works - when there's demand, they supply; when there's no demand, they no supply.

I'm not suggesting people have no reason to want a 17" laptop, I'm just pointing out that Apple has no reason to make one. It doesn't matter if the most important person in the world wants a 17" laptop, they previously offered one, people didn't buy it and so they replaced it with a design that people are buying.

I think the biggest problem they had before was that they priced it at $300 more than the 15" for the same spec. $300 is too much to pay for a slightly larger display. I've never liked that they tie spec to screen size. I prefer the idea of picking the size and then choosing the spec. It should for example be possible to get a dual-core i5 with integrated graphics with a 15" display - they'd just have low/mid/high performance in each size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

Analysts are already criticizing Apple for falling behind competitors that didn't exist until recently.

Analysts are not very reliable - Apple isn't falling behind anyone yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

This market segment of professional users will eventually find alternatives if Apple does not respond

That's the only way they'll change though, is if large numbers of professional users start abandoning their products. Steve Jobs said that about the iPad - 'if we're wrong, people will stop buying them'. It doesn't always hold up but they already offered a 17" and the sales were obviously not good enough for them so they decided on a different route. If there's a price gap they want to maintain at the top, they can bring it back but if the price gap remains after they drop the prices of the rMBPs, it will be a clear indicator that it's not worth them doing.

Say that they don't ever do a 17" again, what will you do when it comes time to upgrade?
post #106 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


300,000 per year = 75000 per quarter x say $2500 = $188m x 0.25 net margin = $47m net income per quarter. Apple made $13b last quarter. The potential income is not significant.
Yeah that comes up a lot but like I say, you can use that statement to justify them making any product. They have to base their supply choices on demand. That's how supply and demand works - when there's demand, they supply; when there's no demand, they no supply.
 

I doubt their margins are that evenly distributed. At most companies the most expensive products within a given category would carry higher margins. I mean I wouldn't compare macbook pros to ipads, but within the macbook pro line, the margins are likely higher on a 17" than a 13".

 

 

Quote:
I'm not suggesting people have no reason to want a 17" laptop, I'm just pointing out that Apple has no reason to make one. It doesn't matter if the most important person in the world wants a 17" laptop, they previously offered one, people didn't buy it and so they replaced it with a design that people are buying.

I think the biggest problem they had before was that they priced it at $300 more than the 15" for the same spec. $300 is too much to pay for a slightly larger display. I've never liked that they tie spec to screen size. I prefer the idea of picking the size and then choosing the spec. It should for example be possible to get a dual-core i5 with integrated graphics with a 15" display - they'd just have low/mid/high performance in each size.

 

This is kind of the reverse of your imac argument. As you pointed out there Apple often forces you to buy one thing to access another. In terms of discrete graphics and quad core cpus, it's mainly an issue of price. The 15" rmbp is tiny to the point where I could add it to a backpack on day hikes without feeling burdened.

post #107 of 199

Find an alternative. I will NEVER buy a 15" laptop for audio work. I find your rabid defense of Apple peculiar, to say the least. BTW stock just went down to 400 from the 700s. Jobs understood halo products much better than current management. People love to go into a store and see some amazing top of the line item that most can only dream about, but others have to have. 

A company like Apple ceding the high end notebook power user will have far reaching implications, IMHO, but it's still too early to say that definitively. We'll see whose right.

post #108 of 199
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post
A company like Apple ceding the high end notebook power user…

 

Good thing they haven't.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #109 of 199

Not yet, but they are heading that way. I hope not of course. The 15 retina is cut down and light, great for students, not great for audio visual pros. The specs and size are well below whats available from other vendors. If this disparity gets too great there will be consequences.

post #110 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

Find an alternative. I will NEVER buy a 15" laptop for audio work.

Don't you mean you will never use a 15" display for audio work? You can connect a larger display to a laptop if you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

BTW stock just went down to 400 from the 700s. Jobs understood halo products much better than current management.

The stock isn't down because of the 17" MBP and Mac Pro - they make up a tiny portion of their profits. It has also been pointed out it went down even more dramatically while they still sold the 17" MBP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

People love to go into a store and see some amazing top of the line item that most can only dream about, but others have to have.

So you think people used to go into a store and think 'oh gee, I only have $2199 in my pocket, if only I could be rich and famous, I'd be able to afford an extra $300 to get the 17" laptop I really want that's exactly the same speed'? Doubtful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

A company like Apple ceding the high end notebook power user will have far reaching implications, IMHO, but it's still too early to say that definitively. We'll see whose right.

Well, it'll probably be hard for them to make up that <0.5% of lost profits but I suppose the executive team could have a whip-round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long 
The specs and size are well below whats available from other vendors.

The spec would be the same if they made a 17" version and what other vendors are well above what they have?
post #111 of 199

Your lack of understanding of marketing is colossal. What other specs do competitors have,LOL? 32 to 64 gb of ram, high end discrete GPUs, blu ray burners, Intel extreme processors. 17-18 inch screens.  Jobs loved the creative professional and knew how important they are. You clearly have no understanding of halo effect. All your points are bean counter points, lacking soul or vision. Well bean counter, when a stock goes from 700 to 400 there are obviously issues.

post #112 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

Your lack of understanding of marketing is colossal. What other specs do competitors have,LOL? 32 to 64 gb of ram, high end discrete GPUs, blu ray burners, Intel extreme processors. 17-18 inch screens.  Jobs loved the creative professional and knew how important they are. You clearly have no understanding of halo effect. All your points are bean counter points, lacking soul or vision. Well bean counter, when a stock goes from 700 to 400 there are obviously issues.


Jobs didn't really treat the 17" notebooks as halo products, and very few 18" ones have really existed. The markets for things like desknotes were always pretty limited. In 2009 you could buy a notebook with an i7 920 stuffed in for several thousand dollars. Most of those extreme configurations were a way to provide mobility to those who would really be better served by a desktop. The Dell precision mobile workstations were heavily aimed at engineers. HP had a similar product at one point. Lenovo has some heavy lifting hardware with the thinkpad line, but anything with mobile cpus caps out at 32GB max in an 8x4 configuration. There are no notebooks that take 64 GB of ram with the possible exception of desknotes with 16GB dimms. I doubt you know of anyone that owns such a thing, and really they hold no cachet factor. Their appeal is that they can be taken as carry on luggage. If you're talking about creative professionals that really need screen real estate, it's more about what they need while away from their desks. As of today, you still can't find anything in a notebook that matches the quality available in some of the higher end and desktop displays. That could easily change, but even then a 24" - 27" display set to eye level is so much nicer than a 17" notebook display. I've used both. I understand perfectly why you would prefer the 17", but the attempts at leveraged reasoning make little sense.

post #113 of 199
Thread Starter 
Apple wasn't going to stay in the 700s forever. What comes up must come down and those saying that stock price could have reached $1,000 share are the same fools that were claiming gold could go $3,000 or more an ounce.

I personally didn't mind the 17" and though it seemed big, I wouldn't mind to have owned one except having the same tech specs as the 15" without at least more options was not good.

Haswell is going to prove to be very interesting when it comes out and frankly I am sick of talking about it. I just want it along with the new Apple products to be out already.
post #114 of 199
I have to wonder if you have a clue when it comes to understanding how foolish you sound?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

Your lack of understanding of marketing is colossal. What other specs do competitors have,LOL? 32 to 64 gb of ram, high end discrete GPUs, blu ray burners, Intel extreme processors.
Yep machines that are either very bulky or throttle excessively. What you seem to miss is just how well Apples machines bench mark or actually perform in real world situations.
Quote:
17-18 inch screens.  Jobs loved the creative professional and knew how important they are.
Which is precisely why they have pushed things like retina so hard. Retina may be a little before its time but it puts real distinctive capability in the users hand.
Quote:
You clearly have no understanding of halo effect.
If you where to talk about the halo effect we might have a discussion but you seem to suffer from penis envy.
Quote:
All your points are bean counter points, lacking soul or vision. Well bean counter, when a stock goes from 700 to 400 there are obviously issues.
If Apple comes out in tHe following weeks with excellent earnings reports, new products and other services and the stock still lags who will you blame then? You seem to equate stock price with performance and frankly that is only true in an idealized market. The reality it there are many influences on stock price some of them very negative and out of Apples control.
post #115 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Apple wasn't going to stay in the 700s forever. What comes up must come down and those saying that stock price could have reached $1,000 share are the same fools that were claiming gold could go $3,000 or more an ounce.
What people haven't grasped here is that Apple grew in value way to fast considering the fundamentals. Apple will eventually recover some of that price but hopefully it will be the result of rational investment. A huge correction was obvious looking in from the outside simply due to the irrational feeding frenzy.
Quote:
I personally didn't mind the 17" and though it seemed big, I wouldn't mind to have owned one except having the same tech specs as the 15" without at least more options was not good.
Apple has been doing a terrible job configuring machines and creating models that support an array of needs. I'm not happy about the Minis as it is an absurd example of paying more money for effectively less value. The 17" MBP I've never entertained buying so frankly I've never looked at seriously. That being said they do need a broader array of hardware in the laptop line up. I just don't see a big demand for 17" machines though.
Quote:
Haswell is going to prove to be very interesting when it comes out and frankly I am sick of talking about it. I just want it along with the new Apple products to be out already.

I'm with you there 100%. Especially now that my MBP has just started creating audio problems for me.
post #116 of 199
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm not happy about the Minis as it is an absurd example of paying more money for effectively less value.

They could do a better job yes and if not this year then hopefully next year there will be a quad-core in the base model.
post #117 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

All your points are bean counter points, lacking soul or vision.

The hardware that you describe has never been made by Apple, only by soulless, visionless companies like Dell, HP and Lenovo. This is more the kind of thing you're after:

http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-m18x-r2/pd.aspx?&~ck=mn

It has an i7-3940XM, up to 32GB RAM, dual 2GB 680M GPUs and a high price tag of $4600. Nearly 3 hours of battery life. There is a Blu-Ray option in there too somewhere. They've also thought of AV professionals by bundling a TN panel.

Of course, I can only dream of owning such an awesome piece of hardware. Hang on, I think I'm experiencing the halo effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

Jobs loved the creative professional and knew how important they are.

Just like the current staff at Apple. This same thing happens every time Apple discontinues something they like and all of a sudden they're abandoning all the important people and have turned into bean counters. What happens when you don't count beans is what happens to companies like Avid:

http://www.google.com/finance?cid=656328
http://www.sonicscoop.com/2013/02/11/avid-switches-ceos-will-louis-hernandez-turn-it-around/

As you can see, it's exactly the opposite of what you describe. That company almost exclusively targets the audience you claim to be the most important audience - the AV professionals - and they are running net losses, laying off hundreds of employees every year and selling assets with very little positive outlook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long 
A company like Apple ceding the high end notebook power user will have far reaching implications, IMHO, but it's still too early to say that definitively. We'll see whose right.

No time like the present. Buy an 18" Alienware and put all your life savings into Avid stock. Not only will you be infinitely more productive and creative 'on the road', that people will pay you hundreds of thousands of dollars for your work but you'll also become a multi-millionaire because of the performance of the stock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter 
They could do a better job yes and if not this year then hopefully next year there will be a quad-core in the base model.

There's a report saying the dual-core 35W Haswells won't be out until Q4 so unless they drop the entry Mini, they'll have to hold it back until later. It's looking like the first updates will go to the MBP and Air. The desktop updates most likely September, possibly later.
post #118 of 199
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

There's a report saying the dual-core 35W Haswells won't be out until Q4 so unless they drop the entry Mini, they'll have to hold it back until later. It's looking like the first updates will go to the MBP and Air. The desktop updates most likely September, possibly later.

That sounds accurate, though I want it out now. So ecstatic! : (
post #119 of 199

Cachet factor?? Really?? What the heck is that? Btw, I grew up on a ranch so carrying a 10 lb.notebook around, at least in my world, is not cause for whining and sniveling. As I said before, I care about one thing only, as much power on the largest screen available. It is infinitely more convenient that lugging around an SSL desk.

post #120 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

Cachet factor?? Really?? What the heck is that? Btw, I grew up on a ranch so carrying a 10 lb.notebook around, at least in my world, is not cause for whining and sniveling. As I said before, I care about one thing only, as much power on the largest screen available. It is infinitely more convenient that lugging around an SSL desk.


I don't tend to argue extremes. You talked about halo products, which is why I used the word cachet. It was in line with your point of discussion. The 17" wasn't shown off as a halo product under Jobs. He could have personally slated it for cancellation considering that the bulk of product strategies do not really go month by month. Also who is sniveling?

 

Really you mentioned Jobs followed by a laundry list of items that he probably would not have implemented. When has Apple ever chased the top hardware specs? Unless you're tied to OSX for software reasons, you might be better served by looking at some of the 17" notebooks available to run Windows or Linux. Lenovo has Thinkpads that can go to 32GB of ram starting around $1400. They take 4 sodimms, which is a feature Apple never offered. I suspect people who use multiple VMs find this exceptionally useful.

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