or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Haswell-powered iMacs could hit in late Aug., followed by new MacBook Pros in mid-Sept.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Haswell-powered iMacs could hit in late Aug., followed by new MacBook Pros in mid-Sept. - Page 2

post #41 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Dell just announced a 32" 2160p IGZO Ultrasharp coming in Q4:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/23/dell-ultrasharp-32/

Currently Dell's most expensive display is a 30" Ultrasharp at $1250. It looks like they've finally ditched VGA and DVI - the ports on the bottom appear to be displayport, mini-displayport (or Thunderbolt perhaps) and HDMI.

Maybe Apple will have a high resolution Thunderbolt display ready for the Mac Pro launch. It'll look better than the Dell one too as it'll have the laminated anti-glare front so deeper black levels and can be as slim as the iMac at the sides with USB 3 ports. The internal speakers might not sound very good with such a thin chassis but there's no harm in having them.

This would be the first time Apple has moved away from IPS for a very long time too:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/01/08/sharp-hypes-igzo-displays-apple-called-a-prime-candidate-to-use
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/CES-IGZO-NTT-Docomo-Sharp-touch-Monitor,20318.html

A 32" display makes little sense to me for most uses. The typical offering went from 30" 16:10 to a 27" 16:9, overall significantly smaller. 32" is just a huge amount of area to scan visually, and no OS on the market today has an effective way of partitioning screens in any way. It's basically the same thing, but spread further apart. You end up having to use a lot of mouse acceleration, which can be incredibly annoying. The touch display sounds cool, but it seems like an odd implementation. A touch display would need to be angled for reasonable ergonomics.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by morzee94 View Post


I dunno, Intel Iris 5200 and Nvidia GeForce 650M are very closely matched with the 650M just pipping the 5200 in terms of ultimate performance. While Iris would offer huge power savings it puts Apple in a difficult position as although they don't want a new product's graphics to be slower even marginally than the previous generation (especially on an expensive pro product with a retina display) in order to provide discrete graphics that is meaningfully more powerful than Iris they will have to go to the highest end of mobile graphics which would end up dramatically increasing costs and power consumption........ The truth we know right now is that the 15" MBP retina prototype that popped up on Geekbench didn't have a discrete graphics chip when tested

 

It wouldn't be a 650m either way. It would still be a kepler gpu if NVidia or whatever AMD has out. The iris pro still consumes more power at a higher chip cost when compared to other cpus. They could use it anyway. To say that they would have to up the discrete gpu is completely disingenuous. The 7xx gpus are clocked a bit higher in general, and it would be in the same class. Only a couple oems ever go past the mid to upper-mid range gpus in a 15" notebook.

post #42 of 141
kpluck View Post
The unfortunate part of the timing here is that they will not, in all likelihood, have the new Thunderbolt 20Gbps part. Personally, while it wouldn't be great for Apple's bottom line, I think they should hold off any new Thunderbolt equipped machines until they can be rolled out with the new chip.

But they always seem to be holding off for the next great component(s). Say that Thunderbolt 2 is almost ready to manufacture, but Bluetooth announces a new version coming in a few months. Will Apple wait for that as well? Oh, and by then, LG will have shaved 3mm off their retina displays, which will be mass produced just a few months later. Where does the eternal quest for future-proofing end?

 

Personally, I am not a fan of Macbooks receiving around one update a year. Tech moves faster than that. If they took a break from trying to make every point release a "product revolution," complete with making-of video, we could have newer components sooner. Surely we don't need a total ground-up redesign for every little chip update.

 
TEAMSWITCHER View Post
Unless Apple is willing to use "best in class" mobile graphics solution with a 256-bit memory interface, which would likely crush battery life, it's possible that ALL of the new MacBook Pros will sold without discrete graphics.

OS X has the framework to switch between integrated and discrete cards on the fly, based on criteria like power source and app usage (and can be tweaked further by 3rd party software). That leaves no reason to saddle everyone with integrated only.

 

Tallest Skil View Post
Are we really so lazy that saying "ten ay tee pea" is fine but "twenty-one six tea pea" is too hard?

Prolly.

 

But seriously, even 1080p is a misnomer, since it also refers to films shot in 2.39:1 or other aspect ratios with a lower vertical resolution.

 

hmm View Post

Only a couple oems ever go past the mid to upper-mid range gpus in a 15" notebook.

True, but they don't have to drive such a ridiculously high resolution.

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply
post #43 of 141

I want Mac Mini update with Haswell CPU.

post #44 of 141

You want sometimes you have to wait. Have patience.
 

post #45 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by karas11 View Post

I want Mac Mini update with Haswell CPU.

I wouldn't start to worry until the end of September. Hopefully Apple is going with hardware that will come out from Intel in that time frame. Frankly I think it will be worth the wait.
post #46 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos View Post

True, but they don't have to drive such a ridiculously high resolution.

We were talking about integrated vs discrete. Either can drive that amount of resolution for a number of tasks. It might be an issue for really taxing things, but retina lag is more likely a software issue than anything. For reference the 13" is roughly the same resolution as the 27", and no one mentioned such a problem with the thunderbolt display. Anyway they used a 650m in the current one. There's no reason they couldn't use the 7xx equivalent or whatever AMD has at the time of release.

post #47 of 141

They are most likely coming out with a new MM in Sept sometime.Cosmetics could be different also.
 

post #48 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

They are most likely coming out with a new MM in Sept sometime. Cosmetics could be different also.

 

Source please?
post #49 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


Source please?


He makes a lot of random comments, but they released one in September last year. If I had to guess I would say imacs will be refreshed just before the minis. The cpus with iris pro graphics all cost more than those in the current minis, so do not get your hopes up.

post #50 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


He makes a lot of random comments, but they released one in September last year. If I had to guess I would say imacs will be refreshed just before the minis. The cpus with iris pro graphics all cost more than those in the current minis, so do not get your hopes up.

The problem is Apple is mental about early Mini updates relative to almost everything else. Even if the Mini was ready to go now, history would indicate that Apple will hold off on an update until after iMac and likely the laptops.
post #51 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


The problem is Apple is mental about early Mini updates relative to almost everything else. Even if the Mini was ready to go now, history would indicate that Apple will hold off on an update until after iMac and likely the laptops.


I know that. Typically it goes notebooks, imacs, minis. Last year was an exception as they couldn't play that game any longer. They still waited for the imac announcement.

post #52 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


He makes a lot of random comments, but they released one in September last year. If I had to guess I would say imacs will be refreshed just before the minis. The cpus with iris pro graphics all cost more than those in the current minis, so do not get your hopes up.

October to be exact. The event was about a week before Hurricane Sandy hit. The 2011 mini dropped in July and the 2010 mini sometime in June if memory serves.
post #53 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

I can't imagine the Haswell iMac being particularly high on the to-do list considering the main point of Haswell is battery life.

I'd guess that they'll wait until 2014 before bothering as they can then throw in wifi ac and a few other updates at the same time, hopefully even retina.

 

I could be wrong though, they unnecessarily made it thinner so they could rush to unnecessarily increase power efficiency. Maybe it'll run cooler at the same speeds which wouldn't be a bad thing after the weight loss during the previous update.

 

I think you were getting somewhere in your second para....  ...or.... ...it could go this way, one supposes....

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


This may or may not be true, it depends upon which chip Apple actually chooses. For the current machines Haswell has been a performance wash due to a focus on power savings. However the same tech that allows for cooler chips cold also lead to faster chips. Heat in CMOS devices is a function of clock rate, if Apple can up the clock rate while maintaining power levels Haswell could lead to a very nice iMac update. For the Mini that extra power budget will likely go to the GPU which would be a needed improvement.

What I'm saying is don't jump to conclusions based on current Haswell based machines.

Otherwise, yeah, TB 2.0, please (and on the retina MBP's), and at least 1080p-ish res on the 13" MBP (if it's retained as I suppose we expect).

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #54 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


October to be exact. The event was about a week before Hurricane Sandy hit. The 2011 mini dropped in July and the 2010 mini sometime in June if memory serves.


The first 2011 macbook pros came out in February. They used Sandy chips. The early 2012s mbps were barely changed at all. I suspect the mini will come out around the same time as an imac update.

post #55 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


I know that. Typically it goes notebooks, imacs, minis. Last year was an exception as they couldn't play that game any longer. They still waited for the imac announcement.

Lately it has been hard to tell what Apple will do. The fire sale prices on MBPs right now have me wondering if updates are coming earlier than I thought. It also has me concerned that the retinas aren't selling as well as some hoped for. I suspect that after the early adopter nut cases purchased their machines the rest of the buying public said no thank you to the sticker price in the retinas.

In any event as to the Mini, it really frustrates me that they can't see that platform as a stand alone solution. Most Mini customers have zero interest in the iMac so waiting for an iMac update is just non sense. So hopefully Apple is waiting for Intels chips coming in September. If the Mini debuts after these chips are released with a run of the mill Haswell that could have been had last month it will be another what the F$&@k moment.

Sometimes I'm not sure if Apple realizes that their marketing does more harm to the brand then good
post #56 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

I think you were getting somewhere in your second para....  ...or.... ...it could go this way, one supposes....

Otherwise, yeah, TB 2.0, please (and on the retina MBP's), and at least 1080p-ish res on the 13" MBP (if it's retained as I suppose we expect).
TB2 in the Mini would be awesome but it might be a bridge too far for this year. If they did put TB 2 in the Mini we would have a very interesting platform to say the least.

1080P in the 13" MBP would certainly be useful to many. Having old eyes I'm not sure it would do much for me. What would make that 13" MBP far more interesting in my book would be a fast Iris implementation. That is a GPU that significantly puts some room between the AIR and the MBP. With the current MBP you get a good CPU boost over the AIR, but the GPU really doesn't justify the pro designation. For me the reason to get the "Pro" is the GPU. It is why I went for the 15" MBP, as it does impact the life of the machine.
post #57 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Cosmetics could be different also.

Why would they?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #58 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Why would they?

That is a good question. I'm not bothered by the Minis case other than to think it is a tad small. However from a technical standpoint it could be improved thermally. Standing the boards vertically like is seen in the new WiFi boxes could provide for better more consistent cooling, possibly good enough to support a real video card. This would be sort of like a Mac Pro light.

The thing is the Mini works well as is. A minor overhaul would hurt if it gave us two TB 2 ports and some USB ports to the front.
post #59 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

That is a good question. I'm not bothered by the Minis case other than to think it is a tad small. However from a technical standpoint it could be improved thermally. Standing the boards vertically like is seen in the new WiFi boxes could provide for better more consistent cooling, possibly good enough to support a real video card. This would be sort of like a Mac Pro light.

The thing is the Mini works well as is. A minor overhaul would hurt if it gave us two TB 2 ports and some USB ports to the front.

Personally I like all the ports in the back. I hope they do not get rid of the Ethernet port and use Thunderbolt to Ethernet though it may happen if it gets thinner.
post #60 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The thing is the Mini works well as is.

Bingo. The only thing I could have seen is the new AirPort aesthetic, like you said. But they'd have to have a reason.
Quote:
…to the front.

Oh, you know that's never happening. lol.gif It could do with two Thunderbolt, though. Every Mac should get at least four eventually. "Why, when a keyboard and mouse would never need that throughput?" Never mind that we won't be using either in a few years: physical size on the computer. You can fit three Thunderbolt on the logic board in the space of two USB.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #61 of 141

Winter View Post
marvfox View Post
They are most likely coming out with a new MM in Sept sometime. Cosmetics could be different also.
Source please?

 

SemiAccurate via MacRumors suggests a September release, but not an appearance alteration.

 

Of course, reliable sources pointed to an update during WWDC. Soon I will have a full saltshaker.

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply
post #62 of 141
WWDC for the new Mac mini? I didn't hear that. September does seem accurate though.
post #63 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Lately it has been hard to tell what Apple will do. The fire sale prices on MBPs right now have me wondering if updates are coming earlier than I thought. It also has me concerned that the retinas aren't selling as well as some hoped for. I suspect that after the early adopter nut cases purchased their machines the rest of the buying public said no thank you to the sticker price in the retinas.

 

That seems like a slightly exaggerated description. I think initial pricing was set to curb the demand from early adopters. Later yields may have outpaced pent up demand to a degree, but I doubt the majority of their sales are skewed in favor of $2k+ models. Iris pro options would add some  value to the 13" models, but they don't seem to be available on dual core chips.

 

 

Quote:

In any event as to the Mini, it really frustrates me that they can't see that platform as a stand alone solution. Most Mini customers have zero interest in the iMac so waiting for an iMac update is just non sense. So hopefully Apple is waiting for Intels chips coming in September. If the Mini debuts after these chips are released with a run of the mill Haswell that could have been had last month it will be another what the F$&@k moment.

Sometimes I'm not sure if Apple realizes that their marketing does more harm to the brand then good

 

Their margins are probably higher on the imacs, but I don't know that many people find themselves considering an imac vs a mini. It might come up on a mac forum, but I question the likelihood of a typical customer asking such a thing. Most are probably looking to walk out of the store with something that works in its entirety. I don't see them adding iris pro to the mini, simply due to cpu cost. It would be kind of dumb if they go with just that in the 15", as there are faster options today. The mini and 13" are the things that need it, yet it's not available in dual core models. I'm not sure why that is the case. It seems like overall dual core machines would be the ones that most commonly use integrated gpus over discrete graphics. It's not even so much of a hangup on discrete itself. I would like to see mobile graphics performance closer to desktop versions from a couple years ago. Battery life becomes more interesting at a point where you don't have to carry the charger to use it for the day. Below that it's nice, but not nice enough to make a massive difference to me.

 

I don't mean it needs to be usable for 10 hours under the worst possible conditions. I mean after accounting for some amount of battery wear, say a year or two, I would still want to be able to use it without having to consider remaining battery life.

post #64 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Personally I like all the ports in the back. I hope they do not get rid of the Ethernet port and use Thunderbolt to Ethernet though it may happen if it gets thinner.

There are probably three good reasons for front access to USB ports.
  1. it just works better for a lot of keyboard installations.
  2. a place to plug in your camera or multi card reader without hunting for the port.
  3. a place to plug in your USB storage stick in case you need to trader data from work or someplace else.

The big thing with most of these is easy access to the ports for an installed machine.

As for Ethernet it isn't going anywhere fast. Wired networking is so much better for a desktop that it isn't even a joke to suggest removing Ethernet. In fact it is a mandatory port for desktop installations.
post #65 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Bingo. The only thing I could have seen is the new AirPort aesthetic, like you said. But they'd have to have a reason.
I can see a few positives with respect to the AirPort chassis. One is likely better cooling at a lower cost. Another is the ability to split components of the machine between front and rear boards, a power supply and a connector board. Use the new blade SSDs for storage and you end up with one compact but high performance (relative) machine. Considering how far intel intends to go with integration at 14 nm, we cold have one hell of a machine in that little box in a couple of years.
Quote:
Oh, you know that's never happening. lol.gif
We can only hope. Sadly Apple isn't too smart at times with its designs. Think about it, Macs are know as graphics machines and computers that support photographers well. Yet there isn't an Apple made desktop that a photographer can walk up to and plug a camera in without hunting on the back side.
Quote:
It could do with two Thunderbolt, though. Every Mac should get at least four eventually. "Why, when a keyboard and mouse would never need that throughput?" Never mind that we won't be using either in a few years: physical size on the computer. You can fit three Thunderbolt on the logic board in the space of two USB.
The more TB ports and the higher their performance the more interesting the Mini becomes. Given TB 2 it would be able to leverage the same advance peripherals as the Mac Pro. Even one TB 2 port would make for a very interesting Mini though I agree two would be a far better implementation for the next Mini.

As a side note, this is how I see TB 2 becoming a big win for Apple. It means high end hardware can connect to anything in the Mac line up. Need to do some field work, grab a laptop and your device of choice and go at it. Need to record some data far away from your main computer, grab a Mini and some networking cable and greatly reduce your wiring complexity. I know many are still negative with respect to TB but you really need to reboot your mine and think different. It is a new way of doing things and can end up better than the old ways.
post #66 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

That seems like a slightly exaggerated description. I think initial pricing was set to curb the demand from early adopters. Later yields may have outpaced pent up demand to a degree, but I doubt the majority of their sales are skewed in favor of $2k+ models. Iris pro options would add some  value to the 13" models, but they don't seem to be available on dual core chips.
Not today but maybe after September 1st. See this page:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Releases/Mobile_CPU_releases_(2013).html and this:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Releases/Desktop_CPU_releases_(2013).html

The reality is September is when the vast majority of the Haswell line launches. There is atleast one mobile chip in the line up that is dual core with Intel 5100 graphics. That is good but apple might even be able to manage a quad core keeping power draw reasonable.

Obviously this is all unreleased hardware at this point.
Quote:


Their margins are probably higher on the imacs, but I don't know that many people find themselves considering an imac vs a mini.
Exactly two different products for two different markets.
Quote:
It might come up on a mac forum, but I question the likelihood of a typical customer asking such a thing. Most are probably looking to walk out of the store with something that works in its entirety. I don't see them adding iris pro to the mini, simply due to cpu cost.
Maybe not pro due to cost but also heat. However Iris in the 5100 variant would make for a nice Mini. They have chips that go as low as 28 watts for a 2 core model. This chip would actually be ideal in the 13" MBP. I still think Apple needs to up the power budget in the Mini to support a quad core with sme variant of Iris graphics.
Quote:
It would be kind of dumb if they go with just that in the 15", as there are faster options today. The mini and 13" are the things that need it, yet it's not available in dual core models. I'm not sure why that is the case.
Not available today. This is why I've been saying that September is the likely launch month of many new Apple products. Intel really blows out the Haswell line up in September. They have many chips coming some of them optimal for Apples line up. If Apple waits a bit onager formTB 2 chips I wouldn't be surprised either. I have no idea when the TB 2 chips are scheduled to start shipping though.
Quote:
It seems like overall dual core machines would be the ones that most commonly use integrated gpus over discrete graphics.
Actually quad cores do integrated GPUs nicely too. The really inspteresting thing is that Intel will introduce six core chips with no GPU. This will make for an interesting iMac if Apple were to use them.
Quote:
It's not even so much of a hangup on discrete itself. I would like to see mobile graphics performance closer to desktop versions from a couple years ago. Battery life becomes more interesting at a point where you don't have to carry the charger to use it for the day. Below that it's nice, but not nice enough to make a massive difference to me.
It really does look like Hasweel will deliver that sort of performance all by itself which will be great for the Mini and the 13" MBP. I'm still not convinced that Haswell has the chops to power a MBP the way it should be powered though.
Quote:
I don't mean it needs to be usable for 10 hours under the worst possible conditions. I mean after accounting for some amount of battery wear, say a year or two, I would still want to be able to use it without having to consider remaining battery life.

Honestly that is what the AIRs are for. I'd rather see Apple introduce a 15" MBP that remains focused on performance. Certainly some battery life improvements are in order but that should not come at the expense of raw performance increases over last years models. Right now I still believe that the 15" MBP needs a discrete GPU to help deliver that raw performance increase.

In any event I can't help but get excited about September even if a laptop is out of reach.
post #67 of 141
Quote:
Actually quad cores do integrated GPUs nicely too. The really inspteresting thing is that Intel will introduce six core chips with no GPU. This will make for an interesting iMac if Apple were to use them.
 

 

Six core chips.  Hmm.  That sounds nice.  With the improvements in GPU the iMac has been seeing in the last few years...and a possible '4k' screen at some point next year (?) it adds up to a potential kick ass iMac...especially with the new PCIe SSD?

 

I'd just love a retina screen on the iMac.  Add six core, SSD as standard (boo for paying for Fusion as extra...) and another bone crunching GPU on the top end...and I'd be looking at it.

 

Whether you like AIO design of the iMac...or not...what Apple are packing into to it's thinness is pretty darn impressive.


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 #68 of 141
Hexacore CPU and an powerful GPU for the future iMac? Sounds good to me.
post #69 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



Actually quad cores do integrated GPUs nicely too. The really inspteresting thing is that Intel will introduce six core chips with no GPU. This will make for an interesting iMac if Apple were to use them.
 

 

I don't have a lot of arguments with the post, but you made a common mistake here. The 6 core from that link lists a 2011 socket. It's Ivy Bridge E, not Haswell. The two aren't even pin compatible. It would drift into territory where the imac would require a second logic board design just to support that cpu option. It's more likely that you'll see the Xeon variant of that cpu appear in the mac pro. Before anyone says it, the 1600s Xeons typically cost the same amount as their i7 counterparts.

 

 

Quote:
Honestly that is what the AIRs are for. I'd rather see Apple introduce a 15" MBP that remains focused on performance. Certainly some battery life improvements are in order but that should not come at the expense of raw performance increases over last years models. Right now I still believe that the 15" MBP needs a discrete GPU to help deliver that raw performance increase.

In any event I can't help but get excited about September even if a laptop is out of reach.

I wouldn't limit it quite that far. It worked in the Air, so they started to focus on thinned out profiles with large batteries in the other lines too. That is basically how we ended up with the rmbp models. The Air in my opinion could use a better display. I don't mean in terms of resolution, more viewing angles and native gamma.

post #70 of 141
It will be interesting to see how well the upcoming Haswell-based rMBP compares to this

http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/18/dell-precision-m3800-workstation-leak/
post #71 of 141
Very impressive! Mind you my biggest problem with the iMac is access to and upgradability of the RAM and the secondary storage. I'd be inclined to go with an iMac if Apple addressed these issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Six core chips.  Hmm.  That sounds nice.  With the improvements in GPU the iMac has been seeing in the last few years...and a possible '4k' screen at some point next year (?) it adds up to a potential kick ass iMac...especially with the new PCIe SSD?
PCIe SSDs have to ne in the future iMac simply die to the fact that they put so much performance into their low end laptop. In fact the iMac would look rather pathetic running a conventional drive next to an aIR.
Quote:
I'd just love a retina screen on the iMac.  Add six core, SSD as standard (boo for paying for Fusion as extra...) and another bone crunching GPU on the top end...and I'd be looking at it.
With SSDs on PC Cards, if they had any sense they would make those cards accessible from the out side without a major tear down.
Quote:
Whether you like AIO design of the iMac...or not...what Apple are packing into to it's thinness is pretty darn impressive.


Lemon Bon Bon.

Well it is the process shrinks really letting Apple do all of this. Just imagine when 3D circuitry can be applied to a CPU chip.
post #72 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Hexacore CPU and an powerful GPU for the future iMac? Sounds good to me.

Well all dreams that aren't nightmares are good experiences. Often dreams lead to little.
post #73 of 141

The Macbook Pro line is getting more and more disappointing. The gap between the hardware available outside the Mac OS universe has grown

to mammoth proportions, not that this matters to students writing papers or surfing the net. It does matter to audio visual pros who would love a really high powered 17" with all the bells and state of the art whistles. Come on Apple, can't you guys have a division to support the pros who depend on you for a living?

post #74 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

The Macbook Pro line is getting more and more disappointing. The gap between the hardware available outside the Mac OS universe has grown
to mammoth proportions, not that this matters to students writing papers or surfing the net. It does matter to audio visual pros who would love a really high powered 17" with all the bells and state of the art whistles. Come on Apple, can't you guys have a division to support the pros who depend on you for a living?

Obviously not. I'm not sure what possessed them to nix the 17" MBP but terrible sales are likely the reason. Like it or not whinny professionals do little for Apples bottom line and actually cause more trouble than they are worth as customers. Just look at the whining around FCPx.

As for supporting pros isn't that a two way street? Seriously every single improvement Apple has made to its hardware and software lines has been meet with ridicule and disdane from the so called pro community. You look at the noise created by the new Mac Pro and all you see on line is a bunch of noisy so called pros dissing the New Mac Pro at every turn. They do this while obviously not understanding the technology behind the product nor the general direction of technology in the industry. Would any company want such people as any part of their customer base? Especially if the hardware to support that customer base hardly makes any money at all?

There may be good reason for people to want a 17" MBP. Apple may even have a replacement in the wings, but would it be good business to release such a machine when it will be panned by the very pros it is built for? Especially when said pros won't buy enough machines to pay for development costs.

As for depending on anybody or any company for a living that is just foolish.
post #75 of 141

I love my early 2012 MBP 17" ! Its a great machine. All the guys I work with have one as well. Apple sold about 250,000 a quarter of these high end units at the end of their run, on which they made a profit on every one.  Several million were sold over the life of the 17" . There is no doubt there is pent up demand for some new equivalent. As for being criticized for expressing our hopes and needs to Apple, that may be the dumbest comment ever. 

post #76 of 141
Quote:
Oricosts.

As for depending on anybody or any company for a living that is just foolish.

WoW. That is delusional. 

post #77 of 141

The MBPro 17 inch is to big to carry around and it is also clumsy to.That is why Apple dumped it.
 

post #78 of 141
Not really. The 17 inch MacBook Pro is something that I've been toting around for the last 4 1/2 years without a problem. The problem is when Apple introduced a new MacBook Pro 15 inch that has a resolution far greater than the 17 inch ever had & is going to cost more to make than the 17 inch, how do you still justify selling the 17 inch?
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 #79 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

Apple sold about 250,000 a quarter of these high end units at the end of their run, on which they made a profit on every one.  Several million were sold over the life of the 17".

Estimates here say 50,000, which is 1/10th the volume of the 15" models:

http://investorplace.com/2012/04/monday-apple-rumors-end-of-the-17-inch-macbook-pro/

"KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo predicts that Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) will end production of the 17-inch MacBook Pro amid poor sales. Kuo said sales of the 17-inch MacBook Pro amounted to about 50,000 units during the first quarter of 2012, compared to 1.5 million of the 13-inch models and 500,000 for the 15-inch models. Kuo also estimated first-quarter MacBook Air sales at 1.1 million units, saying that Air sales have not been stronger because the available solid state drives don’t have enough capacity to entice consumers to buy them in larger numbers, MacRumors reports."

Apple made a profit on every XServe too and those were expensive but without the sales volume, the resources spent don't make it worthwhile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHagan4755 
The problem is when Apple introduced a new MacBook Pro 15 inch that has a resolution far greater than the 17 inch ever had & is going to cost more to make than the 17 inch, how do you still justify selling the 17 inch?

Yeah, the resolution difference is gone now, the performance spec was always the same so it just comes down to that extra 1.6" of display. Even if they made it 4K, which I don't think would be required for Retina quality, it would still run at the exact same scaled resolutions as the 15" so would have the same workspace, just physically scaled up a little. For that they have to source all new display panels, design all the internal layout, get new batteries, machine new cases and some of the 10% of the 15" sales volume will have already moved to the 15" rMBP so the potential market for a new one would be very small at a $2500+ starting point.

If the inevitable price drop on the Retina models leaves a price point they want to fill and there's nothing else they can use then a 17" display is an option but the top 15" is still at $2799 so even a price drop will bring it down to $2499, which was the old 17" price. How many of the remaining market for the 17" would be willing to go to $2799 when the entry 15" with the same workspace could start at $1799? You wouldn't just be paying $1000 for 1.6" of display as you'd get the higher spec too but for people who only need the lower spec, it's a big price jump.
post #80 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post

I love my early 2012 MBP 17" ! Its a great machine. All the guys I work with have one as well. Apple sold about 250,000 a quarter of these high end units at the end of their run, on which they made a profit on every one.  Several million were sold over the life of the 17" . There is no doubt there is pent up demand for some new equivalent. As for being criticized for expressing our hopes and needs to Apple, that may be the dumbest comment ever. 

I'm a little skeptical about trying to determine 17" volume. It wasn't that long ago that total macs were under 1 million, and given that the bulk of the growth seems to be on the consumerish end, I am skeptical that the 17" maintained parity in growth with the other lines. As for supporting Apple, they have always been unpredictable. It can be very annoying at times, as OSX is a one vendor OS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



If the inevitable price drop on the Retina models leaves a price point they want to fill and there's nothing else they can use then a 17" display is an option but the top 15" is still at $2799 so even a price drop will bring it down to $2499, which was the old 17" price. How many of the remaining market for the 17" would be willing to go to $2799 when the entry 15" with the same workspace could start at $1799? You wouldn't just be paying $1000 for 1.6" of display as you'd get the higher spec too but for people who only need the lower spec, it's a big price jump.

I don't think they're that completely married to the old tiered structure. If they wanted to release a 17", the top 15" might be folded into cto options, or they would just spec the thing to the price point. You make it sound like no one at the company took a single math course past high school. As for display real estate, they can both feel cramped. If neither is enough, you just end up going as close as possible. Many of these guys probably plugged into larger displays while at their desks. Aside from that I still think 24" 16:10 is near perfect for most uses of a single display. There aren't many good ways to divide up space without overlap, which still leaves a use case for secondary displays as needed. 24" at that ratio allows for quick visual scanning without relegating large amounts of real estate to semi-peripheral vision. It's quick to navigate with a mouse or trackpad. 27" is decent too, even if it starts to present a slight increase in screen navigation time. The problem with notebooks is that they're all a compromise on screen area. People went to discussing resolution with the new ones, but much of the time that makes less of a difference in usability, even if it looks way way better.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Haswell-powered iMacs could hit in late Aug., followed by new MacBook Pros in mid-Sept.