Don't all Apple product bar codes have the letters UPC at the top left hand side of the barcode? This one is missing. Plus the part number 862-9882-A isn't a typical Apple part number used for computers. They usually have the following part number schema MXXXXLL/A, which this doesn't have.
Based on these undeniable facts about Apple product part numbering and labeling, I would say this is a fake. But I am just going by current labeling and product part number schema.
Everyone seems to be assuming it is a new MacBookPro. What happens if Apple abandons the MacBook/MacBookPro moniker and calls it something completely different? Then what?
Not everyone. I'm more inclined to think the MBP will get a major overhaul that reduces the thickness and removes the ODD but Apple will see the need to keep these older machines with ODDs for an unfortunately long time with with newer CPUs but will call them MBs. Or at least keep calling this same design MBPs and call the new design something different. What they call it will not matter because it's their product so we'll just refer to it as they wish, whether we like the name or not. I can't remember the last time I've liked an Apple product name but I don't buy products based on a name so I couldn't care less what its called so long as it suits my needs.
70+ inventory turns a year isn't enough of a mark for you?
No. There's more to Apple than inventory turns. If this first batch of hardware upgrades disappoint, you will hear Cook's name associated with it much more than Ive's and the stock will follow. This is his first real test, in the media's eyes.
The new iPad was saved by the retina screen but had enough compromises that fell under the "well, Steve Jobs wouldn't have allowed that..." The new Macs have to be impressive. I think they will be.
Well, here's hoping that's fake. With 35W quad core Ivy Bridge parts I was hoping for that at the very least, and if they removed the optical drive as rumoured maybe even room for a discreet GPU and battery to balance it.
RAM frugal Apple going to 16GB as a baseline? The same Apple that still has 2GB systems in 2012, and charges through the nose for upgrades? I don't think so. Retina display elements would have more to do with video memory. The rest of it seems plausible.
RAM frugal Apple going to 16GB as a baseline? The same Apple that still has 2GB systems in 2012, and charges through the nose for upgrades? I don't think so. Retina display elements would have more to do with video memory. The rest of it seems plausible.
This model is said to retail for $3,000. It's not a baseline model.
Fortunately, it's no one's place to say such nonsense and so that's discredited on the face of it.
Why? Why, meaning 'more so than any other update', that is.
Originally Posted by bugsnw
The new iPad was saved by the retina screen but had enough compromises that fell under the "well, Steve Jobs wouldn't have allowed that..."
----------
Well...I said it. My 12 year old son has made that comment regarding the new iPad being heavier and thicker and running through its battery life quicker. Those were well-known compromises in order to introduce the retina display.
To answer the last part of your post, this is a huge hardware update, if the rumors hold up. Laptops, Desktops, something new with Apple TV. The general media is going to hold Cook responsible for its success or failure. Failure being relative because we know the media will make more of something than is actually there, and Apple will likely go on to sell a lot of what they introduce.
Or I could put it this way. If I were the new CEO, I'd want a keynote like Steve Jobs enjoyed. The new iMacs were game changers for Apple. I'd want to make my mark. Your first time at bat is a big deal.
If I were Cook, I'd push for a very impressive upgrade. Something unexpected. He needs to make his mark.
Or. He might try to be the first Apple CEO to release cheap (relatively speaking) MacBook. Make it real mainstream. Which is something Apple computers, in contrast to iDevices, haven't achieved... yet.
Think of it this way: Current Mac users are unlikely to downgrade to lower specs unit... but number of Windows users might be tempted to go Mac if they can buy it for money comparable to mainstream HPs or Acers or Dells or... your pick. Because, to be realistic, number of users - especially home users - would have all their needs covered with software that ships with Macs. Even much more would be sweet as with software that comes with Macs and, say, additional Office for Mac. Not everyone plays games, and people buying cheap laptops and desktops definitely don't anyway. But there's still number of users who need more than what tablets can provide.
Or think of it this way: Apple already has high-end laptop market. Competition is going stronger - more and more PC brands are releasing good looking, well built units. Think HP Envy and Envy Spectre, think Asus ZenBook Prime (with its full HD IPS screen in 11" and 13"). So Apple at best can hope to hold on to premium market share they have, or lose part of it at worst... but either way, there is not much space to grow in premium segment. However, Apple does have space to grow in lower segments. In a way, it is like position MS is in - having no more space to grow in segments they are already strong, so trying to grow into segments they are hardly present, mobile and premium laptop.
Personally, I'd be interested in affordable MacBook with aluminium unibody and decent IPS screen, even in 1280x. In fact, I'd rather have 1280 IPS than 1980 TFT on 13" unit, for the same price.
Let's put the latter part aside for now. I've not seen many of these spec stickers for recent models, so I'd like to ask if they have ever mentioned Turbo Boost on them before. Similarly, have there ever been models that reference the integrated GPU without talking about the RAM that goes along with it?
I took a picture from my box (the most current MBP purchased a few months ago) for comparison:
Wait a second, that resolution looks "wrong". Wasn't it being suggested that retina mbp would need to be 2880x1800?
Looks right to me. That's a 16:10 aspect ratio and 196 PPI. I think what you're assuming is that it there needs to be exactly double the resolution like with the iPhone and iPad so that one pixel can be represented by 4 pixels, but that law doesn't carry over to Mac OS X in the same way because it's a windowed OS. The structure and design is completely different because the primary input method is completely different. Mac OS has always fluctuated the PPI of the display (within reason) based on the size and tech.
Comments
Don't all Apple product bar codes have the letters UPC at the top left hand side of the barcode? This one is missing. Plus the part number 862-9882-A isn't a typical Apple part number used for computers. They usually have the following part number schema MXXXXLL/A, which this doesn't have.
Based on these undeniable facts about Apple product part numbering and labeling, I would say this is a fake. But I am just going by current labeling and product part number schema.
I think Appleinsider should take the person that supplied this OFF the Christmas Card list and deem them not a reliable source.
Not everyone. I'm more inclined to think the MBP will get a major overhaul that reduces the thickness and removes the ODD but Apple will see the need to keep these older machines with ODDs for an unfortunately long time with with newer CPUs but will call them MBs. Or at least keep calling this same design MBPs and call the new design something different. What they call it will not matter because it's their product so we'll just refer to it as they wish, whether we like the name or not. I can't remember the last time I've liked an Apple product name but I don't buy products based on a name so I couldn't care less what its called so long as it suits my needs.
70+ inventory turns a year isn't enough of a mark for you?
What about this one? Thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
70+ inventory turns a year isn't enough of a mark for you?
No. There's more to Apple than inventory turns. If this first batch of hardware upgrades disappoint, you will hear Cook's name associated with it much more than Ive's and the stock will follow. This is his first real test, in the media's eyes.
The new iPad was saved by the retina screen but had enough compromises that fell under the "well, Steve Jobs wouldn't have allowed that..." The new Macs have to be impressive. I think they will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw
The new iPad was saved by the retina screen but had enough compromises that fell under the "well, Steve Jobs wouldn't have allowed that..."
Fortunately, it's no one's place to say such nonsense and so that's discredited on the face of it.
Quote:
The new Macs have to be impressive. I think they will be.
Why? Why, meaning 'more so than any other update', that is.
A bad omen of what I've been fearing.
Well, here's hoping that's fake. With 35W quad core Ivy Bridge parts I was hoping for that at the very least, and if they removed the optical drive as rumoured maybe even room for a discreet GPU and battery to balance it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What about this one? Thoughts?
RAM frugal Apple going to 16GB as a baseline? The same Apple that still has 2GB systems in 2012, and charges through the nose for upgrades? I don't think so. Retina display elements would have more to do with video memory. The rest of it seems plausible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo
RAM frugal Apple going to 16GB as a baseline? The same Apple that still has 2GB systems in 2012, and charges through the nose for upgrades? I don't think so. Retina display elements would have more to do with video memory. The rest of it seems plausible.
This model is said to retail for $3,000. It's not a baseline model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What about this one? Thoughts?
Wait a second, that resolution looks "wrong". Wasn't it being suggested that retina mbp would need to be 2880x1800?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgsarch
ffff! AMD, why, <facepalm>, why.
Because nVidia can't be trusted, I'd think.
ATI does better PPW than nVidia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Fortunately, it's no one's place to say such nonsense and so that's discredited on the face of it.
Why? Why, meaning 'more so than any other update', that is.
Originally Posted by bugsnw
The new iPad was saved by the retina screen but had enough compromises that fell under the "well, Steve Jobs wouldn't have allowed that..."
----------
Well...I said it. My 12 year old son has made that comment regarding the new iPad being heavier and thicker and running through its battery life quicker. Those were well-known compromises in order to introduce the retina display.
To answer the last part of your post, this is a huge hardware update, if the rumors hold up. Laptops, Desktops, something new with Apple TV. The general media is going to hold Cook responsible for its success or failure. Failure being relative because we know the media will make more of something than is actually there, and Apple will likely go on to sell a lot of what they introduce.
Or I could put it this way. If I were the new CEO, I'd want a keynote like Steve Jobs enjoyed. The new iMacs were game changers for Apple. I'd want to make my mark. Your first time at bat is a big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw
To answer the last part of your post, this is a huge hardware update, if the rumors hold up.
They never do. No way will we see every computer they make updated, and there's nothing about the Apple TV that is about to be updated.
Quote:
Your first time at bat is a big deal.
But it's not Tim's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Because nVidia can't be trusted, I'd think.
ATI does better PPW than nVidia.
See: Kepler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw
If I were Cook, I'd push for a very impressive upgrade. Something unexpected. He needs to make his mark.
Or. He might try to be the first Apple CEO to release cheap (relatively speaking) MacBook. Make it real mainstream. Which is something Apple computers, in contrast to iDevices, haven't achieved... yet.
Think of it this way: Current Mac users are unlikely to downgrade to lower specs unit... but number of Windows users might be tempted to go Mac if they can buy it for money comparable to mainstream HPs or Acers or Dells or... your pick. Because, to be realistic, number of users - especially home users - would have all their needs covered with software that ships with Macs. Even much more would be sweet as with software that comes with Macs and, say, additional Office for Mac. Not everyone plays games, and people buying cheap laptops and desktops definitely don't anyway. But there's still number of users who need more than what tablets can provide.
Or think of it this way: Apple already has high-end laptop market. Competition is going stronger - more and more PC brands are releasing good looking, well built units. Think HP Envy and Envy Spectre, think Asus ZenBook Prime (with its full HD IPS screen in 11" and 13"). So Apple at best can hope to hold on to premium market share they have, or lose part of it at worst... but either way, there is not much space to grow in premium segment. However, Apple does have space to grow in lower segments. In a way, it is like position MS is in - having no more space to grow in segments they are already strong, so trying to grow into segments they are hardly present, mobile and premium laptop.
Personally, I'd be interested in affordable MacBook with aluminium unibody and decent IPS screen, even in 1280x. In fact, I'd rather have 1280 IPS than 1980 TFT on 13" unit, for the same price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Let's put the latter part aside for now. I've not seen many of these spec stickers for recent models, so I'd like to ask if they have ever mentioned Turbo Boost on them before. Similarly, have there ever been models that reference the integrated GPU without talking about the RAM that goes along with it?
I took a picture from my box (the most current MBP purchased a few months ago) for comparison:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle
I took a picture from my box (the most current MBP purchased a few months ago) for comparison:
Ah, so no mention of Turbo Boost and mention of the RAM for the integrated GPU. Thanks!
Looks right to me. That's a 16:10 aspect ratio and 196 PPI. I think what you're assuming is that it there needs to be exactly double the resolution like with the iPhone and iPad so that one pixel can be represented by 4 pixels, but that law doesn't carry over to Mac OS X in the same way because it's a windowed OS. The structure and design is completely different because the primary input method is completely different. Mac OS has always fluctuated the PPI of the display (within reason) based on the size and tech.