If I were Apple, I would try adjusting the price of the 17" MacBook Pro first to see if that improves sales rather than throwing in the towel. The question is do people purchase the smaller models because of size or price? I am thinking the 17" is unpopular because of cost, not size. It starts at $2,499 which is a tad pricey for the average Joe.
While it may be expensive, I don't think this is the reason why its not selling. More like, its just not a big seller. The majority don't use big laptops. Everything is getting smaller and the 17" doesn't fit in Apple's lineup direction anymore. Are people going to get left without a 17" Mac, yes but thats how it goes sometimes. You can't cater to specific people.
You realise that the flip side of that equation is that while the number of pixel is quadrupling, the resolution is doubling?
That extra clarity is because things can be drawn at a finer resolution.
It also means that if things are drawn at the same resolution at they currently are, you can fit a helluva lot more on the same sized screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
But that isn't happening. Which is good for him, because it's not what he wants.
<sarcasm>
I wish we were all endowed with your wisdom and foresight. You obviously know what is going to happen by your firm grasp of what a retina display means and how it is used - in practice, and not theory.
<sarcasm/>
[Long reply deleted - because, quite frankly, its not worth the effort.]
Apple should just discontinue all computers and sell iPhone and iPad appliances. This year marks the last dollar I will ever spend on Apple ecosystem. Enough is enough.
Great, more for the rest of us.
And if you are so outraged why are you giving them to the end of the year. Take that money and go buy a Dell or whatever is better in your view.
It also means that if things are drawn at the same resolution at they currently are, you can fit a helluva lot more on the same sized screen.
But things aren't drawn at the same resolution. Retina displays come with new graphics that are scaled up so you have the same size items but crisper graphics. And the system coding doubles up non Retina graphics to that size. Think like how iPhone apps are handled on the iPad
While it may be expensive, I don't think this is the reason why its not selling. More like, its just not a big seller. The majority don't use big laptops. Everything is getting smaller and the 17" doesn't fit in Apple's lineup direction anymore. Are people going to get left without a 17" Mac, yes but thats how it goes sometimes. You can't cater to specific people.
It also has to be obvious to even a casual observer also that almost everyone defending the 17" as "irreplaceable" here is, well ... obviously older than the average user.
Most of the thread has devolved into arguments about failing eyesight and resolution effects. Most of the people who "need the real estate" are still managing windows like it's 1999 and are seemingly unaware of the uses of multiple desktops, full screen switching or expose/mission control.
What we are seeing is a battle of "old-school" computer users vs. younger, or more forward thinking users.
For that reason, I don't think there is any resolution in sight
If you don't like this decision, you can try to appeal to Tim Cook at: [email protected]
Although he doesn't read all his email messages from strangers, like Steve did.
1. It's not a decision at this point it's a rumor, by a guy that is probably the one that was saying that the 17 inch was being killed off for the last two years
2. Unless you are Tim Cook or his executive assistant you don't know what he does and doesn't read. Hell unless you were Steve Job's assistant you don't know that he read ALL his emails either. It's very possible he didn't, just the ones his people brought him that were deemed important enough for him to look at personally
Just to play devil's advocate ... having a big screen doesn't in and of itself make you a professional though. Whether or not you are a professional in one particular field or another is a completely separate thing from whether or not you need or use a giant laptop of course. One is either professional or not, and one uses whatever one needs to use to get the job done in whatever field one is in.
Everyone where I work is a professional for example and most carry laptops. However the person in my field that has a 17" one is more likely to be the *least* professional of the bunch because they just aren't necessary. In my professional field the dilettantes and poseurs are the ones with the 17" screen because if you don't need the size, then to buy one is to be a sort of show-off.
My only point being that "professional" doesn't always equal "giant computer" (and vice versa).
And folks have repeatedly pointed out that your experience does not even vaguely cover wide range of actual pros. If you think that 17" MBP users are dilettantes and posers my only conclusion is that you have no clue and are hopelessly narrow minded.
I wish we were all endowed with your wisdom and foresight. You obviously know what is going to happen by your firm grasp of what a retina display means and how it is used - in practice, and not theory.
<sarcasm/>
Well, let's see. They did what I just said on the iPhone. They did what I just said on the iPad.
They're obviously NOT going to do it on their computers. Because… why?
"The 17-inch MacBook Pro would be a logical choice for Apple to retire, as the premium professional notebook only accounted for 1.7 percent of the company's notebook sales in the first quarter of 2012."
So what if it was only 1.7 percent, did anyone do a calculation of what 1.7" sales is equal to its 787,610,000.00 which is a lot more than a lot of companies total revenue for a given year.
I think Apple is fine in keeping this model in the line-up.
And folks have repeatedly pointed out that your experience does not even vaguely cover wide range of actual pros. If you think that 17" MBP users are dilettantes and posers my only conclusion is that you have no clue and are hopelessly narrow minded.
The personal attack is so uncalled for.
My argument was only that while in some industries and markets pro = 17" that for many others (if not most) it does not. You're the one reading stuff into my posts that isn't there. You're the one getting offended and lashing out with insults for no reason. Perhaps my description of "dilettantes" was too close for comfort.
If you're intention was to prove that 17" "pro" users are cranky, insulting and childish you're doing a great job.
i think Apple should firmly drive a message home that these 'desktop replacement' size machienes dont fall into line with modern day multi-device computing
these so called professionals moaning about this should head over to the world of Windows - plenty of options there - you guys are too old school for the modern Apple world
What's wrong with having a desktop replacement that portable? NOTHING. Some people want that big real estate, are wiling to pay for it, and their computer to be a Mac. Think about video editors that are on location. What about professional photographers, people that want a mobile recording studio that need that real estate, etc.? Some people just like the additional real estate. It may not be flying off the shelves, but there still is a market. Since most of the people that buy that system within the first 6 months of release, how many have they sold of these and what is the bottom line to the company that they might potentially lose to the WIndows market? Unless they aren't making any money and they are losing money on these, I don't see any reason for them to give up that business to Windows, if it is still profitable. How many of these do they sell within a 3 year period? I wouldn't drop a product purely on one quarter's worth of sales. That might be stupid. Let's say the 17inch was 1.7% of yearly sales in terms of the number of laptops sold. Isn't the number of laptops year to year increasing? Those are the numbers I am seeing in terms of future growth for Apple. Everyone is saying how Apple total Mac sales (laptops being higher growth rate than desktops) is growing year to year, so however many Apple is selling might sell more from year to year, instead of less. It might be growing at a slower rate than the other products, but still selling enough to warrant offering the product. Of course they are going to discontinue the current 17inch model this year, they discontinued the previous year's model and introduced a replacement. I think Apple may find themselves in a position because processors might not be getting replaced as often as they used to that they might wait a little longer between product cycles. What's funny is that everyone early in the PC market would wait a year or longer for a new processor to come out. The PC/XT products weren't updated for ever a year before the AT replaced the PC/XT. Then processors started to pump out where the computer market would upgrade TWICE a year. That is now trending down to ONCE a year. It's wouldn't surprise me if PCs (ALL BRANDS) don't get updated until maybe every 1.5 years to maybe 2 years since I think the Moore's law is kind of slowing down. They obviously are reaching the maximum in terms of speed and number of cores they can still on a piece of silicon for laptops while keeping them warm. So, what else does one need in terms of a new laptop? Just because Apple releases a new version every year, doesn't mean people are going to buy one EVERY year. How many 17 inch owners out there that plan on buying a new one? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc Million? Other than Thunderbolt, the last three years of laptops are pretty darned fast, so the only reason to buy a new one is because of some compelling reason. Unless I saw more compelling reason, i don't necessarily see a reason to discontinue making 17 inch laptops. There have been rumors (probably the same people) saying the MacPro is being discontinued. Yeah, RIGHT.
The 17" MBP doesn't sell well anymore because it's just too expensive. The cheapest model is over 2 grand compared to half that for the 13" model.
Compare that with the windows PCs where 17" laptops are still very popular as desktop replacements because there isn't such a big price hike from 13" and 15" models.
I'm not sure we'll be any the wiser on Monday as I've never known Apple to announce an EOL at a keynote. They usually so it very quietly when nobody is looking.
$2000 is a lot of money only when you are broke. I paid more than that for my 15" MacBook Pro, I could have gotten a 17" but was worried about weight. I was hoping the newer could be thinner and lighter but I guess there won't be one.
$2000 is a lot of money only when you are broke. I paid more than that for my 15" MacBook Pro, I could have gotten a 17" but was worried about weight. I was hoping the newer could be thinner and lighter but I guess there won't be one.
Price matters. Apple needs to reduce the gap between windows ultrabook machines and macs. The need to achieve the same gap then have in the tablet market. the price difference between a android 10" tablet and an ipad is slim and this is why Apple is dominating the market.
If you have your desktop set up on a Mac with current screen resolutions and then migrate everything to a display of the same size with twice the linear (4 times the area) resolution, everything will be 1/4 the size.
Some things will be smaller and others not. Applications such as Adobe CS inDesign & Illustrator will need to display things according to their actual size, not pixels. Browsers do a combination of things such as scaling the type. Not saying there won't be problems. One example is CSS font-size:9px; will be a disaster unless the applications do a workaround based on detecting the density of pixels which most currently do not.
The current trend in web design is to specify font size in pixels rather than point size. This was partially due to inconsistencies between Mac and Windows. IE would display point sizes about 25% larger than Mac which would throw off the layout depending on which system was being used. Detecting the the browser and compensating for various factors has been the headache we have been dealing with since the invention of HTML.
Now with high-res screens about to be thrown into the mix and no convenient browser technology to detect it, it seems to me that we should go back to point size for base type and use em as the scaling factor. If a browser is displaying font size incorrectly, that is what needs to be fixed instead of forcing all web design to require a workaround.
I'm sure Apple has taken a lot of the issues into consideration just as they did when they introduced Mobile Safari, understanding full well that 9 pixel type will not be legible on a 300 dpi screen.
This makes sense to me if they are doing a retina display line of new macbook's. The cost of a 17" retina display screen would be too much.
I am hoping for a slim 15" SSD Macbook with high resolution and no CD drive, whatever name they call it.
Cost of a 17 inch retina display would be too much? REALLY? DId you know that the increase cost of a display might be offset by the lower costs of hard drives, or memory, or some other components that are in these systems? These rumor mongers sometimes make assumptions purely based on fallacies. I won't believe any of these rumors until Apple releases a press release indicating one way or another. Apple mentioned a LONG time ago that ALL products were going to be refreshed this year. Did Apple ever say that the 17 inch laptop will be a model that is disappearing forever? NO. Not yet. I remember Apple updated the 13 and 15 laptop models at a big whoopty do and people got up in arms about the 17 inch, and then a few months later BLAM. A new 17 inch model because Apple was waiting for a new display and/or processor to ship. Of course Apple is going to pump out the 13 and 15 inch models first, because they sell more, but sometimes there is a logistics reason to hold back the 17 inch.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox
If I were Apple, I would try adjusting the price of the 17" MacBook Pro first to see if that improves sales rather than throwing in the towel. The question is do people purchase the smaller models because of size or price? I am thinking the 17" is unpopular because of cost, not size. It starts at $2,499 which is a tad pricey for the average Joe.
While it may be expensive, I don't think this is the reason why its not selling. More like, its just not a big seller. The majority don't use big laptops. Everything is getting smaller and the 17" doesn't fit in Apple's lineup direction anymore. Are people going to get left without a 17" Mac, yes but thats how it goes sometimes. You can't cater to specific people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokenuser
You realise that the flip side of that equation is that while the number of pixel is quadrupling, the resolution is doubling?
That extra clarity is because things can be drawn at a finer resolution.
It also means that if things are drawn at the same resolution at they currently are, you can fit a helluva lot more on the same sized screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
But that isn't happening. Which is good for him, because it's not what he wants.
<sarcasm>
I wish we were all endowed with your wisdom and foresight. You obviously know what is going to happen by your firm grasp of what a retina display means and how it is used - in practice, and not theory.
<sarcasm/>
[Long reply deleted - because, quite frankly, its not worth the effort.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario
Apple should just discontinue all computers and sell iPhone and iPad appliances. This year marks the last dollar I will ever spend on Apple ecosystem. Enough is enough.
Great, more for the rest of us.
And if you are so outraged why are you giving them to the end of the year. Take that money and go buy a Dell or whatever is better in your view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokenuser
It also means that if things are drawn at the same resolution at they currently are, you can fit a helluva lot more on the same sized screen.
But things aren't drawn at the same resolution. Retina displays come with new graphics that are scaled up so you have the same size items but crisper graphics. And the system coding doubles up non Retina graphics to that size. Think like how iPhone apps are handled on the iPad
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
While it may be expensive, I don't think this is the reason why its not selling. More like, its just not a big seller. The majority don't use big laptops. Everything is getting smaller and the 17" doesn't fit in Apple's lineup direction anymore. Are people going to get left without a 17" Mac, yes but thats how it goes sometimes. You can't cater to specific people.
It also has to be obvious to even a casual observer also that almost everyone defending the 17" as "irreplaceable" here is, well ... obviously older than the average user.
Most of the thread has devolved into arguments about failing eyesight and resolution effects. Most of the people who "need the real estate" are still managing windows like it's 1999 and are seemingly unaware of the uses of multiple desktops, full screen switching or expose/mission control.
What we are seeing is a battle of "old-school" computer users vs. younger, or more forward thinking users.
For that reason, I don't think there is any resolution in sight
(bad pun, I know)
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321
If you don't like this decision, you can try to appeal to Tim Cook at: [email protected]
Although he doesn't read all his email messages from strangers, like Steve did.
1. It's not a decision at this point it's a rumor, by a guy that is probably the one that was saying that the 17 inch was being killed off for the last two years
2. Unless you are Tim Cook or his executive assistant you don't know what he does and doesn't read. Hell unless you were Steve Job's assistant you don't know that he read ALL his emails either. It's very possible he didn't, just the ones his people brought him that were deemed important enough for him to look at personally
"Ladies and gentlemen, AppleInsider believes in all sincerity that the Mac mini is dead."
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/05/24/closing_the_book_on_apples_mac_mini.html
AI's track record is so-so at best.
Kuo's is better but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Just to play devil's advocate ... having a big screen doesn't in and of itself make you a professional though. Whether or not you are a professional in one particular field or another is a completely separate thing from whether or not you need or use a giant laptop of course. One is either professional or not, and one uses whatever one needs to use to get the job done in whatever field one is in.
Everyone where I work is a professional for example and most carry laptops. However the person in my field that has a 17" one is more likely to be the *least* professional of the bunch because they just aren't necessary. In my professional field the dilettantes and poseurs are the ones with the 17" screen because if you don't need the size, then to buy one is to be a sort of show-off.
My only point being that "professional" doesn't always equal "giant computer" (and vice versa).
And folks have repeatedly pointed out that your experience does not even vaguely cover wide range of actual pros. If you think that 17" MBP users are dilettantes and posers my only conclusion is that you have no clue and are hopelessly narrow minded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
What we are seeing is a battle of "old-school" computer users vs. younger, or more forward thinking users.
That's probably the dumbest thing you've written to date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokenuser
<sarcasm>
I wish we were all endowed with your wisdom and foresight. You obviously know what is going to happen by your firm grasp of what a retina display means and how it is used - in practice, and not theory.
<sarcasm/>
Well, let's see. They did what I just said on the iPhone. They did what I just said on the iPad.
They're obviously NOT going to do it on their computers. Because… why?
"The 17-inch MacBook Pro would be a logical choice for Apple to retire, as the premium professional notebook only accounted for 1.7 percent of the company's notebook sales in the first quarter of 2012."
So what if it was only 1.7 percent, did anyone do a calculation of what 1.7" sales is equal to its 787,610,000.00 which is a lot more than a lot of companies total revenue for a given year.
I think Apple is fine in keeping this model in the line-up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
And folks have repeatedly pointed out that your experience does not even vaguely cover wide range of actual pros. If you think that 17" MBP users are dilettantes and posers my only conclusion is that you have no clue and are hopelessly narrow minded.
The personal attack is so uncalled for.
My argument was only that while in some industries and markets pro = 17" that for many others (if not most) it does not. You're the one reading stuff into my posts that isn't there. You're the one getting offended and lashing out with insults for no reason. Perhaps my description of "dilettantes" was too close for comfort.
If you're intention was to prove that 17" "pro" users are cranky, insulting and childish you're doing a great job.
Have a nice day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkqd1337
good idea
i think Apple should firmly drive a message home that these 'desktop replacement' size machienes dont fall into line with modern day multi-device computing
these so called professionals moaning about this should head over to the world of Windows - plenty of options there - you guys are too old school for the modern Apple world
What's wrong with having a desktop replacement that portable? NOTHING. Some people want that big real estate, are wiling to pay for it, and their computer to be a Mac. Think about video editors that are on location. What about professional photographers, people that want a mobile recording studio that need that real estate, etc.? Some people just like the additional real estate. It may not be flying off the shelves, but there still is a market. Since most of the people that buy that system within the first 6 months of release, how many have they sold of these and what is the bottom line to the company that they might potentially lose to the WIndows market? Unless they aren't making any money and they are losing money on these, I don't see any reason for them to give up that business to Windows, if it is still profitable. How many of these do they sell within a 3 year period? I wouldn't drop a product purely on one quarter's worth of sales. That might be stupid. Let's say the 17inch was 1.7% of yearly sales in terms of the number of laptops sold. Isn't the number of laptops year to year increasing? Those are the numbers I am seeing in terms of future growth for Apple. Everyone is saying how Apple total Mac sales (laptops being higher growth rate than desktops) is growing year to year, so however many Apple is selling might sell more from year to year, instead of less. It might be growing at a slower rate than the other products, but still selling enough to warrant offering the product. Of course they are going to discontinue the current 17inch model this year, they discontinued the previous year's model and introduced a replacement. I think Apple may find themselves in a position because processors might not be getting replaced as often as they used to that they might wait a little longer between product cycles. What's funny is that everyone early in the PC market would wait a year or longer for a new processor to come out. The PC/XT products weren't updated for ever a year before the AT replaced the PC/XT. Then processors started to pump out where the computer market would upgrade TWICE a year. That is now trending down to ONCE a year. It's wouldn't surprise me if PCs (ALL BRANDS) don't get updated until maybe every 1.5 years to maybe 2 years since I think the Moore's law is kind of slowing down. They obviously are reaching the maximum in terms of speed and number of cores they can still on a piece of silicon for laptops while keeping them warm. So, what else does one need in terms of a new laptop? Just because Apple releases a new version every year, doesn't mean people are going to buy one EVERY year. How many 17 inch owners out there that plan on buying a new one? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc Million? Other than Thunderbolt, the last three years of laptops are pretty darned fast, so the only reason to buy a new one is because of some compelling reason. Unless I saw more compelling reason, i don't necessarily see a reason to discontinue making 17 inch laptops. There have been rumors (probably the same people) saying the MacPro is being discontinued. Yeah, RIGHT.
$2000 is a lot of money only when you are broke. I paid more than that for my 15" MacBook Pro, I could have gotten a 17" but was worried about weight. I was hoping the newer could be thinner and lighter but I guess there won't be one.
This makes sense to me if they are doing a retina display line of new macbook's. The cost of a 17" retina display screen would be too much.
I am hoping for a slim 15" SSD Macbook with high resolution and no CD drive, whatever name they call it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov
$2000 is a lot of money only when you are broke. I paid more than that for my 15" MacBook Pro, I could have gotten a 17" but was worried about weight. I was hoping the newer could be thinner and lighter but I guess there won't be one.
Price matters. Apple needs to reduce the gap between windows ultrabook machines and macs. The need to achieve the same gap then have in the tablet market. the price difference between a android 10" tablet and an ipad is slim and this is why Apple is dominating the market.
Dropping three letters (pro) doesn't actually equate to dropping an entire line. They still make iPads do they not?
Ofcourse the sales on the 17" are the lowest. ITS A VERY EXPENSIVE LAPTOP!!!!
The ones that buy it NEED the size. That it sells less then other doesn't say Apple should kill it.
Pro market demands it period. If you're not in that area you shouldn't even talk about it.
Should Apple kill the Mac Pro also because the sales are so low? Hell no.
Apple would kill itself out of the Pro market by doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If you have your desktop set up on a Mac with current screen resolutions and then migrate everything to a display of the same size with twice the linear (4 times the area) resolution, everything will be 1/4 the size.
Some things will be smaller and others not. Applications such as Adobe CS inDesign & Illustrator will need to display things according to their actual size, not pixels. Browsers do a combination of things such as scaling the type. Not saying there won't be problems. One example is CSS font-size:9px; will be a disaster unless the applications do a workaround based on detecting the density of pixels which most currently do not.
The current trend in web design is to specify font size in pixels rather than point size. This was partially due to inconsistencies between Mac and Windows. IE would display point sizes about 25% larger than Mac which would throw off the layout depending on which system was being used. Detecting the the browser and compensating for various factors has been the headache we have been dealing with since the invention of HTML.
Now with high-res screens about to be thrown into the mix and no convenient browser technology to detect it, it seems to me that we should go back to point size for base type and use em as the scaling factor. If a browser is displaying font size incorrectly, that is what needs to be fixed instead of forcing all web design to require a workaround.
I'm sure Apple has taken a lot of the issues into consideration just as they did when they introduced Mobile Safari, understanding full well that 9 pixel type will not be legible on a 300 dpi screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
This makes sense to me if they are doing a retina display line of new macbook's. The cost of a 17" retina display screen would be too much.
I am hoping for a slim 15" SSD Macbook with high resolution and no CD drive, whatever name they call it.
Cost of a 17 inch retina display would be too much? REALLY? DId you know that the increase cost of a display might be offset by the lower costs of hard drives, or memory, or some other components that are in these systems? These rumor mongers sometimes make assumptions purely based on fallacies. I won't believe any of these rumors until Apple releases a press release indicating one way or another. Apple mentioned a LONG time ago that ALL products were going to be refreshed this year. Did Apple ever say that the 17 inch laptop will be a model that is disappearing forever? NO. Not yet. I remember Apple updated the 13 and 15 laptop models at a big whoopty do and people got up in arms about the 17 inch, and then a few months later BLAM. A new 17 inch model because Apple was waiting for a new display and/or processor to ship. Of course Apple is going to pump out the 13 and 15 inch models first, because they sell more, but sometimes there is a logistics reason to hold back the 17 inch.