Geez. We all criticize analysts for their idiotic statements. But reading through the comments on this, I'm thinking the pot shouldn't call the kettle black. It's just a rumor. A month ago the rumor was that the Mac Pro line was being axed. Let's not get too excited. I will be surprised if it goes. Niche product, but still a market for it.
Agreed.
I use my 17" Pro every day for graphics and photography. I have no issue with "lugging" it around because I want the extra screen real estate. I don't really need to buy a monitor since it's a nice balance of the size I like and portability. It works for me as a professional.
Anyway, I'd hate to see the 17" go, but all of this is rumors and we'll see what the real deal is next week.
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)
I've often found that the 17" is harder to see, especially the high res model. People will always have their opinions and why the 17" is necessary. 1.7% think its necessary, not exactly a large percentage of the buyers. Yes, I agree...there are better ways to manage windows. You don't need windows on top of windows, on top of windows. Apple has created features such as Spaces (aka Mission Control in Lion), exposé, trackpad gestures for easy navigation to these windows and features. People just need to learn to use them. I use a 15" MBP 5 days a week with multiple windows and applications open without any issues. I have Workgroup manager windows, ARD, Windows Remote Desktop, Safari, OS X Mail, iChat, etc windows open all day long. Its really not that hard to manage them. The 15" screen still allows you to put 2 documents side by side without cutting off any part of the document. I have used Photoshop with this 15" screen without any issues.
Apple wouldn't just kill a product just to do it. So one may think...so what..1.7% is quite a few users, but it gets to the point of where is it profitable for Apple to keep this product going. They still have to engineer both hardware and software updates specially for the 17" MBP and if they see its only for 1.7% of the Mac laptop user base (which is 1% or less of actual Mac sales) then they're going to decide to drop the product so they can focus their efforts on the products that sell. Also, like I said before, the 17" MBP no longer fits into their current/future product strategy. Every company does this and yes, it leaves people to figure out other options. For example, people love the Dodge Challenger and Ford Mustang, but Chrysler is eventually going to replace it with something else, or simply drop it altogether for various reasons. The same could be true for the Ford Mustang. So the customers who have them that want to upgrade, or plan on buying one down the road will no longer have that option. Its just how it is...
I do video editing and like to be mobile when I do it. The 17" Macbook pro was perfect for doing so. With time lines and a video preview it can get tight, but still doable. If they could keep the 17" line and add the retina display, that would be absolutely perfect. If they give us a 15" with a retina display and drop the 17" screen, this won't do much good for me because I don't want to sit 2 inches away from the laptop to see what I'm doing. I'm hoping that rumor doesn't materialize.
I do video editing and like to be mobile when I do it. The 17" Macbook pro was perfect for doing so. With time lines and a video preview it can get tight, but still doable. If they could keep the 17" line and add the retina display, that would be absolutely perfect. If they give us a 15" with a retina display and drop the 17" screen, this won't do much good for me because I don't want to sit 2 inches away from the laptop to see what I'm doing. I'm hoping that rumor doesn't materialize.
Yeah -- I liked using the 17" MacBook Pro for professional purposes such as software development on the go. I can fit more lines of code on-screen while still being readable.
I like some people's attitude that larger laptops are "old school" or a "fad". Well, no, there are practical reasons for a larger laptop. It makes an excellent portable workstation.
This is a stupid article. Axe the MacBookPro altogether? Yeah, right. If Apple discontinued the MacBook, and they are coming out with a new Mac Book? And now they are going to axe the MacBookPro for MacBooks?
It sounds like someone just got their 420 card and seems to be celebrating a little too much.
Yeah, the headline screamed sensationalist tabloid bs for the click traffic. Analysts get way too much credibility on this site. You might as well have a headline that reads "Tim Cook still expected to bite head off live chicken at WWDC, drink its blood on stage."
It'd be even better if AppleInsider clearly indicated which articles are rumor and which are factual news, but most people can figure it out. But a lot of people posting in the forums seem to take this article as if Apple just announced the death of the MBP without really questioning the source. Do I think AppleInsider has a responsibility to better-inform readers? Yes.
If price was an issue nobody would buy Apple products. In fact I see the opposite in many cases people buy Apple products even if that means suffering elsewhere.
In any event I will state again the price of the 13" MBP is not a factor in its sales. Very few buyers of this machine would even consider a 15" MBP.
What you said was "Price has very little to do with what people buy."
So you're saying that no one even looks at price. That's an incredibly foolish thing to say - and you're doubling down by repeating it.
No one said that price was the only consideration. Obviously, people consider other things besides price - which is why people buy Apple products (although this is a bad example because most Apple products are very competitive today) and Lexus and Mercedes, and so on. But the fact that people will occasionally buy a more expensive product does not justify your absurd statement that price doesn't affect the buying decision much.
I think what wizard69 meant was, the people who don't buy the 17" MBP isn't because its expensive. Its because of other factors. Its too large, its too heavy, too much of a pain in the ass to carry around with them, etc. If you're in the market for a 17" MBP and/or have purchased one in the past you're not necessarily worried about how much they cost. Price isn't the major contributing factor as to why the 17" MBP doesn't sell well anymore. Bigger isn't always better and its proving to be the case for most....you can see this buy looking at the break down in Apple laptop sales. The 13" is their biggest seller and has been for quite a while.
That may be what wizard69 meant, but that's not what he said. Furthermore, neither you nor he has provided a shred of evidence to back up your position. In fact, several people here have specifically cited price as a factor which prevented them from buying a 17".
Until you have some evidence otherwise, your (and his) assertion that "Price has very little to do with what people buy" is completely unsupported - and contrary to simple logic and common experience.
Yeah, the headline screamed sensationalist tabloid bs for the click traffic. Analysts get way too much credibility on this site. You might as well have a headline that reads "Tim Cook still expected to bite head off live chicken at WWDC, drink its blood on stage."
It'd be even better if AppleInsider clearly indicated which articles are rumor and which are factual news, but most people can figure it out. But a lot of people posting in the forums seem to take this article as if Apple just announced the death of the MBP without really questioning the source. Do I think AppleInsider has a responsibility to better-inform readers? Yes.
Considering some of the responses seen so far would it do any good? If people can't separate out this speculation from fact or distinguish what is speculation then I doubt telling them out right would do any good. It is a sad state of affairs when nobody in the country is capable of critical thinking. It is no wonder the global warming crowd has such a large following on such flimsy evidence these days.
People that can't grasp the nature of the conversation here should just wait for WWDC. At that point one can make informed decisions on the new product line. Otherwise to base ones buying decisions off these rumors is just nuts.
How in the world would you conclude that Apple doesn't build powerful small computers?
Dell, HP, Asus, Lenovo, and Samsung have until the last year put out the latest chips months and even a year before Apple would adopt them.
When I was shopping for a computer in late 2007 I considered the Mini. It would have been my first Apple product. On the forums the posters were regularly stating that any day now the Mini would be updated. It wasn't. It took a year and a half for it to be refreshed. During that time and in subsequent years the timelines of Apple computer updates were posted. So many models were refreshed much later than their previous history had indicated that many believed Apple had given up on the computer business in order to focus on the iPhone and iPod lines.
The chips put into the Apple computers were usually not the latest and greatest. They were close, usually the last generation. Apple did innovate with the Mac Book Air. The price was $1899 or more at the introduction. Then they kept the same chips in it for almost two years. That is what Apple has done for the last few years. They put in a decent chip and keep it for way too long before updating it. The competition updates faster. This year Apple is using the latest chips and we suspect they'll use the Ivy Bridge boards. How long will those stay in their computers? Their history indicates that they'll have them long into the next Intel update while other manufacturers will have the newest components in their high end offerings.
Apple introduced Lightpeak a.k.a. Thunderbolt. That was a good innovation but how much of the designing did Apple do? I don't know. Was Intel the designer with Apple as the consulting customer? Maybe Intel just needed a manufacturer to commit to the technology and Apple saw the vision and agreed to implement it first.
Look at the Mac Pro. It's as if Apple does some work on it every year and a half and then puts it in a closet until they come across it again. It's the same with the 17" Mac Book Pro. Apple is now a telephone manufacturer that makes computers. I bet Apple would prefer to dump the 17" laptop and retool that manufacturing floor for making iPhones. There would be fewer shortages and they would make up for the lost computer sales very quickly by selling more iPhones faster than they do now.
I want Apple to build a small Mini tower or a Mac Book Air size computer with the same components that are going into the Mac Book Pros i.e. multi-core i7 processors with hyperthreading with 8+ GB RAM. It should also have plenty of ports including USB 3. That would be a proper powerful small computer.
What you said was "Price has very little to do with what people buy."
So you're saying that no one even looks at price. That's an incredibly foolish thing to say - and you're doubling down by repeating it.
Because it is the right thing to say! People go for the 13" MBP because it has the right set of features. Think about it there is a 13" AIR to be had but yet the MBP out sells it.
No one said that price was the only consideration. Obviously, people consider other things besides price - which is why people buy Apple products (although this is a bad example because most Apple products are very competitive today) and Lexus and Mercedes, and so on. But the fact that people will occasionally buy a more expensive product does not justify your absurd statement that price doesn't affect the buying decision much.
In the context of this thread though I still believe my points are correct.
That may be what wizard69 meant, but that's not what he said. Furthermore, neither you nor he has provided a shred of evidence to back up your position. In fact, several people here have specifically cited price as a factor which prevented them from buying a 17".
Now you are changing the discussion. This is in regards to the choice between the 13" and 15" machine. Nothing I've seen indicates that choices between these to machines is primarily cost. It may be for a few but I suspect most are motivated by size.
Until you have some evidence otherwise, your (and his) assertion that "Price has very little to do with what people buy" is completely unsupported - and contrary to simple logic and common experience.
Bull crap. If price was the only issue in a purchase iPhone would have failed long ago, and the AIRs would have replaced all other notebooks by now.
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.
The 17" is unpopular because of the damn weight. I buy a laptop because it is portable. The MBA is selling like hot cakes because it's very portable. The 15" MBP is right at the cusp of being able to be carried open with one hand. I was hoping that Apple would keep the 17" around in an "Air" version, then it would be at a more manageable weight.
Somewhat disappointing news for me. I love my MBP 17". Was thinking to update my 17" this year but after reading this sad news, can't think of buying 15 incher anytime soon for sure. Probably I should now bump up the RAM and call it a day. I personally don't like optical drives so I would rather also just add another SSD and take out the optical drive. Not sure why Apple is discontinuing 17" as it was pretty obvious from day one that that machine is not for majority of users. They should not expect it to outsell smaller toys. Edited: Not to mention, I have MP, 13" 15", Air, iPad and iPhone. 95% of my time I use 17".
So he should surrender to a smaller screen because a multi-billion dollar company deserves his ongoing support for this "bravery"? Hopefully it is sarcasm...
Agreed although many of us probably had a similar philosophy more than 7 or 8 years ago. Apple now has the largest market capitalization of any non-financial corporation in the world. If Apple stops making a product I need or want then Apple abandoned me as a customer not the other way around. High end products by their very nature have low sales so what difference does if make if particular product has less than 2% of sales in its category as long as a good profit is being made selling that product. According to the sales philosophy of some the posters here General Motors should stop making Cadillacs and Ford should stop making Lincolns because they don't have as high sales totals as Chevys and Fords.
MacBook: 11" and 13", virtually identical to the current MacBook Airs.
MacBook Pro: 13", 15" and 17". Thinner and lighter than current design, with a less reflective screen. 13" would be heavier, but would be more powerful (hence 'Pro').
I think the primary factor behind poor sales of the 17" MBP is Apple's pricing scheme. If you want a large screen you have never had any choice but to buy the most expensive MacBook or switch to Windows. I don't need high end performance, but I do want as much screen real estate as I can comfortably carry.
In my office everyone has lots of screen real estate. Full time staff have a 23" 1920x1080 external display in addition to their Mac. It has allowed many people who used to carry 15" MacBook Pros to move to the 13" MacBook Air. Others have gone the other direction and chosen a 27" iMac. Most of those people either don't work from home or have a complete work environment set up at home.
Our project managers fall in between. They need to be highly portable, but cannot afford to sacrifice screen real estate when they're away from their desks. They all have 17" MacBook Pros. I'm not a PM, but I feel the same way. I normally have >10 applications open at the same time and frequently need to see information from multiple windows at the same time. Even with a 1920x1200 screen I feel cramped when I can't toss windows onto a secondary display.
I could work in a smaller space but I'd be less efficient. Plus, as my eyes age, I find myself using zoom buttons more and more each year. I need to be able to do that without half my document disappearing off the edge of the screen.
My boss wishes Apple would make a 19" or 20" MacBook Pro so he could do more when he's away from his desk, but even those of us with 17" MBPs think he's crazy
The 17" is unpopular because of the damn weight. I buy a laptop because it is portable. The MBA is selling like hot cakes because it's very portable. The 15" MBP is right at the cusp of being able to be carried open with one hand. I was hoping that Apple would keep the 17" around in an "Air" version, then it would be at a more manageable weight.
The 17" MacBookPro was design to replace the desktop. However, u can carry it around if you have to. I still love my 17" MacBookPro 2.16, which I use to develop website and run Adobe CS 5.5 on it. In the fall I was eagerly contemplating updating it, to a new model for Adobe CS 6. I ascertain I'll just get one of the recent MacBookPro, to replace my antiquated computer. I don't how "new school" can work on 10"- 15" screen to work in Photoshop, to 3D Animation type Apps out there. Never carry your portable computer with one hand.
Dell, HP, Asus, Lenovo, and Samsung have until the last year put out the latest chips months and even a year before Apple would adopt them.
When I was shopping for a computer in late 2007 I considered the Mini. It would have been my first Apple product. On the forums the posters were regularly stating that any day now the Mini would be updated. It wasn't. It took a year and a half for it to be refreshed. During that time and in subsequent years the timelines of Apple computer updates were posted. So many models were refreshed much later than their previous history had indicated that many believed Apple had given up on the computer business in order to focus on the iPhone and iPod lines.
The chips put into the Apple computers were usually not the latest and greatest. They were close, usually the last generation. Apple did innovate with the Mac Book Air. The price was $1899 or more at the introduction. Then they kept the same chips in it for almost two years. That is what Apple has done for the last few years. They put in a decent chip and keep it for way too long before updating it. The competition updates faster. This year Apple is using the latest chips and we suspect they'll use the Ivy Bridge boards. How long will those stay in their computers? Their history indicates that they'll have them long into the next Intel update while other manufacturers will have the newest components in their high end offerings.
Apple introduced Lightpeak a.k.a. Thunderbolt. That was a good innovation but how much of the designing did Apple do? I don't know. Was Intel the designer with Apple as the consulting customer? Maybe Intel just needed a manufacturer to commit to the technology and Apple saw the vision and agreed to implement it first.
Look at the Mac Pro. It's as if Apple does some work on it every year and a half and then puts it in a closet until they come across it again. It's the same with the 17" Mac Book Pro. Apple is now a telephone manufacturer that makes computers. I bet Apple would prefer to dump the 17" laptop and retool that manufacturing floor for making iPhones. There would be fewer shortages and they would make up for the lost computer sales very quickly by selling more iPhones faster than they do now.
I want Apple to build a small Mini tower or a Mac Book Air size computer with the same components that are going into the Mac Book Pros i.e. multi-core i7 processors with hyperthreading with 8+ GB RAM. It should also have plenty of ports including USB 3. That would be a proper powerful small computer.
OK, so there are a few cases where someone else had a new chip shortly before Apple did. How in the world do you get from that to "Apple doesn't make fast small computers?"
Apple's computers are very competitive overall. The fact that someone else might occasionally have an extra 0.1 GHz is not particularly relevant. Apple's computers are fast - and well within the range of comparable systems. And for some (MacBook Air, for example), everyone else is playing catch up.
Bull crap. If price was the only issue in a purchase iPhone would have failed long ago, and the AIRs would have replaced all other notebooks by now.
No one ever said that price was the ONLY issue.
OTOH, you said that price doesn't matter and isn't considered in deciding which computer to purchase. That is, of course, absurd. By that logic, Apple could double the price of all their computers and wouldn't lose any business.
In the REAL world (you ought to visit some time), price is a very important consideration. Not the only one, but quite important.
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13px Helvetica;color:#340df8;">The 17" MacBookPro was design to replace the desktop. However, u can carry it around if you have to. I still love my 17" MacBookPro 2.16, which I use to develop website and run Adobe CS 5.5 on it. In the fall I was eagerly contemplating updating it, to a new model for Adobe CS 6. I ascertain I'll just get one of the recent MacBookPro, to replace my antiquated computer. I don't how "new school" can work on 10"- 15" screen to work in Photoshop, to 3D Animation type Apps out there. Never carry your portable computer with one hand.</p>
I think you're right. I don't see it being likely for Apple to not sell a 17" laptop.
Is it possible that they'll transition to a lighter, thinner model without ODD? Sure. And it's even possible that they'll only transition the 13" and 15" now and the 17" later. I just don't see them dropping 17" entirely, though.
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.
Aren't margins on 17" MBPs higher than the equivalent 15" MBP? Why would Apple kill it?
I think you guys are all overreacting to what some "analyst" says. They aren't the final word, and neither is AppleInsider when it's republishing rumors. Please wait until Apple kills it before pressing the panic button. Then run around screaming woe.
I think you're right. I don't see it being likely for Apple to not sell a 17" laptop.
Is it possible that they'll transition to a lighter, thinner model without ODD? Sure. And it's even possible that they'll only transition the 13" and 15" now and the 17" later. I just don't see them dropping 17" entirely, though.
They could be waiting until 17" retina displays are available.
Same reason they won't kill the MacPro: an update was eventually coming.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodlesNoodlemann
Geez. We all criticize analysts for their idiotic statements. But reading through the comments on this, I'm thinking the pot shouldn't call the kettle black. It's just a rumor. A month ago the rumor was that the Mac Pro line was being axed. Let's not get too excited. I will be surprised if it goes. Niche product, but still a market for it.
Agreed.
I use my 17" Pro every day for graphics and photography. I have no issue with "lugging" it around because I want the extra screen real estate. I don't really need to buy a monitor since it's a nice balance of the size I like and portability. It works for me as a professional.
Anyway, I'd hate to see the 17" go, but all of this is rumors and we'll see what the real deal is next week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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)
I've often found that the 17" is harder to see, especially the high res model. People will always have their opinions and why the 17" is necessary. 1.7% think its necessary, not exactly a large percentage of the buyers. Yes, I agree...there are better ways to manage windows. You don't need windows on top of windows, on top of windows. Apple has created features such as Spaces (aka Mission Control in Lion), exposé, trackpad gestures for easy navigation to these windows and features. People just need to learn to use them. I use a 15" MBP 5 days a week with multiple windows and applications open without any issues. I have Workgroup manager windows, ARD, Windows Remote Desktop, Safari, OS X Mail, iChat, etc windows open all day long. Its really not that hard to manage them. The 15" screen still allows you to put 2 documents side by side without cutting off any part of the document. I have used Photoshop with this 15" screen without any issues.
Apple wouldn't just kill a product just to do it. So one may think...so what..1.7% is quite a few users, but it gets to the point of where is it profitable for Apple to keep this product going. They still have to engineer both hardware and software updates specially for the 17" MBP and if they see its only for 1.7% of the Mac laptop user base (which is 1% or less of actual Mac sales) then they're going to decide to drop the product so they can focus their efforts on the products that sell. Also, like I said before, the 17" MBP no longer fits into their current/future product strategy. Every company does this and yes, it leaves people to figure out other options. For example, people love the Dodge Challenger and Ford Mustang, but Chrysler is eventually going to replace it with something else, or simply drop it altogether for various reasons. The same could be true for the Ford Mustang. So the customers who have them that want to upgrade, or plan on buying one down the road will no longer have that option. Its just how it is...
I do video editing and like to be mobile when I do it. The 17" Macbook pro was perfect for doing so. With time lines and a video preview it can get tight, but still doable. If they could keep the 17" line and add the retina display, that would be absolutely perfect. If they give us a 15" with a retina display and drop the 17" screen, this won't do much good for me because I don't want to sit 2 inches away from the laptop to see what I'm doing. I'm hoping that rumor doesn't materialize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcdinkins
I do video editing and like to be mobile when I do it. The 17" Macbook pro was perfect for doing so. With time lines and a video preview it can get tight, but still doable. If they could keep the 17" line and add the retina display, that would be absolutely perfect. If they give us a 15" with a retina display and drop the 17" screen, this won't do much good for me because I don't want to sit 2 inches away from the laptop to see what I'm doing. I'm hoping that rumor doesn't materialize.
Yeah -- I liked using the 17" MacBook Pro for professional purposes such as software development on the go. I can fit more lines of code on-screen while still being readable.
I like some people's attitude that larger laptops are "old school" or a "fad". Well, no, there are practical reasons for a larger laptop. It makes an excellent portable workstation.
Yeah, the headline screamed sensationalist tabloid bs for the click traffic. Analysts get way too much credibility on this site. You might as well have a headline that reads "Tim Cook still expected to bite head off live chicken at WWDC, drink its blood on stage."
It'd be even better if AppleInsider clearly indicated which articles are rumor and which are factual news, but most people can figure it out. But a lot of people posting in the forums seem to take this article as if Apple just announced the death of the MBP without really questioning the source. Do I think AppleInsider has a responsibility to better-inform readers? Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
What we are seeing is a battle of "old-school" computer users vs. younger, or more forward thinking users.
Regards,
Señor Old-school
What you said was "Price has very little to do with what people buy."
So you're saying that no one even looks at price. That's an incredibly foolish thing to say - and you're doubling down by repeating it.
No one said that price was the only consideration. Obviously, people consider other things besides price - which is why people buy Apple products (although this is a bad example because most Apple products are very competitive today) and Lexus and Mercedes, and so on. But the fact that people will occasionally buy a more expensive product does not justify your absurd statement that price doesn't affect the buying decision much.
That may be what wizard69 meant, but that's not what he said. Furthermore, neither you nor he has provided a shred of evidence to back up your position. In fact, several people here have specifically cited price as a factor which prevented them from buying a 17".
Until you have some evidence otherwise, your (and his) assertion that "Price has very little to do with what people buy" is completely unsupported - and contrary to simple logic and common experience.
Considering some of the responses seen so far would it do any good? If people can't separate out this speculation from fact or distinguish what is speculation then I doubt telling them out right would do any good. It is a sad state of affairs when nobody in the country is capable of critical thinking. It is no wonder the global warming crowd has such a large following on such flimsy evidence these days.
People that can't grasp the nature of the conversation here should just wait for WWDC. At that point one can make informed decisions on the new product line. Otherwise to base ones buying decisions off these rumors is just nuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
How in the world would you conclude that Apple doesn't build powerful small computers?
Dell, HP, Asus, Lenovo, and Samsung have until the last year put out the latest chips months and even a year before Apple would adopt them.
When I was shopping for a computer in late 2007 I considered the Mini. It would have been my first Apple product. On the forums the posters were regularly stating that any day now the Mini would be updated. It wasn't. It took a year and a half for it to be refreshed. During that time and in subsequent years the timelines of Apple computer updates were posted. So many models were refreshed much later than their previous history had indicated that many believed Apple had given up on the computer business in order to focus on the iPhone and iPod lines.
The chips put into the Apple computers were usually not the latest and greatest. They were close, usually the last generation. Apple did innovate with the Mac Book Air. The price was $1899 or more at the introduction. Then they kept the same chips in it for almost two years. That is what Apple has done for the last few years. They put in a decent chip and keep it for way too long before updating it. The competition updates faster. This year Apple is using the latest chips and we suspect they'll use the Ivy Bridge boards. How long will those stay in their computers? Their history indicates that they'll have them long into the next Intel update while other manufacturers will have the newest components in their high end offerings.
Apple introduced Lightpeak a.k.a. Thunderbolt. That was a good innovation but how much of the designing did Apple do? I don't know. Was Intel the designer with Apple as the consulting customer? Maybe Intel just needed a manufacturer to commit to the technology and Apple saw the vision and agreed to implement it first.
Look at the Mac Pro. It's as if Apple does some work on it every year and a half and then puts it in a closet until they come across it again. It's the same with the 17" Mac Book Pro. Apple is now a telephone manufacturer that makes computers. I bet Apple would prefer to dump the 17" laptop and retool that manufacturing floor for making iPhones. There would be fewer shortages and they would make up for the lost computer sales very quickly by selling more iPhones faster than they do now.
I want Apple to build a small Mini tower or a Mac Book Air size computer with the same components that are going into the Mac Book Pros i.e. multi-core i7 processors with hyperthreading with 8+ GB RAM. It should also have plenty of ports including USB 3. That would be a proper powerful small computer.
Bull crap. If price was the only issue in a purchase iPhone would have failed long ago, and the AIRs would have replaced all other notebooks by now.
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.
The 17" is unpopular because of the damn weight. I buy a laptop because it is portable. The MBA is selling like hot cakes because it's very portable. The 15" MBP is right at the cusp of being able to be carried open with one hand. I was hoping that Apple would keep the 17" around in an "Air" version, then it would be at a more manageable weight.
Somewhat disappointing news for me. I love my MBP 17". Was thinking to update my 17" this year but after reading this sad news, can't think of buying 15 incher anytime soon for sure. Probably I should now bump up the RAM and call it a day. I personally don't like optical drives so I would rather also just add another SSD and take out the optical drive. Not sure why Apple is discontinuing 17" as it was pretty obvious from day one that that machine is not for majority of users. They should not expect it to outsell smaller toys. Edited: Not to mention, I have MP, 13" 15", Air, iPad and iPhone. 95% of my time I use 17".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi
So he should surrender to a smaller screen because a multi-billion dollar company deserves his ongoing support for this "bravery"? Hopefully it is sarcasm...
Agreed although many of us probably had a similar philosophy more than 7 or 8 years ago. Apple now has the largest market capitalization of any non-financial corporation in the world. If Apple stops making a product I need or want then Apple abandoned me as a customer not the other way around. High end products by their very nature have low sales so what difference does if make if particular product has less than 2% of sales in its category as long as a good profit is being made selling that product. According to the sales philosophy of some the posters here General Motors should stop making Cadillacs and Ford should stop making Lincolns because they don't have as high sales totals as Chevys and Fords.
MacBook: 11" and 13", virtually identical to the current MacBook Airs.
MacBook Pro: 13", 15" and 17". Thinner and lighter than current design, with a less reflective screen. 13" would be heavier, but would be more powerful (hence 'Pro').
That's what I think'll happen.
I think the primary factor behind poor sales of the 17" MBP is Apple's pricing scheme. If you want a large screen you have never had any choice but to buy the most expensive MacBook or switch to Windows. I don't need high end performance, but I do want as much screen real estate as I can comfortably carry.
In my office everyone has lots of screen real estate. Full time staff have a 23" 1920x1080 external display in addition to their Mac. It has allowed many people who used to carry 15" MacBook Pros to move to the 13" MacBook Air. Others have gone the other direction and chosen a 27" iMac. Most of those people either don't work from home or have a complete work environment set up at home.
Our project managers fall in between. They need to be highly portable, but cannot afford to sacrifice screen real estate when they're away from their desks. They all have 17" MacBook Pros. I'm not a PM, but I feel the same way. I normally have >10 applications open at the same time and frequently need to see information from multiple windows at the same time. Even with a 1920x1200 screen I feel cramped when I can't toss windows onto a secondary display.
I could work in a smaller space but I'd be less efficient. Plus, as my eyes age, I find myself using zoom buttons more and more each year. I need to be able to do that without half my document disappearing off the edge of the screen.
My boss wishes Apple would make a 19" or 20" MacBook Pro so he could do more when he's away from his desk, but even those of us with 17" MBPs think he's crazy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
The 17" is unpopular because of the damn weight. I buy a laptop because it is portable. The MBA is selling like hot cakes because it's very portable. The 15" MBP is right at the cusp of being able to be carried open with one hand. I was hoping that Apple would keep the 17" around in an "Air" version, then it would be at a more manageable weight.
The 17" MacBookPro was design to replace the desktop. However, u can carry it around if you have to. I still love my 17" MacBookPro 2.16, which I use to develop website and run Adobe CS 5.5 on it. In the fall I was eagerly contemplating updating it, to a new model for Adobe CS 6. I ascertain I'll just get one of the recent MacBookPro, to replace my antiquated computer. I don't how "new school" can work on 10"- 15" screen to work in Photoshop, to 3D Animation type Apps out there. Never carry your portable computer with one hand.
OK, so there are a few cases where someone else had a new chip shortly before Apple did. How in the world do you get from that to "Apple doesn't make fast small computers?"
Apple's computers are very competitive overall. The fact that someone else might occasionally have an extra 0.1 GHz is not particularly relevant. Apple's computers are fast - and well within the range of comparable systems. And for some (MacBook Air, for example), everyone else is playing catch up.
No one ever said that price was the ONLY issue.
OTOH, you said that price doesn't matter and isn't considered in deciding which computer to purchase. That is, of course, absurd. By that logic, Apple could double the price of all their computers and wouldn't lose any business.
In the REAL world (you ought to visit some time), price is a very important consideration. Not the only one, but quite important.
I think you're right. I don't see it being likely for Apple to not sell a 17" laptop.
Is it possible that they'll transition to a lighter, thinner model without ODD? Sure. And it's even possible that they'll only transition the 13" and 15" now and the 17" later. I just don't see them dropping 17" entirely, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by champ01
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.
Aren't margins on 17" MBPs higher than the equivalent 15" MBP? Why would Apple kill it?
I think you guys are all overreacting to what some "analyst" says. They aren't the final word, and neither is AppleInsider when it's republishing rumors. Please wait until Apple kills it before pressing the panic button. Then run around screaming woe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I think you're right. I don't see it being likely for Apple to not sell a 17" laptop.
Is it possible that they'll transition to a lighter, thinner model without ODD? Sure. And it's even possible that they'll only transition the 13" and 15" now and the 17" later. I just don't see them dropping 17" entirely, though.
They could be waiting until 17" retina displays are available.
Same reason they won't kill the MacPro: an update was eventually coming.