While he wasn't 100% correct in the details, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo with KGI was the only one saying Apple would introduce updated 13" and 15" MacBook Pros along side a next generation 15" MacBook with Retina display. Few believed Apple would have two completely different 15" MacBook Pro models yet here we are. He mentioned a 13" MacBook with Retina display would come around August. I'm curious as to how it may differ in specs to the current 13" MacBook Pro. The two 15" models (non-Retina vs Retina) are pretty much the same in terms of processor and graphics but the 13" MacBook Pro has integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics. Is that enough to drive a 2560x1600 Retina display? I also wonder if this is the reason why they never updated the resolution beyond 1280x800 even when the 13" MacBook Air got 1440x900. That always seems odd. Maybe they knew they would be offering a Retina version at double 1280x800 and due to heat and battery issues, the 13" MacBook Air would retain the 1440x900 resolution for quite a while after that.
While he wasn't 100% correct in the details, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo with KGI was the only one saying Apple would introduce updated 13" and 15" MacBook Pros along side a next generation 15" MacBook with Retina display. Few believed Apple would have two completely different 15" MacBook Pro models yet here we are. He mentioned a 13" MacBook with Retina display would come around August.
I'm curious as to how it may differ in specs to the current 13" MacBook Pro. The two 15" models (non-Retina vs Retina) are pretty much the same in terms of processor and graphics but the 13" MacBook Pro has integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics. Is that enough to drive a 2560x1600 Retina display? I also wonder if this is the reason why they never updated the resolution beyond 1280x800 even when the 13" MacBook Air got 1440x900. That always seemed odd. Maybe they knew they would be offering a Retina version at double 1280x800 and due to heat and battery issues, the 13" MacBook Air would retain the 1440x900 resolution for quite a while after that.
Next year's 13" MBA with a retina screen is looking tasty to me... for the missus' use, of course (^_-)
Now that makes me think: take away the optical drive, put in an SSD, slim the body down - is there anything left to differentiate the 13" MBA from the 13" MBP?
does anyone else have a problem with the fact that even though you increase the resolution, you're still stuck with the physical real estate of the monitor?
i currently have a 17" mbp and i love it. glad i got in under the wire. i find the 15" simply too small for my needs.
Next year's 13" MBA with a retina screen is looking tasty to me... for the missus' use, of course (^_-)
Now that makes me think: take away the optical drive, put in an SSD, slim the body down - is there anything left to differentiate the 13" MBA from the 13" MBP?
Let's see...
Faster CPU, more cache memory, discrete graphics in the Pro, more RAM in the Pro, more ports in the Pro.
The 17" MBP was probably showed up on a Mac product roadmap as a dead end a couple of years ago. Apple certainly has seen unit sales of the size drop each quarter (as a percentage of total notebook sales as well as actual units shipped). Once the Retina MBP became a viable commercial product, the 17" model's death was finalized.
It's likely that the 17" engineering team knew about eighteen months ago that they were working on the final model, and most of the team moved to the Retina engineering team. It was a very deliberate decision by Apple, probably one that has been coming for a couple of years based on declining sales of that 17" model.
I have a 17" as well and I couldn't go back to a screen less than 1920x1200. Physically, 15" is fine, but the resolution is important for me - fortunately, touch wood, my eyesight is still near-perfect even though I'm old enough to have played Choplifter on an Apple ][e.
I'm not sold that these are essential on the 13". But perhaps you are right.
Me?
No, you mean Apple. Just go look at the specs for the current 13" MBA and the 13" MBP on the Apple website.
Those are the actual differences between the two. I don't decide what's important. Apple does. If there are actual differences between products, Apple deliberately made it that way. And if there are similarities, same thing.
You asked what the differences were between the two. I just made a quick list based on the actual specs published by Apple. It's not a matter of opinion.
No, you mean Apple. Just go look at the specs for the current 13" MBA and the 13" MBP on the Apple website.
Those are the actual differences between the two.
Now, yes. But we are seeing the MBA rapidly increasing in performance - the lowest end 11" is now benching more than the top end 13" of the last generation MBA. I am not sure that when entire range of MBPs are trimmed down as per the current Retina 15" that the difference between the 13" MBA and 13" MBP is big enough to warrant 2 separate models. I'm just throwing it out there....
Well, much of it will be determined by the marketplace. The 13" Mac has always been the most popular size.
My guess is that there will always be a need for better CPUs and discrete graphics in a compact form, so likely 13" and 15" MBPs although my guess is that we may be seeing the last MacBooks with built-in optical drives. At some point the non-Retina MBPs will go away and the 13" and 15" models will be Retina only.
When the Retina Display will come to the MBAs is still hazy. Regardless, Apple may want to keep a non-Retina MBA as a lower priced machine (e.g., for education) for some time.
Now, that makes sense. There is no obvious reason why it'd be impossible to produce a 13" retina display while 15" are out in the wild. Once again, I am sure the 15" is an unfinished machine. Apple *had* to announce something big at WWDC; if they had just introduced the spec-bumped 13" and 15" MBP and new MBA, they would have faced a riot. So they hastily prepared this 15" retina which is still half-prototype and pushed it to content most of the people who were eagerly waiting for fresh meat to come out. Now, why does I call it a prototype? First because it is far below Apple main engineering standards (glued batteries, soldered RAM…); besides, we were told that "Apple was ramping up production of a new 15" model" from April on. They wouldn’t have run out of stock so quickly had this been true. I bet the first machine was build only two or three weeks ago.
That explains also why they did not release the 13" retina at the same time. They opened the boiler and eased the pressure with the 15", now I hope they are taking time to polish up the 13"…
The 17" has never had a high percentage of Apples's notebook sales. They did more than just "think" of it as their flagship notebook, they called it that on their website. Walk into any creative content company and tell me the percentage of 17" Macbook Pros you see versus the 13 and 15's. It's all about screen real estate in a mobile platform. If a 15"retina will allow more workspace than an older 17", then a 17"retina will allow that much more. The iMacs will get retina and the Cinema Displays will get retina....it all doesn't end with the "smaller and thinner" 15.
The creative industry is in Apple's DNA, they won't abandon it.
Were not talking about desktops and external displays here, were talking about laptops. In Apple's laptop lineup, there's no room for a 17" model anymore. It doesn't fit what they want to do in their notebook lineup. I honestly don't remember Apple constantly saying the 17" is their flagship notebook. Maybe they said it once, but I can't recall them saying it time after time after time.
I don't think Apple is thinking about the creative content people 100% of the time anymore. Their market is changing, and not for the better as a creative professional. Apple doesn't have to rely on creative customers anymore. They have more regular everyday people buying them than "creative professionals". If I walk into a creative content company I bet I'd see more 27" iMacs and Macs with external displays than anything else. They're #1 focus for laptops isn't creative professional anymore.
They're not abandoning the creative industry. If anything, they're making it better. I bet if you go into an Apple Store and use a 15" Retina MBP you'd drool all over it, especially once FCP, Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, etc are fully retina compatible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ressurrector17
Apple has never had a 15 out-spec a 17...and a 15 Retina out-specs a 17 non-Retina, no matter what the chip is.
All the more reason to believe its EOL (End of Life) for good....and don't come back with this bullshit of well its just because Apple is working on it. No...If Apple was going to keep the 17" MBP, then why would they drop it out of the line up right now? It makes absolutely no sense at all to drop it now and release a new one down the road. They'd just keep the current one there, update it to what the regular 15" MBP now has until a retina one came out. You can count on your hand (1 hand) the amount of times a product has been drop out of the store and then brought back with something new.
This only makes sense to me. Yeah, I agree that it will probably have just an Intel graphics chip in it. Its pretty packed inside and I don't see where there's any room for a separate graphics chip. Its been said the Intel 4000 graphics can push a retina display. I believe this is the reason why you don't see a separate graphics chip in the current 13" MBP. I think that would be really nice to see a retina 13" MBP.
I think the likelier reason is there is only room for one fan in the 13" and to run a dGPU you may well need two.
Next year's 13" MBA with a retina screen is looking tasty to me... for the missus' use, of course (^_-)
Now that makes me think: take away the optical drive, put in an SSD, slim the body down - is there anything left to differentiate the 13" MBA from the 13" MBP?
Let's see...
Faster CPU, more cache memory, discrete graphics in the Pro, more RAM in the Pro, more ports in the Pro.
Well, much of it will be determined by the marketplace. The 13" Mac has always been the most popular size.
My guess is that there will always be a need for better CPUs and discrete graphics in a compact form, so likely 13" and 15" MBPs although my guess is that we may be seeing the last MacBooks with built-in optical drives. At some point the non-Retina MBPs will go away and the 13" and 15" models will be Retina only.
When the Retina Display will come to the MBAs is still hazy. Regardless, Apple may want to keep a non-Retina MBA as a lower priced machine (e.g., for education) for some time.
Well until Apple puts in a dGPU in a 13" model, and excluding the faster CPUs, it would seem the only reason to keep a 13" MBP is for ports and legacy tech like optical drives etc. My bet is the second Apple axes the old MBP line on the 15", it'll axe the 13" MBP replacing it with only a 13" MBA. Next year we will get Intel's Haswell and probably a better intel GPU, at that point we'll see the 11" and 13" Retina MBAs, and the only Pro laptop will be the 15".
I think the likelier reason is there is only room for one fan in the 13" and to run a dGPU you may well need two.
That is true, however there's also no room for a discrete graphics chip in the 13" MBP. I don't know if you've ever seen the logic board of a 13" MBP, but there is absolutely no room for another chip on it.
That is true, however there's also no room for a discrete graphics chip in the 13" MBP. I don't know if you've ever seen the logic board of a 13" MBP, but there is absolutely no room for another chip on it.
That’s right. The only reasonable way to put a dGPU in a crammed 13" PCB is to stuff it in the chipset. That’s what was done on the early Unibody MacBooks(Pro) like mine with the Nvidia 9400 GPU, until Intel kicked Nvidia out the chipset industry. Now, with Haswell processors, all the voltage regulation should go inside the chip, and Thunderbolt should be integrated in the chipset, freeing some space on the PCB. Maybe enough for a dGPU to fit?
Well until Apple puts in a dGPU in a 13" model, and excluding the faster CPUs, it would seem the only reason to keep a 13" MBP is for ports and legacy tech like optical drives etc. My bet is the second Apple axes the old MBP line on the 15", it'll axe the 13" MBP replacing it with only a 13" MBA. Next year we will get Intel's Haswell and probably a better intel GPU, at that point we'll see the 11" and 13" Retina MBAs, and the only Pro laptop will be the 15".
The main reason we still have the conventional MBPs is price (and capacity or rather price per capacity). And price is there because of the display and the SSD, with the display also needing more battery. Certainly, manufacturing bottlenecks (and lower margins due to the price) might also play a role. And the reasons why we don't have a 13" MBP retina, are likely GPU (ie, HD4000 not able to drive internal retina + external 30") and space for extra battery (that the display needs), GPU and fans (that the GPU might need), again with (display) manufacturing possibly also playing a role. And maybe giving software a bit more time to adjust to retina before going retina on a broader basis.
And I think there will be for the next couple of years two lines of notebooks: the thinner, lighter Airs and the not-quite as thin and light retina Pros which will also offer more RAM, faster CPUs and better GPUs.
Now, that makes sense. There is no obvious reason why it'd be impossible to produce a 13" retina display while 15" are out in the wild. Once again, I am sure the 15" is an unfinished machine. Apple *had* to announce something big at WWDC; if they had just introduced the spec-bumped 13" and 15" MBP and new MBA, they would have faced a riot. So they hastily prepared this 15" retina which is still half-prototype and pushed it to content most of the people who were eagerly waiting for fresh meat to come out. Now, why does I call it a prototype? First because it is far below Apple main engineering standards (glued batteries, soldered RAM…); besides, we were told that "Apple was ramping up production of a new 15" model" from April on. They wouldn’t have run out of stock so quickly had this been true. I bet the first machine was build only two or three weeks ago.
That explains also why they did not release the 13" retina at the same time. They opened the boiler and eased the pressure with the 15", now I hope they are taking time to polish up the 13"…
Amazing. One of the nicest products Apple has released in years and in your view it's a prototype just because of glued batteries and soldered RAM? In case you hadn't noticed, they've used soldered RAM on the MBA for years. And glued batteries are not that common. Both of those are there to save space and weight - which they do quite well.
As for 'Apple couldn't have sold out if they had been ramping up for months', you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Each iteration of iPad and iPhone sells out within days even though they ramp up for months before release.
Frankly, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Comments
Not really, if the hardware sans screen is faster.
While he wasn't 100% correct in the details, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo with KGI was the only one saying Apple would introduce updated 13" and 15" MacBook Pros along side a next generation 15" MacBook with Retina display. Few believed Apple would have two completely different 15" MacBook Pro models yet here we are. He mentioned a 13" MacBook with Retina display would come around August. I'm curious as to how it may differ in specs to the current 13" MacBook Pro. The two 15" models (non-Retina vs Retina) are pretty much the same in terms of processor and graphics but the 13" MacBook Pro has integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics. Is that enough to drive a 2560x1600 Retina display? I also wonder if this is the reason why they never updated the resolution beyond 1280x800 even when the 13" MacBook Air got 1440x900. That always seems odd. Maybe they knew they would be offering a Retina version at double 1280x800 and due to heat and battery issues, the 13" MacBook Air would retain the 1440x900 resolution for quite a while after that.
AI: Inside Apple's rumored 'new MacBook' vs. updated MacBook Pro
While he wasn't 100% correct in the details, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo with KGI was the only one saying Apple would introduce updated 13" and 15" MacBook Pros along side a next generation 15" MacBook with Retina display. Few believed Apple would have two completely different 15" MacBook Pro models yet here we are. He mentioned a 13" MacBook with Retina display would come around August.
I'm curious as to how it may differ in specs to the current 13" MacBook Pro. The two 15" models (non-Retina vs Retina) are pretty much the same in terms of processor and graphics but the 13" MacBook Pro has integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics. Is that enough to drive a 2560x1600 Retina display? I also wonder if this is the reason why they never updated the resolution beyond 1280x800 even when the 13" MacBook Air got 1440x900. That always seemed odd. Maybe they knew they would be offering a Retina version at double 1280x800 and due to heat and battery issues, the 13" MacBook Air would retain the 1440x900 resolution for quite a while after that.
AI: Inside Apple's rumored 'new MacBook' vs. updated MacBook Pro
Next year's 13" MBA with a retina screen is looking tasty to me... for the missus' use, of course (^_-)
Now that makes me think: take away the optical drive, put in an SSD, slim the body down - is there anything left to differentiate the 13" MBA from the 13" MBP?
does anyone else have a problem with the fact that even though you increase the resolution, you're still stuck with the physical real estate of the monitor?
i currently have a 17" mbp and i love it. glad i got in under the wire. i find the 15" simply too small for my needs.
won't even consider 13". makes no sense to me.
Next year's 13" MBA with a retina screen is looking tasty to me... for the missus' use, of course (^_-)
Now that makes me think: take away the optical drive, put in an SSD, slim the body down - is there anything left to differentiate the 13" MBA from the 13" MBP?
Let's see...
Faster CPU, more cache memory, discrete graphics in the Pro, more RAM in the Pro, more ports in the Pro.
The 17" MBP was probably showed up on a Mac product roadmap as a dead end a couple of years ago. Apple certainly has seen unit sales of the size drop each quarter (as a percentage of total notebook sales as well as actual units shipped). Once the Retina MBP became a viable commercial product, the 17" model's death was finalized.
It's likely that the 17" engineering team knew about eighteen months ago that they were working on the final model, and most of the team moved to the Retina engineering team. It was a very deliberate decision by Apple, probably one that has been coming for a couple of years based on declining sales of that 17" model.
I have a 17" as well and I couldn't go back to a screen less than 1920x1200. Physically, 15" is fine, but the resolution is important for me - fortunately, touch wood, my eyesight is still near-perfect even though I'm old enough to have played Choplifter on an Apple ][e.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
Let's see...
Faster CPU, more cache memory, discrete graphics in the Pro, more RAM in the Pro, more ports in the Pro.
I'm not sold that these are essential on the 13". But perhaps you are right.
No, you mean Apple. Just go look at the specs for the current 13" MBA and the 13" MBP on the Apple website.
Those are the actual differences between the two. I don't decide what's important. Apple does. If there are actual differences between products, Apple deliberately made it that way. And if there are similarities, same thing.
You asked what the differences were between the two. I just made a quick list based on the actual specs published by Apple. It's not a matter of opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
Me?
No, you mean Apple. Just go look at the specs for the current 13" MBA and the 13" MBP on the Apple website.
Those are the actual differences between the two.
Now, yes. But we are seeing the MBA rapidly increasing in performance - the lowest end 11" is now benching more than the top end 13" of the last generation MBA. I am not sure that when entire range of MBPs are trimmed down as per the current Retina 15" that the difference between the 13" MBA and 13" MBP is big enough to warrant 2 separate models. I'm just throwing it out there....
My guess is that there will always be a need for better CPUs and discrete graphics in a compact form, so likely 13" and 15" MBPs although my guess is that we may be seeing the last MacBooks with built-in optical drives. At some point the non-Retina MBPs will go away and the 13" and 15" models will be Retina only.
When the Retina Display will come to the MBAs is still hazy. Regardless, Apple may want to keep a non-Retina MBA as a lower priced machine (e.g., for education) for some time.
Now, that makes sense. There is no obvious reason why it'd be impossible to produce a 13" retina display while 15" are out in the wild. Once again, I am sure the 15" is an unfinished machine. Apple *had* to announce something big at WWDC; if they had just introduced the spec-bumped 13" and 15" MBP and new MBA, they would have faced a riot. So they hastily prepared this 15" retina which is still half-prototype and pushed it to content most of the people who were eagerly waiting for fresh meat to come out. Now, why does I call it a prototype? First because it is far below Apple main engineering standards (glued batteries, soldered RAM…); besides, we were told that "Apple was ramping up production of a new 15" model" from April on. They wouldn’t have run out of stock so quickly had this been true. I bet the first machine was build only two or three weeks ago.
That explains also why they did not release the 13" retina at the same time. They opened the boiler and eased the pressure with the 15", now I hope they are taking time to polish up the 13"…
Quote:
Originally Posted by ressurrector17
The 17" has never had a high percentage of Apples's notebook sales. They did more than just "think" of it as their flagship notebook, they called it that on their website. Walk into any creative content company and tell me the percentage of 17" Macbook Pros you see versus the 13 and 15's. It's all about screen real estate in a mobile platform. If a 15"retina will allow more workspace than an older 17", then a 17"retina will allow that much more. The iMacs will get retina and the Cinema Displays will get retina....it all doesn't end with the "smaller and thinner" 15.
The creative industry is in Apple's DNA, they won't abandon it.
Were not talking about desktops and external displays here, were talking about laptops. In Apple's laptop lineup, there's no room for a 17" model anymore. It doesn't fit what they want to do in their notebook lineup. I honestly don't remember Apple constantly saying the 17" is their flagship notebook. Maybe they said it once, but I can't recall them saying it time after time after time.
I don't think Apple is thinking about the creative content people 100% of the time anymore. Their market is changing, and not for the better as a creative professional. Apple doesn't have to rely on creative customers anymore. They have more regular everyday people buying them than "creative professionals". If I walk into a creative content company I bet I'd see more 27" iMacs and Macs with external displays than anything else. They're #1 focus for laptops isn't creative professional anymore.
They're not abandoning the creative industry. If anything, they're making it better. I bet if you go into an Apple Store and use a 15" Retina MBP you'd drool all over it, especially once FCP, Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, etc are fully retina compatible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ressurrector17
Apple has never had a 15 out-spec a 17...and a 15 Retina out-specs a 17 non-Retina, no matter what the chip is.
All the more reason to believe its EOL (End of Life) for good....and don't come back with this bullshit of well its just because Apple is working on it. No...If Apple was going to keep the 17" MBP, then why would they drop it out of the line up right now? It makes absolutely no sense at all to drop it now and release a new one down the road. They'd just keep the current one there, update it to what the regular 15" MBP now has until a retina one came out. You can count on your hand (1 hand) the amount of times a product has been drop out of the store and then brought back with something new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
This only makes sense to me. Yeah, I agree that it will probably have just an Intel graphics chip in it. Its pretty packed inside and I don't see where there's any room for a separate graphics chip. Its been said the Intel 4000 graphics can push a retina display. I believe this is the reason why you don't see a separate graphics chip in the current 13" MBP. I think that would be really nice to see a retina 13" MBP.
I think the likelier reason is there is only room for one fan in the 13" and to run a dGPU you may well need two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Next year's 13" MBA with a retina screen is looking tasty to me... for the missus' use, of course (^_-)
Now that makes me think: take away the optical drive, put in an SSD, slim the body down - is there anything left to differentiate the 13" MBA from the 13" MBP?
Let's see...
Faster CPU, more cache memory, discrete graphics in the Pro, more RAM in the Pro, more ports in the Pro.
But there are no dGPUs in the pros...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
Well, much of it will be determined by the marketplace. The 13" Mac has always been the most popular size.
My guess is that there will always be a need for better CPUs and discrete graphics in a compact form, so likely 13" and 15" MBPs although my guess is that we may be seeing the last MacBooks with built-in optical drives. At some point the non-Retina MBPs will go away and the 13" and 15" models will be Retina only.
When the Retina Display will come to the MBAs is still hazy. Regardless, Apple may want to keep a non-Retina MBA as a lower priced machine (e.g., for education) for some time.
Well until Apple puts in a dGPU in a 13" model, and excluding the faster CPUs, it would seem the only reason to keep a 13" MBP is for ports and legacy tech like optical drives etc. My bet is the second Apple axes the old MBP line on the 15", it'll axe the 13" MBP replacing it with only a 13" MBA. Next year we will get Intel's Haswell and probably a better intel GPU, at that point we'll see the 11" and 13" Retina MBAs, and the only Pro laptop will be the 15".
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
I think the likelier reason is there is only room for one fan in the 13" and to run a dGPU you may well need two.
That is true, however there's also no room for a discrete graphics chip in the 13" MBP. I don't know if you've ever seen the logic board of a 13" MBP, but there is absolutely no room for another chip on it.
That’s right. The only reasonable way to put a dGPU in a crammed 13" PCB is to stuff it in the chipset. That’s what was done on the early Unibody MacBooks(Pro) like mine with the Nvidia 9400 GPU, until Intel kicked Nvidia out the chipset industry. Now, with Haswell processors, all the voltage regulation should go inside the chip, and Thunderbolt should be integrated in the chipset, freeing some space on the PCB. Maybe enough for a dGPU to fit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Well until Apple puts in a dGPU in a 13" model, and excluding the faster CPUs, it would seem the only reason to keep a 13" MBP is for ports and legacy tech like optical drives etc. My bet is the second Apple axes the old MBP line on the 15", it'll axe the 13" MBP replacing it with only a 13" MBA. Next year we will get Intel's Haswell and probably a better intel GPU, at that point we'll see the 11" and 13" Retina MBAs, and the only Pro laptop will be the 15".
The main reason we still have the conventional MBPs is price (and capacity or rather price per capacity). And price is there because of the display and the SSD, with the display also needing more battery. Certainly, manufacturing bottlenecks (and lower margins due to the price) might also play a role. And the reasons why we don't have a 13" MBP retina, are likely GPU (ie, HD4000 not able to drive internal retina + external 30") and space for extra battery (that the display needs), GPU and fans (that the GPU might need), again with (display) manufacturing possibly also playing a role. And maybe giving software a bit more time to adjust to retina before going retina on a broader basis.
And I think there will be for the next couple of years two lines of notebooks: the thinner, lighter Airs and the not-quite as thin and light retina Pros which will also offer more RAM, faster CPUs and better GPUs.
Amazing. One of the nicest products Apple has released in years and in your view it's a prototype just because of glued batteries and soldered RAM? In case you hadn't noticed, they've used soldered RAM on the MBA for years. And glued batteries are not that common. Both of those are there to save space and weight - which they do quite well.
As for 'Apple couldn't have sold out if they had been ramping up for months', you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Each iteration of iPad and iPhone sells out within days even though they ramp up for months before release.
Frankly, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.