Cachet factor?? Really?? What the heck is that? Btw, I grew up on a ranch so carrying a 10 lb.notebook around, at least in my world, is not cause for whining and sniveling. As I said before, I care about one thing only, as much power on the largest screen available. It is infinitely more convenient that lugging around an SSL desk.
Cachet factor?? Really?? What the heck is that? Btw, I grew up on a ranch so carrying a 10 lb.notebook around, at least in my world, is not cause for whining and sniveling. As I said before, I care about one thing only, as much power on the largest screen available. It is infinitely more convenient that lugging around an SSL desk.
I don't tend to argue extremes. You talked about halo products, which is why I used the word cachet. It was in line with your point of discussion. The 17" wasn't shown off as a halo product under Jobs. He could have personally slated it for cancellation considering that the bulk of product strategies do not really go month by month. Also who is sniveling?
Really you mentioned Jobs followed by a laundry list of items that he probably would not have implemented. When has Apple ever chased the top hardware specs? Unless you're tied to OSX for software reasons, you might be better served by looking at some of the 17" notebooks available to run Windows or Linux. Lenovo has Thinkpads that can go to 32GB of ram starting around $1400. They take 4 sodimms, which is a feature Apple never offered. I suspect people who use multiple VMs find this exceptionally useful.
I'm tied to the Apple eco system for Avid and Pro Tools. No one wants Windows in the pro audio world.
As I said before, eventually Apple will either support those users or an alternative will appear. As far as sniveling, many posters whine about how burdensome it is to carry a 17" around. To me that sounds pitiful, but I do see people in their 30s who are too fat to walk. What I don't understand is the ridiculous arrogance of one person telling another what he or she should be satisfied with.
I have no interest in what you do with your computer whatsoever, or what you may or may not prefer.
I'm tied to the Apple eco system for Avid and Pro Tools. No one wants Windows in the pro audio world.
As I said before, eventually Apple will either support those users or an alternative will appear. As far as sniveling, many posters whine about how burdensome it is to carry a 17" around. To me that sounds pitiful, but I do see people in their 30s who are too fat to walk. What I don't understand is the ridiculous arrogance of one person telling another what he or she should be satisfied with.
I have no interest in what you do with your computer whatsoever, or what you may or may not prefer.
I understand that. Sorry you're tied to Apple. I get the frustration in feeling like their focus is in a different area, but I disagree that it started with Cook. They've been on that track for some time. It works well for them. Regarding the weight of the 17", I've used them. I don't think they're heavy. I think they're slightly awkward and would use a notebook case to keep from denting it as I'm clumsy.
I would happily pay $4000 for one loaded with SSDs, etc. I would love to see one with the absolute best of everything. I use them for a living so it's a work tool. I'm on the Jan 2012 17" maxed with 512 gb SSD and 16gb ram at the moment so it should be good for another year or so.
I wish Apple never killed the 17" MacBoo Pro, it was a sweet machine…
I actually wanted to see a LARGER laptop, like what Dell did with the XPS a good bit back; what was that a 19" or 20" model…?!?
Yes, it would be heavier, but it would REALLY be a portable desktop replacement solution; and, room for an internal RAID…!
I say someone needs to engineer and Kickstarter a combination battery pack & keyboard/magic trackpad that attaches to the iMacs; turning them into giant 'laptops'…!!!
Imagine the looks one would get plopping a 27" iMac 'laptop' onto the table at the local Starbucks…!
I would happily pay $4000 for one loaded with SSDs, etc. I would love to see one with the absolute best of everything. I use them for a living so it's a work tool. I'm on the Jan 2012 17" maxed with 512 gb SSD and 16gb ram at the moment so it should be good for another year or so.
I think $4k is an obscene price to pay for a laptop. As it is the high-end 15" retina at $2,799 is too much.
To me the 17" retina if it existed should be no more than $3k, have 768 GB flash minimum with an option for 1 TB, 32 GB of RAM, and 2 GB of the 680MX.
I mean if we're going to throw things out there, let's set a realistic price.
There are certain fields that tend to be extremely Mac heavy. It's usually that something originated on the Mac and everyone stays with it. People must still buy the Windows versions, but there's a tendency to use the same thing as those around you. In some cases it may be something as simple as files being delivered on a hard drive (typical if it's GB of data) that uses a format that isn't well supported on or the other. It can be driver quality of specific peripherals or other small details or it could just be convention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
I think $4k is an obscene price to pay for a laptop. As it is the high-end 15" retina at $2,799 is too much.
To me the 17" retina if it existed should be no more than $3k, have 768 GB flash minimum with an option for 1 TB, 32 GB of RAM, and 2 GB of the 680MX.
I mean if we're going to throw things out there, let's set a realistic price.
There is a market for it. It's just you can't sell as many at $4k as you would at $2k. I think the 680MX came out later than the 680M or just wasn't picked up by other oems. I just tested that and you can spec out a 17" Alienware within $3k with a 512GB rather than 1TB ssd and a 680M 2GB DDR5, just not an MX. Lenovo offers similar options on the thinkpads, but those use workstation graphics (not meant for games) and the cto pricing on things like ram can be much higher.
I'm tied to the Apple eco system for Avid and Pro Tools. No one wants Windows in the pro audio world.
Unfortunately Wimdows is becoming worst with time, I suspect the resistance to using Windows will only grow
As I said before, eventually Apple will either support those users or an alternative will appear.
Maybe maybe not, they trend industry wide is to smaller machines. I suppose a niche player could always do good business with a largish laptop but then you are dealing with backwards technology in most cases. That is niche players simply don't have access to the technology the way big players like Apple do.
I do wonder though if you have even looked into the use of a current retina MBP?
As far as sniveling, many posters whine about how burdensome it is to carry a 17" around. To me that sounds pitiful, but I do see people in their 30s who are too fat to walk.
The comments you receive are directly related to the image you present. I fully understand how a 17" MBP could be useful to some users, however in your case you have presented nothing to support your position. Like it or not it does sound like sniveling.
What I don't understand is the ridiculous arrogance of one person telling another what he or she should be satisfied with.
Look in the mirror here. What sort of iparrogance gets on line to demand that Apple produce a laptop specifically to support their needs?
I have no interest in what you do with your computer whatsoever, or what you may or may not prefer.
You are obviously worked up over this but look at it this way, Apple has been very quiet about the missing 17" MBP. They may very well be working on something to replace it. Apple has not said that it is gone forever.
Don't mis understand me I'm not at all happy with the current rMBP as it gives up to much in the way of secondary storage space and has strived for thinnest in a Pro laptop which isn't exactly why Pros choose laptops. It is also frustrating in the fact that Apple already has thin laptops available in the AIR line up. The thing is I don't sit here expecting Apple to build a laptop to support my personal desires.
Pricing is a huge issue with Apple. Nobody knows what the retina screens retail for so I can't say what the price should be on an Apple laptop based on component value. What we do know is that Apple has thick margins on what is mature technology. Just the fact that Mac OS runs in the hardware justifies some of that margin, but that might amount to $50 a machine over the rest of the industry. Anything beyond that starts to look like greed.
I think $4k is an obscene price to pay for a laptop. As it is the high-end 15" retina at $2,799 is too much.
Yep, way to much. Contrary to public opinion that rMBP doesn't contain technology that much more advanced than the rest of the industry uses. Even if those retina screens cost Apple $500 a piece the $2800 mark is still way to high for a 15" laptop.
To me the 17" retina if it existed should be no more than $3k, have 768 GB flash minimum with an option for 1 TB, 32 GB of RAM, and 2 GB of the 680MX.
What should have happened is that the retina machine came in at exactly the same price as the traditional 15" MBP and the traditional 15" MBP taking up a position at a significantly lower price point.
I mean if we're going to throw things out there, let's set a realistic price.
Pricing most likely has stunted the 17" MBP sales potential in the same way pricing has killed the Mac Pro. Both of these machines suffer from rip off pricing structures that are not justified based in hardware costs. Interestingly neither machine really seemed to have lead with technology introductions or unique features to justify the prices on their stickers. People see the rest of Apples product lines moving forward and tend to say ho hum when it comes to the machines do to the neglect.
What should have happened is that the retina machine came in at exactly the same price as the traditional 15" MBP and the traditional 15" MBP taking up a position at a significantly lower price point.
To me the 17" retina if it existed should be no more than $3k, have 768 GB flash minimum with an option for 1 TB, 32 GB of RAM, and 2 GB of the 680MX.
I mean if we're going to throw things out there, let's set a realistic price.
You need a realistic spec too. The 680MX has a 122W TDP. The 18" Alienware has more than a 245W potential load. You even get a 330W adaptor for it. An adaptor of that power looks like this:
[VIDEO]
Apple's PSUs are about 85W tops. If you don't have a power brick of the above size, then it wouldn't be powerful enough to run the laptop. The Alienware also comes with a 96Wh battery, pretty much the same as Apple's 95Wh Retina Macbook Pro (and the 17" MBP). With a heavy load, the Alienware would drain in under an hour, possibly half an hour.
You really have to keep the spec within the 85W limit of the power supply and Apple's current spec just slightly exceeds it already. The i7 and 650M have 45W TDPs each so can draw 90W on full load plus the screen and powered ports.
It's not likely that the performance spec of the 17" would exceed the 15", which has been the case in the past.
What sort of iparrogance gets on line to demand that Apple produce a laptop specifically to support their needs?
This comment really made me laugh. A customer who spends many thousands of dollars on his work tools to make a living has every right to express their desires to the company
he PAYS and who PROFIT from his trade. BTW their are MANY in my field who feel the same way. This is business 101. I find it utterly bizarre that this disturbs you.
<span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;"> What sort of iparrogance gets on line to demand that Apple produce a laptop specifically to support their needs?</span>
This comment really made me laugh. A customer who spends many thousands of dollars on his work tools to make a living has every right to express their desires to the company
he PAYS and who PROFIT from his trade.
You know roughly how many units sell and the related profit and you suggested that it shouldn't matter that they make so little profit because it's not about bean counting. Then when asked about why they should make one, you say it should be because of the profit.
You'd have to make the assumption that no 17" MBP owner would migrate to a 15" and so it's lost business. This isn't the case as you've noted - some people don't want to switch to Windows so the only options are to wait and see if it comes back or move to a 15". A few people on the forum moved to 15" models already and found no difference.
You know roughly how many units sell and the related profit and you suggested that it shouldn't matter that they make so little profit because it's not about bean counting. Then when asked about why they should make one, you say it should be because of the profit.
You'd have to make the assumption that no 17" MBP owner would migrate to a 15" and so it's lost business. This isn't the case as you've noted - some people don't want to switch to Windows so the only options are to wait and see if it comes back or move to a 15". A few people on the forum moved to 15" models already and found no difference.
Part of that is that the idevices have been greatly octpaced Macs in terms of growth and overall sales. Seeing as you used a figure of $53 million, that would have been huge during the era where they made only Macs. At the moment I'm now curious what other guys working with Protools are planning for their next replacement machines. To me that is often a more productive point of discussion. It's a greater point of contention when it comes to Apple as it's a much greater change than switching between two oem builds, although in most cases once you're working within a specific piece of software, it's 90% the same. I haven't used protools so I can't comment on that one specifically. Personally I liked the 17". I'm used to a 24" display, so really the closer to that the better. if you ever have to use a graphics tablet for anything, you start to end up with too much wasted screen space past 24" as even the large tablets would be uncomfortable mapped out that far. I also know a couple people who migrated from 17" macbook pros to 15" rmbps. If Apple came out with a 17" IPS version with similar design, they probably would have purchased that.
Comments
Do you have a clue how pompously imbecilic you sound castigating creative professionals for wanting more support from Apple? I hope they're paying you
for such absurd drivel.
Cachet factor?? Really?? What the heck is that? Btw, I grew up on a ranch so carrying a 10 lb.notebook around, at least in my world, is not cause for whining and sniveling. As I said before, I care about one thing only, as much power on the largest screen available. It is infinitely more convenient that lugging around an SSL desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long
Cachet factor?? Really?? What the heck is that? Btw, I grew up on a ranch so carrying a 10 lb.notebook around, at least in my world, is not cause for whining and sniveling. As I said before, I care about one thing only, as much power on the largest screen available. It is infinitely more convenient that lugging around an SSL desk.
I don't tend to argue extremes. You talked about halo products, which is why I used the word cachet. It was in line with your point of discussion. The 17" wasn't shown off as a halo product under Jobs. He could have personally slated it for cancellation considering that the bulk of product strategies do not really go month by month. Also who is sniveling?
Really you mentioned Jobs followed by a laundry list of items that he probably would not have implemented. When has Apple ever chased the top hardware specs? Unless you're tied to OSX for software reasons, you might be better served by looking at some of the 17" notebooks available to run Windows or Linux. Lenovo has Thinkpads that can go to 32GB of ram starting around $1400. They take 4 sodimms, which is a feature Apple never offered. I suspect people who use multiple VMs find this exceptionally useful.
I'm tied to the Apple eco system for Avid and Pro Tools. No one wants Windows in the pro audio world.
As I said before, eventually Apple will either support those users or an alternative will appear. As far as sniveling, many posters whine about how burdensome it is to carry a 17" around. To me that sounds pitiful, but I do see people in their 30s who are too fat to walk. What I don't understand is the ridiculous arrogance of one person telling another what he or she should be satisfied with.
I have no interest in what you do with your computer whatsoever, or what you may or may not prefer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajan Long
I'm tied to the Apple eco system for Avid and Pro Tools. No one wants Windows in the pro audio world.
As I said before, eventually Apple will either support those users or an alternative will appear. As far as sniveling, many posters whine about how burdensome it is to carry a 17" around. To me that sounds pitiful, but I do see people in their 30s who are too fat to walk. What I don't understand is the ridiculous arrogance of one person telling another what he or she should be satisfied with.
I have no interest in what you do with your computer whatsoever, or what you may or may not prefer.
I understand that. Sorry you're tied to Apple. I get the frustration in feeling like their focus is in a different area, but I disagree that it started with Cook. They've been on that track for some time. It works well for them. Regarding the weight of the 17", I've used them. I don't think they're heavy. I think they're slightly awkward and would use a notebook case to keep from denting it as I'm clumsy.
I would happily pay $4000 for one loaded with SSDs, etc. I would love to see one with the absolute best of everything. I use them for a living so it's a work tool. I'm on the Jan 2012 17" maxed with 512 gb SSD and 16gb ram at the moment so it should be good for another year or so.
I wish Apple never killed the 17" MacBoo Pro, it was a sweet machine…
I actually wanted to see a LARGER laptop, like what Dell did with the XPS a good bit back; what was that a 19" or 20" model…?!?
Yes, it would be heavier, but it would REALLY be a portable desktop replacement solution; and, room for an internal RAID…!
I say someone needs to engineer and Kickstarter a combination battery pack & keyboard/magic trackpad that attaches to the iMacs; turning them into giant 'laptops'…!!!
Imagine the looks one would get plopping a 27" iMac 'laptop' onto the table at the local Starbucks…!
I'm sure you're joking but you don't need a battery pack at Starbucks.
They had a 20":
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/crave-tv-20-inch-laptop-on-the-london-underground-49284379/
Interesting idea with the keyboard as it cuts the base size down.
An actual iMac doesn't seem to phase people too much:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/imacs-in-inappropriate-places-starbucks-edition/251738/
They make Pro Tools for Windows:
[VIDEO]
I know. However not one producer I have worked with uses Windows, and engineers discourage it, at the moment.
I think $4k is an obscene price to pay for a laptop. As it is the high-end 15" retina at $2,799 is too much.
To me the 17" retina if it existed should be no more than $3k, have 768 GB flash minimum with an option for 1 TB, 32 GB of RAM, and 2 GB of the 680MX.
I mean if we're going to throw things out there, let's set a realistic price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They make Pro Tools for Windows:
There are certain fields that tend to be extremely Mac heavy. It's usually that something originated on the Mac and everyone stays with it. People must still buy the Windows versions, but there's a tendency to use the same thing as those around you. In some cases it may be something as simple as files being delivered on a hard drive (typical if it's GB of data) that uses a format that isn't well supported on or the other. It can be driver quality of specific peripherals or other small details or it could just be convention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
I think $4k is an obscene price to pay for a laptop. As it is the high-end 15" retina at $2,799 is too much.
To me the 17" retina if it existed should be no more than $3k, have 768 GB flash minimum with an option for 1 TB, 32 GB of RAM, and 2 GB of the 680MX.
I mean if we're going to throw things out there, let's set a realistic price.
There is a market for it. It's just you can't sell as many at $4k as you would at $2k. I think the 680MX came out later than the 680M or just wasn't picked up by other oems. I just tested that and you can spec out a 17" Alienware within $3k with a 512GB rather than 1TB ssd and a 680M 2GB DDR5, just not an MX. Lenovo offers similar options on the thinkpads, but those use workstation graphics (not meant for games) and the cto pricing on things like ram can be much higher.
I do wonder though if you have even looked into the use of a current retina MBP? The comments you receive are directly related to the image you present. I fully understand how a 17" MBP could be useful to some users, however in your case you have presented nothing to support your position. Like it or not it does sound like sniveling. Look in the mirror here. What sort of iparrogance gets on line to demand that Apple produce a laptop specifically to support their needs?
You are obviously worked up over this but look at it this way, Apple has been very quiet about the missing 17" MBP. They may very well be working on something to replace it. Apple has not said that it is gone forever.
Don't mis understand me I'm not at all happy with the current rMBP as it gives up to much in the way of secondary storage space and has strived for thinnest in a Pro laptop which isn't exactly why Pros choose laptops. It is also frustrating in the fact that Apple already has thin laptops available in the AIR line up. The thing is I don't sit here expecting Apple to build a laptop to support my personal desires.
Yep, way to much. Contrary to public opinion that rMBP doesn't contain technology that much more advanced than the rest of the industry uses. Even if those retina screens cost Apple $500 a piece the $2800 mark is still way to high for a 15" laptop. What should have happened is that the retina machine came in at exactly the same price as the traditional 15" MBP and the traditional 15" MBP taking up a position at a significantly lower price point.
Pricing most likely has stunted the 17" MBP sales potential in the same way pricing has killed the Mac Pro. Both of these machines suffer from rip off pricing structures that are not justified based in hardware costs. Interestingly neither machine really seemed to have lead with technology introductions or unique features to justify the prices on their stickers. People see the rest of Apples product lines moving forward and tend to say ho hum when it comes to the machines do to the neglect.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
You need a realistic spec too. The 680MX has a 122W TDP. The 18" Alienware has more than a 245W potential load. You even get a 330W adaptor for it. An adaptor of that power looks like this:
[VIDEO]
Apple's PSUs are about 85W tops. If you don't have a power brick of the above size, then it wouldn't be powerful enough to run the laptop. The Alienware also comes with a 96Wh battery, pretty much the same as Apple's 95Wh Retina Macbook Pro (and the 17" MBP). With a heavy load, the Alienware would drain in under an hour, possibly half an hour.
You really have to keep the spec within the 85W limit of the power supply and Apple's current spec just slightly exceeds it already. The i7 and 650M have 45W TDPs each so can draw 90W on full load plus the screen and powered ports.
It's not likely that the performance spec of the 17" would exceed the 15", which has been the case in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What sort of iparrogance gets on line to demand that Apple produce a laptop specifically to support their needs?
This comment really made me laugh. A customer who spends many thousands of dollars on his work tools to make a living has every right to express their desires to the company
he PAYS and who PROFIT from his trade. BTW their are MANY in my field who feel the same way. This is business 101. I find it utterly bizarre that this disturbs you.
You know roughly how many units sell and the related profit and you suggested that it shouldn't matter that they make so little profit because it's not about bean counting. Then when asked about why they should make one, you say it should be because of the profit.
You'd have to make the assumption that no 17" MBP owner would migrate to a 15" and so it's lost business. This isn't the case as you've noted - some people don't want to switch to Windows so the only options are to wait and see if it comes back or move to a 15". A few people on the forum moved to 15" models already and found no difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You know roughly how many units sell and the related profit and you suggested that it shouldn't matter that they make so little profit because it's not about bean counting. Then when asked about why they should make one, you say it should be because of the profit.
You'd have to make the assumption that no 17" MBP owner would migrate to a 15" and so it's lost business. This isn't the case as you've noted - some people don't want to switch to Windows so the only options are to wait and see if it comes back or move to a 15". A few people on the forum moved to 15" models already and found no difference.
Part of that is that the idevices have been greatly octpaced Macs in terms of growth and overall sales. Seeing as you used a figure of $53 million, that would have been huge during the era where they made only Macs. At the moment I'm now curious what other guys working with Protools are planning for their next replacement machines. To me that is often a more productive point of discussion. It's a greater point of contention when it comes to Apple as it's a much greater change than switching between two oem builds, although in most cases once you're working within a specific piece of software, it's 90% the same. I haven't used protools so I can't comment on that one specifically. Personally I liked the 17". I'm used to a 24" display, so really the closer to that the better. if you ever have to use a graphics tablet for anything, you start to end up with too much wasted screen space past 24" as even the large tablets would be uncomfortable mapped out that far. I also know a couple people who migrated from 17" macbook pros to 15" rmbps. If Apple came out with a 17" IPS version with similar design, they probably would have purchased that.