If you want a continuation of the 17" MacBook Pro, buy a Razer Blade Pro. The 17" MacBook Pro was just the 15" MacBook Pro with a larger screen. While it should have more power, it never did have more power.
Apple got their ass handed to them with the retina MBP so I could see them bringing the 17" or something close to it back. Hopefully they will have realized some of their mistakes over the last few years that lead to its decline. Namely as you point out it being nothing more than a 15" MBP with a larger screen. A screen by the way that did not justify the price differential.
By the way I perfectly understand the demand issue for 17" class machines, that part of the market has thinned considerably in PC world too. The problem is that even though sales are limited a important part of your market needs the machine. It is like the old car/truck comparison, most pickups are half ton but the manufactures still supply the 3 ton and greater markets. Not because they expect to move a huge number of pickups of that size but because it is a need professionals have and as such goes to a companies credibility.
"Apple discontinued the 17" MacBook Pro and sales declined." The implication being that sales declined because of the discontinuation of the MacBook Pro and nothing else.
Wow, if that's what qualifies for proof round here I could have won loads more arguments without even trying.
He observed something, you observed something else. Both observations are true (I assume, cba to verify), neither are definitive. Get over it, he was just blowing off some steam.
Can't be the case; The numbers dropping were not solely to do with the discontinuation of the 17" MacBook Pro. I feel like I've already said this and you ignored it then, too.
The high price of storage is a factor but the bigger issue is not enough storage no matter how much you are whiling to spend.
If they have a 1.5TB option for the Mac Pro, they should be able to offer it in the Macbook Pro too as they use the same PCIe storage form factor. I'd prefer that they were price competitive with leading 3rd party retailers on SSDs so that fewer people are put off by the lack of upgradeability.
it looks like Apple confused what was successful in the AIR market with what is needed in the Pro market.
SSDs were needed in the Pro model. You can't have the storage on the entry model over 10x faster than the Pro model. A supplementary 2.5" bay would have helped but it would have been empty for a lot of buyers. I've never liked mechanical hard drives and from now on would always opt for SSD where possible but the prices will still force the use of HDDs for a while and I prefer that they have been forced to be external because they slow down everything with their spin-up times.
that shows 4 million Macs in 2012 vs 3.95 million in 2011. So an increase in sales after they brought out the Retina laptops and dropped the 17". Even comparing quarters where the 2011 17" just came out, it was lower before they dropped it.
Their 10k filings break down laptops too between 2011 and 2012:
They sold 12.06m laptops in 2011 and 13.5m laptops in 2012 - more laptops sold without the 17". Their average selling price also stayed largely the same at $1272 so no migration down to lower models. People who wanted to spend at the same level of the 17" model must have either bought Retina models instead or the sales at that price point were so low that they didn't even register. The latter is a possibility because if they sold 50k units per quarter then the revenue would be ~$500m for the year out of $17b total. It's an amount easily absorbed by sales of the Retina models.
Clearly he's peeved that he can't get a 17" Macbook Pro any more. An understandable position, even if not a common one. He made an observation that Mac sales started dropping after the 17" MBP was canned, probably just a facetious poke, certainly not a serious proposition that ALL OF APPLE will fail because of it, or that it's the sole reason behind their sales drop. And you respond with this gnarly little point that the iMac wasn't on sale for what, one quarter?
I admit nothing, it's just not worth my time. Regret posting at all, but not as much as I regret you posting at all. Wish you'd take your own advice and shut up for a change.
Comments
Apple got their ass handed to them with the retina MBP so I could see them bringing the 17" or something close to it back. Hopefully they will have realized some of their mistakes over the last few years that lead to its decline. Namely as you point out it being nothing more than a 15" MBP with a larger screen. A screen by the way that did not justify the price differential.
By the way I perfectly understand the demand issue for 17" class machines, that part of the market has thinned considerably in PC world too. The problem is that even though sales are limited a important part of your market needs the machine. It is like the old car/truck comparison, most pickups are half ton but the manufactures still supply the 3 ton and greater markets. Not because they expect to move a huge number of pickups of that size but because it is a need professionals have and as such goes to a companies credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"Apple discontinued the 17" MacBook Pro and sales declined." The implication being that sales declined because of the discontinuation of the MacBook Pro and nothing else.
No, sorry. Just completely wrong.
Proove it.
Learn to spell first.
Noo, I woon't.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Proove it.
Sure thing. The iMac was not for sale that quarter.
Case closed.
Wow, if that's what qualifies for proof round here I could have won loads more arguments without even trying.
He observed something, you observed something else. Both observations are true (I assume, cba to verify), neither are definitive. Get over it, he was just blowing off some steam.
Originally Posted by Crowley
He observed something…
…incorrect…
…you observed something else.
That's right.
Both observations are true…
Can't be the case; The numbers dropping were not solely to do with the discontinuation of the 17" MacBook Pro. I feel like I've already said this and you ignored it then, too.
You're boring.
If they have a 1.5TB option for the Mac Pro, they should be able to offer it in the Macbook Pro too as they use the same PCIe storage form factor. I'd prefer that they were price competitive with leading 3rd party retailers on SSDs so that fewer people are put off by the lack of upgradeability.
It helps now that it has USB 3 as you can of course just put something like the 960GB Crucial M500 into a bus-powered enclosure for under $600:
http://forums.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State-Drives-SSD/New-Crucial-M500-960-in-External-USB-3-0-Drive-Case-Runs-Slow/td-p/128856
but it would be nicer having as much as 1.5TB internally.
SSDs were needed in the Pro model. You can't have the storage on the entry model over 10x faster than the Pro model. A supplementary 2.5" bay would have helped but it would have been empty for a lot of buyers. I've never liked mechanical hard drives and from now on would always opt for SSD where possible but the prices will still force the use of HDDs for a while and I prefer that they have been forced to be external because they slow down everything with their spin-up times.
Originally Posted by Crowley
I did ignore it, because that's not what he said.
No, it's exactly what he said, thanks.
Comparing a period where the only difference was the lack of a 17" and no supply issues or lack of a Mac Pro such as Q3 2012 vs Q3 2011:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/07/24Apple-Reports-Third-Quarter-Results.html
that shows 4 million Macs in 2012 vs 3.95 million in 2011. So an increase in sales after they brought out the Retina laptops and dropped the 17". Even comparing quarters where the 2011 17" just came out, it was lower before they dropped it.
Their 10k filings break down laptops too between 2011 and 2012:
http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-11-282113
http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-12-444068
They sold 12.06m laptops in 2011 and 13.5m laptops in 2012 - more laptops sold without the 17". Their average selling price also stayed largely the same at $1272 so no migration down to lower models. People who wanted to spend at the same level of the 17" model must have either bought Retina models instead or the sales at that price point were so low that they didn't even register. The latter is a possibility because if they sold 50k units per quarter then the revenue would be ~$500m for the year out of $17b total. It's an amount easily absorbed by sales of the Retina models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, it's exactly what he said, thanks.
Clearly he's peeved that he can't get a 17" Macbook Pro any more. An understandable position, even if not a common one. He made an observation that Mac sales started dropping after the 17" MBP was canned, probably just a facetious poke, certainly not a serious proposition that ALL OF APPLE will fail because of it, or that it's the sole reason behind their sales drop. And you respond with this gnarly little point that the iMac wasn't on sale for what, one quarter?
Originally Posted by Crowley
He made an observation that Mac sales started dropping after the 17" MBP was canned…
His implication is that sales dropped BECAUSE OF THE 17".
…certainly not a serious proposition that ALL OF APPLE will fail because of it…
Of course not, because that wasn't his implication at all.
…that it's the sole reason behind their sales drop.
But this was.
So boring.
Done.
LIES! TROLLS! ENEMIES!
So boring.
Done.
Thanks for admitting failure. Run along now.Originally Posted by Crowley
Regret posting at all…
Because you're wrong. Come on, man; you know you're wrong.
He is pissed off that he could not purchase the 17 inch MBP any longer. That is the way the cookie crumbles.
Originally Posted by Winter
Suppose Apple was making a 17" retina... they'd probably still wouldn't put in a discrete video card and thus people would be pissed off anyway.
Now THERE they'd need one.