And although Apple discontinued the 17" in the past, that doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't bring a huge screen notebook back to the market, especially now that BIG SCREENS ARE THE IN-THING. Again, I cite for you the popularity of the iPhone 6 Plus and the rumors of the upcoming 12.9" iPad. BIG IS IN!
I think you might be right, the Watch has come in at the bottom (in terms of screen size) and they are pushing everything else up a slot, to wit:
- rumour on this site that there would be no 4" iPhone in this years refresh, only the larger ones
- persistent rumors of an iPad Pro
- Apple's lightest laptop is now 12" whereas a few months ago it was 11"
Or maybe they were taken by surprise by the huge success of the bigger iPhones and now they're going to try the same thing on their other product lines.
Here's to hoping they stick with nvidia discrete graphics, though it's more likely they'll move to the amd stuff.
AMD doesn't have anything worthwhile in mobile, they focus on APUs there. The 70-80W Radeon R9 M280X has the same performance as the 850M/950M, which are 40-50W, if you look at the list on the right, AMD has nothing above the 950M that's anywhere near suitable:
The 850M/950M are higher wattage chips than the 650M/750M (35-40W), which might be why Apple didn't use them. Skylake's IGP should be close to the 850M/950M with a lower power draw. If they switch to Broadwell IGP alone, that would only be a small improvement over the current Iris Pro. They boost the EU count by 20% (from 40 to 48) but underclock them 10% so the net increase is about 10%. It improves battery life but performance doesn't move noticeably.
Skylake boosts EUs to 72 (50% higher than Broadwell). That model might not be suitable for Apple laptops but if it is and they don't underclock much then Skylake would be a much bigger improvement over Broadwell. The NVidia 950M is the same as the 850M.
Apple could underclock a 950M and get a 50-75% boost over the current 750M but they can get a similar boost with a Skylake IGP. The dedicated GPU offers more memory but with 16GB RAM, they can afford to stretch the video memory limit and unified memory is the way forward anyway.
Does this mean Skylake won't happen until next year or is coming early?
Apple has never refreshed hardware sooner than 7.5 months apart so if they go Broadwell in June, then Skylake would likely be pushed to around Feb 2016, which is a bit disappointing because Skylake will ship this year and other manufacturers will use it. Skylake will likely launch around August so Apple might have been able to get Skylake MBPs out in October at their usual event. They might still do this but for the Macbook alone and show off wireless charging etc.
This would only be pushing Skylake back about 3-4 months so it's not all that bad but I'd rather they skipped Broadwell in the MBP. They might sell more units doing two refreshes.
"Charging surfaces powered by Rezence will not conflict with metallic objects such as keys and coins, making it an ideal choice for automotive, retail, and kitchen applications."
The extra cost of the discrete GPU is not justifiable for most power users, so Apple will eventually drop it. That will bite for the few users who need maximum GPU performance at any cost, but will be great for the majority of power users who will be well served by Iris Pro 6200 graphics and save a few hundred dollars.
If you are a Mac "Power User", then by definition, you will buy the highest priced Mac which includes a discrete GPU. Only a discrete GPU gives you the most power.
It would be laughable to call a user a "Power User" and give the user a weaker computer. Intel's GPUs simply do not compete with AMD's or nVidia's discrete GPUs. That is why the Mac Pro has discrete GPUs and an E5 processor rather than simply use an i7.
It would also be laughable to call a user a "Power User" when the user cannot even afford the most powerful Macs.
On the PC side, Power Users - such as gamers and corporate Pros - generally have the most powerful PCs and the most expensive PCs that match the Macs in price. Price is not a consideration.Power is. And PC Power Users generally laugh at the Mac's weaker discrete GPUs since Apple usually doesn't use the best ones. Apple generally chooses the second or third best GPUs.
Power means Power, not wobbly kneed processors or GPUs.
If you are a Mac "Power User", then by definition, you will buy the highest priced Mac which includes a discrete GPU. Only a discrete GPU gives you the most power.
It would be laughable to call a user a "Power User" and give the user a weaker computer. Intel's GPUs simply do not compete with AMD's or nVidia's discrete GPUs. That is why the Mac Pro has discrete GPUs and an E5 processor rather than simply use an i7.
It would also be laughable to call a user a "Power User" when the user cannot even afford the most powerful Macs.
On the PC side, Power Users - such as gamers and corporate Pros - generally have the most powerful PCs and the most expensive PCs that match the Macs in price. Price is not a consideration.Power is. And PC Power Users generally laugh at the Mac's weaker discrete GPUs since Apple usually doesn't use the best ones. Apple generally chooses the second or third best GPUs.
Power means Power, not wobbly kneed processors or GPUs.
What I find LAUGHABLE are people not up to date enough to know that Intels GPUs in Macs are nearly indistinguishable from the discrete options available in the same Macs. The performance increases have now shrunk to somewhere between marginal and nil.
Sorry you're still stuck in 2011, but it's just not the case anymore. The high level Intel GPU are on par with AMD/NVIDIA mid range. Since Apple only chooses mid range discreet cards, it about equals out.
And in terms of OS X performance, which is all that matters, there is very little difference. Very little.
Keep in mind, we're not talking about the entire product line. We're talking about what is available from Intel vs. what Apple typically selects from available discreet cards.
The reason for the discontinuation is that in 2012 the cost of Retina 17" displays was unaffordable due to low yields. Now 17" Retina displays are affordable making a 17" rMBP a realistic possibility.
I previously wanted a 17" MBP. Decided it was too thick and heavy for portable use.
I looked at the 15" rMBP, but it's still pretty heavy.
Thought about the 13" rMPb, but I'm afraid the physical screen size may be too limiting. Good weight, though.
I love the 12" MacBook weight, but it's just too small and no faster than my 2011 15" MBP.
So I guess I want a razor thin, super light, 15-17" Retina or non-retina MBAir. Big but light. Either big screen and/or retina. And, of course, 8+ hrs battery life.
I think the big change will be two USB C ports replacing Thunderbolt, SD card slots, and MagSafe.
Yes, it will annoy a lot of existing customers, but Apple has a history of rapidly embracing new technology and abandoning old technology. Remember the ADB (Apple Desktop Bus) to USB 1 transition? How about the SCSI to USB 2 transition? Now that we have USB 3, when was the last time you saw a native FW port on a Mac?
WRONG! There is a reason why the MacBook is called PRO. In case you didn't notice, the new crippled laptop with USB-C is only called MacBook. They resurrected the MacBook-only name to separate it from the Pro line. There was no such thing as the SCSI to USB 2.0 transition. Apple dropped SCSI with USB 1.1 ports with the first iMac in 1998. Thunderbolt replaced FireWire.
If you are a Mac "Power User", then by definition, you will buy the highest priced Mac which includes a discrete GPU. Only a discrete GPU gives you the most power.
It would be laughable to call a user a "Power User" and give the user a weaker computer. Intel's GPUs simply do not compete with AMD's or nVidia's discrete GPUs. That is why the Mac Pro has discrete GPUs and an E5 processor rather than simply use an i7.
It would also be laughable to call a user a "Power User" when the user cannot even afford the most powerful Macs.
On the PC side, Power Users - such as gamers and corporate Pros - generally have the most powerful PCs and the most expensive PCs that match the Macs in price. Price is not a consideration.Power is. And PC Power Users generally laugh at the Mac's weaker discrete GPUs since Apple usually doesn't use the best ones. Apple generally chooses the second or third best GPUs.
Power means Power, not wobbly kneed processors or GPUs.
By that logic, anyone who doesn't own their own supercomputer is not a power user.
You are correct and Apple is pocketing ALL of the cost savings. Normally, this would be a huge problem for Apple, but PC makers will follow their lead or suffer from horrendous battery life in comparison. Soon, AMD and nvidia will be out of the Mobile GPU market entirely.
The entire market for Macs is "a niche" in light of how many silly Windows PCs are sold. Therefore, the term "niche" is meaningless.
And although Apple discontinued the 17" in the past, that doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't bring a huge screen notebook back to the market, especially now that BIG SCREENS ARE THE IN-THING. Again, I cite for you the popularity of the iPhone 6 Plus and the rumors of the upcoming 12.9" iPad. BIG IS IN!
Saying something meaningless like "big is in" doesn't make it true. If the iPad pro is even real, it's still smaller than a 17" laptop. Much smaller.
And yes, the term niche has meaning. That there are more windows machines sold doesn't matter while Apple evaluates its own business -- relativity is important.
Drop the price by $500 and come down to some semblance of reality while you're at it.
The price will drop, not by $500 but maybe by $200, when Apple finally drop what's left of the legacy discrete GPU -- either this year or next year -- from the MBP line.
Or maybe they were taken by surprise by the huge success of the bigger iPhones and now they're going to try the same thing on their other product lines.
That really doesn't make any sense. Different products -- entirely different product categories, actually -- have different use cases and jobs-to-be-done. The usefulness of a larger phone in no way correlates to the usefulness of a larger laptop.
And although Apple discontinued the 17" in the past, that doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't bring a huge screen notebook back to the market, especially now that BIG SCREENS ARE THE IN-THING. Again, I cite for you the popularity of the iPhone 6 Plus and the rumors of the upcoming 12.9" iPad. BIG IS IN!
Actually, you are completely wrong. The iPhone 6 Plus has cannibalized iPad sales because people want something smaller, not larger. This was confirmed in the last earnings call. No one wants a 12" iPad. They do not want to carry around a larger tablet that would be heavier.
Yes, and Apple will never drop internal expansion from the Mac Pro. There's a reason why they call it "Pro". Apple would never come out with a "Pro" machine without internal expansion for PCI cards, hard drives, optical drives, etc. At least that's what people told me when I predicted the old Mac Pro would be replaced by a Mac Mini on steroids (no Internal expansion).
Historically, Apple's ideas as to what user's need are not always in line with what the user thinks. If Apple decides that USB C is the way to go, then that's what the Mac Book Pro will have.
If Apple is OK with dropping internal expansion from their top of the line, high powered "Pro" machine, then they certainly won't have any problem dropping old technology ports for the latest and greatest USB C connector. From an engineering perspective, the USB C connector is smaller. Drop the legacy connections, move to the new trackpad and keyboard, and you get a thinner and lighter laptop, with a lower manufacturing cost. Profits go up, and a physically lighter/thinner laptop gives consumers a tangible (and easily measured) reason why the Mac is better. Apple and consumers win.
As a power user I am very unhappy about the direction Apple is taking. Their machines are becoming much less attractive to me. As a stockholder I am thrilled. For every customer like me that they lose, they gain a hundred mainstream consumers. As I stockholder I am fine with Apple abandoning 1,000,000 million "Pro" users only to pick up 100,000,000 average consumers.
Don't forget, Apple's primary product is the iPhone. The Mac is just a fancy iPhone accessory. Apple sells many more iPhones than Macs, and Apple likely makes more profit per iPhone than per Mac.
Actually, you are completely wrong. The iPhone 6 Plus has cannibalized iPad sales because people want something smaller, not larger. This was confirmed in the last earnings call. No one wants a 12" iPad. They do not want to carry around a larger tablet that would be heavier.
"No one" just means that you happen to know nobody.
Give the creative professionals a full-size iPad for graphics, or us audio people, and I can guarantee that we'll see widespread use in admittedly niche markets.
With iPad CPU power in the realm of a MacBook, a multitrack audio solution makes really good sense - the current solutions on a 10" screen aren't really that useful.
If Skylake is coming this fall why would Apple update with Broadwell in the summer? They're not going to give us new Macs at WWDC and then again in the fall. The only thing I can think of is they are working on a redesign of the rMBP and it won't be ready until next year. But then I wouldn't buy a 15" Broadwell rMBP unless I absolutely had to.
Comments
And although Apple discontinued the 17" in the past, that doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't bring a huge screen notebook back to the market, especially now that BIG SCREENS ARE THE IN-THING. Again, I cite for you the popularity of the iPhone 6 Plus and the rumors of the upcoming 12.9" iPad. BIG IS IN!
I think you might be right, the Watch has come in at the bottom (in terms of screen size) and they are pushing everything else up a slot, to wit:
- rumour on this site that there would be no 4" iPhone in this years refresh, only the larger ones
- persistent rumors of an iPad Pro
- Apple's lightest laptop is now 12" whereas a few months ago it was 11"
Or maybe they were taken by surprise by the huge success of the bigger iPhones and now they're going to try the same thing on their other product lines.
They haven't been released yet but they should be these ones:
http://s8.postimg.org/4ui02ccit/New5th_Gen_Quads.jpg
Intel usually launches chips at Computex on June 2nd:
http://wccftech.com/intel-14nm-broadwell-core-i7-5775c-core-i5-5675c-officially-launching-2nd-june-benchmarks-revealed/
AMD doesn't have anything worthwhile in mobile, they focus on APUs there. The 70-80W Radeon R9 M280X has the same performance as the 850M/950M, which are 40-50W, if you look at the list on the right, AMD has nothing above the 950M that's anywhere near suitable:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-R9-M280X.141595.0.html
The 850M/950M are higher wattage chips than the 650M/750M (35-40W), which might be why Apple didn't use them. Skylake's IGP should be close to the 850M/950M with a lower power draw. If they switch to Broadwell IGP alone, that would only be a small improvement over the current Iris Pro. They boost the EU count by 20% (from 40 to 48) but underclock them 10% so the net increase is about 10%. It improves battery life but performance doesn't move noticeably.
Skylake boosts EUs to 72 (50% higher than Broadwell). That model might not be suitable for Apple laptops but if it is and they don't underclock much then Skylake would be a much bigger improvement over Broadwell. The NVidia 950M is the same as the 850M.
Apple could underclock a 950M and get a 50-75% boost over the current 750M but they can get a similar boost with a Skylake IGP. The dedicated GPU offers more memory but with 16GB RAM, they can afford to stretch the video memory limit and unified memory is the way forward anyway.
Apple has never refreshed hardware sooner than 7.5 months apart so if they go Broadwell in June, then Skylake would likely be pushed to around Feb 2016, which is a bit disappointing because Skylake will ship this year and other manufacturers will use it. Skylake will likely launch around August so Apple might have been able to get Skylake MBPs out in October at their usual event. They might still do this but for the Macbook alone and show off wireless charging etc.
This would only be pushing Skylake back about 3-4 months so it's not all that bad but I'd rather they skipped Broadwell in the MBP. They might sell more units doing two refreshes.
Efficiency in some setups is over 90% and power goes up to kWs:
http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/11/witricity-intel-wireless-charging/
They don't induce current into anything that's made of metal, they use magnetic resonance not induction:
http://www.rezence.com/media/rezence-faq#difference-standards
"Charging surfaces powered by Rezence will not conflict with metallic objects such as keys and coins, making it an ideal choice for automotive, retail, and kitchen applications."
The extra cost of the discrete GPU is not justifiable for most power users, so Apple will eventually drop it. That will bite for the few users who need maximum GPU performance at any cost, but will be great for the majority of power users who will be well served by Iris Pro 6200 graphics and save a few hundred dollars.
If you are a Mac "Power User", then by definition, you will buy the highest priced Mac which includes a discrete GPU. Only a discrete GPU gives you the most power.
It would be laughable to call a user a "Power User" and give the user a weaker computer. Intel's GPUs simply do not compete with AMD's or nVidia's discrete GPUs. That is why the Mac Pro has discrete GPUs and an E5 processor rather than simply use an i7.
It would also be laughable to call a user a "Power User" when the user cannot even afford the most powerful Macs.
On the PC side, Power Users - such as gamers and corporate Pros - generally have the most powerful PCs and the most expensive PCs that match the Macs in price. Price is not a consideration. Power is. And PC Power Users generally laugh at the Mac's weaker discrete GPUs since Apple usually doesn't use the best ones. Apple generally chooses the second or third best GPUs.
Power means Power, not wobbly kneed processors or GPUs.
What I find LAUGHABLE are people not up to date enough to know that Intels GPUs in Macs are nearly indistinguishable from the discrete options available in the same Macs. The performance increases have now shrunk to somewhere between marginal and nil.
Sorry you're still stuck in 2011, but it's just not the case anymore. The high level Intel GPU are on par with AMD/NVIDIA mid range. Since Apple only chooses mid range discreet cards, it about equals out.
And in terms of OS X performance, which is all that matters, there is very little difference. Very little.
Keep in mind, we're not talking about the entire product line. We're talking about what is available from Intel vs. what Apple typically selects from available discreet cards.
You don't actually know that.
I looked at the 15" rMBP, but it's still pretty heavy.
Thought about the 13" rMPb, but I'm afraid the physical screen size may be too limiting. Good weight, though.
I love the 12" MacBook weight, but it's just too small and no faster than my 2011 15" MBP.
So I guess I want a razor thin, super light, 15-17" Retina or non-retina MBAir. Big but light. Either big screen and/or retina. And, of course, 8+ hrs battery life.
IO is irrelevant. Mostly wireless anyway.
Make that, apple.
I think the big change will be two USB C ports replacing Thunderbolt, SD card slots, and MagSafe.
Yes, it will annoy a lot of existing customers, but Apple has a history of rapidly embracing new technology and abandoning old technology. Remember the ADB (Apple Desktop Bus) to USB 1 transition? How about the SCSI to USB 2 transition? Now that we have USB 3, when was the last time you saw a native FW port on a Mac?
WRONG! There is a reason why the MacBook is called PRO. In case you didn't notice, the new crippled laptop with USB-C is only called MacBook. They resurrected the MacBook-only name to separate it from the Pro line. There was no such thing as the SCSI to USB 2.0 transition. Apple dropped SCSI with USB 1.1 ports with the first iMac in 1998. Thunderbolt replaced FireWire.
If you are a Mac "Power User", then by definition, you will buy the highest priced Mac which includes a discrete GPU. Only a discrete GPU gives you the most power.
It would be laughable to call a user a "Power User" and give the user a weaker computer. Intel's GPUs simply do not compete with AMD's or nVidia's discrete GPUs. That is why the Mac Pro has discrete GPUs and an E5 processor rather than simply use an i7.
It would also be laughable to call a user a "Power User" when the user cannot even afford the most powerful Macs.
On the PC side, Power Users - such as gamers and corporate Pros - generally have the most powerful PCs and the most expensive PCs that match the Macs in price. Price is not a consideration. Power is. And PC Power Users generally laugh at the Mac's weaker discrete GPUs since Apple usually doesn't use the best ones. Apple generally chooses the second or third best GPUs.
Power means Power, not wobbly kneed processors or GPUs.
By that logic, anyone who doesn't own their own supercomputer is not a power user.
You are correct and Apple is pocketing ALL of the cost savings. Normally, this would be a huge problem for Apple, but PC makers will follow their lead or suffer from horrendous battery life in comparison. Soon, AMD and nvidia will be out of the Mobile GPU market entirely.
Saying something meaningless like "big is in" doesn't make it true. If the iPad pro is even real, it's still smaller than a 17" laptop. Much smaller.
And yes, the term niche has meaning. That there are more windows machines sold doesn't matter while Apple evaluates its own business -- relativity is important.
Drop the price by $500 and come down to some semblance of reality while you're at it.
The price will drop, not by $500 but maybe by $200, when Apple finally drop what's left of the legacy discrete GPU -- either this year or next year -- from the MBP line.
I looked at the 15" rMBP, but it's still pretty heavy.
Go to the gym if you think 4.4 lbs. is too heavy.
That really doesn't make any sense. Different products -- entirely different product categories, actually -- have different use cases and jobs-to-be-done. The usefulness of a larger phone in no way correlates to the usefulness of a larger laptop.
Why? Pros like myself keep buying them. It's a great tool that enables me to do my job.
And although Apple discontinued the 17" in the past, that doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't bring a huge screen notebook back to the market, especially now that BIG SCREENS ARE THE IN-THING. Again, I cite for you the popularity of the iPhone 6 Plus and the rumors of the upcoming 12.9" iPad. BIG IS IN!
Actually, you are completely wrong. The iPhone 6 Plus has cannibalized iPad sales because people want something smaller, not larger. This was confirmed in the last earnings call. No one wants a 12" iPad. They do not want to carry around a larger tablet that would be heavier.
You don't actually know that.
I actually do know that, directly from someone involved in the decision.
No one wants a 12" iPad. They do not want to carry around a larger tablet that would be heavier.
I'm happy with my iPad Air, but the smartest person I know wants a 13" iPad.
Yes, and Apple will never drop internal expansion from the Mac Pro. There's a reason why they call it "Pro". Apple would never come out with a "Pro" machine without internal expansion for PCI cards, hard drives, optical drives, etc. At least that's what people told me when I predicted the old Mac Pro would be replaced by a Mac Mini on steroids (no Internal expansion).
Historically, Apple's ideas as to what user's need are not always in line with what the user thinks. If Apple decides that USB C is the way to go, then that's what the Mac Book Pro will have.
If Apple is OK with dropping internal expansion from their top of the line, high powered "Pro" machine, then they certainly won't have any problem dropping old technology ports for the latest and greatest USB C connector. From an engineering perspective, the USB C connector is smaller. Drop the legacy connections, move to the new trackpad and keyboard, and you get a thinner and lighter laptop, with a lower manufacturing cost. Profits go up, and a physically lighter/thinner laptop gives consumers a tangible (and easily measured) reason why the Mac is better. Apple and consumers win.
As a power user I am very unhappy about the direction Apple is taking. Their machines are becoming much less attractive to me. As a stockholder I am thrilled. For every customer like me that they lose, they gain a hundred mainstream consumers. As I stockholder I am fine with Apple abandoning 1,000,000 million "Pro" users only to pick up 100,000,000 average consumers.
Don't forget, Apple's primary product is the iPhone. The Mac is just a fancy iPhone accessory. Apple sells many more iPhones than Macs, and Apple likely makes more profit per iPhone than per Mac.
"No one" just means that you happen to know nobody.
Give the creative professionals a full-size iPad for graphics, or us audio people, and I can guarantee that we'll see widespread use in admittedly niche markets.
With iPad CPU power in the realm of a MacBook, a multitrack audio solution makes really good sense - the current solutions on a 10" screen aren't really that useful.