I would attribute MOST of the increase in single-core performance to bringing the faster (2133MHz) LPDDR3 to the 13" model (it was already in last year's 15" model). There is an extra 300MHz from the clock rate (which must weigh on the battery about the same as it boosts performance). What's really surprising is that the graphics benchmarks didn't score better because the 13" model does not have a discrete GPU and relies upon the (newer) Iris Pro core on the Kabylake chip itself.
No, it's not. If you ordered one very soon after it came out, like I did, you had to wait for several weeks to get it, and you've had it for about six months at the most.
You expect to keep the same at least, or increase the available SSD space. Reducing it is really stingy, like they reduced the iMac Fusion drives from 128GB SSD to 24. That'll be Cook's beancounter approach shining through.
You have absolutely no clue if Tim is the one that specifically pushed or encouraged this- in all probability he didn't, and it was the marketing team to decided to create more differentiation this way. I'm sure he has better things to do than dictate how much storage and memory goes into each model. But hey, don't let that spoil that comfortable little narrative that you've created for yourself. I also like that people seem to have a selective memory- Steve Jobs wasn't exactly generous with components either, and I see no evidence that Cook is any worse. I guess SJ was also a "bean-counter".
I think Jobs on the other hand would have cared about those little details that Cook doesn't have time to deal with.
Little details such as what?
Jobs was famous for his attention to detail bordering on pedantry, risking accusations of obsession. On the other hand, he didn't put much priority on getting Personal Affirmation by receiving gongs at gatherings of the great and good either.
What Jobs would have done, is make a real big deal about reducing the cost for the MBP, all without sacrificing quality (we reduced the price while speeding it up!) and tie it in with the discontinuation of the MBA. Thus it would have been to a price point, say $999 (for the next generation of Macheads: the ultimate school notebook). The RDF would descend and then no one would have cared about the 128gb SSD, and sung hallelujah. -and the MBA would be properly replaced rather than hanging around to die of dementia and sad neglect.
What I love are the comments begrudging a capitalist company making profit.
The reality is that Apple has obviously hit on a spot (product feature/pricing) that gets people to release more cash for certain features they want.
Sorry - Apple didn't hit the spot. Last year Apple failed to deliver AirPods on time. This year we got teased with two new products that won't be widely available for Christmas. Apple can't be surprised each and every year about the global #1 "capitalist event".
Recently Apple cut entry level pricing for iPad. The iPad Air 2 was 21% more expensive. Obviously Apple didn't really hit the spot with the old pricing. Could the same be true for features and price of their laptops? Absolutely. 17Q1 was about saturating the market. The next quarters will show.
I request Apple to keep non-touch strip version of Macbook pro until(eternity) someday either whole screen is touch or some disruptive laptop tech is introduced. Moreover, with SSD prices coming down, make 8GB/256GB standard on $1299 version. and same number of ports across all macbook pros. MacOS taking around 50GB, 128GB cutting close to quickly running out of storage. Please don't blame Tim Cook or any Apple employee. They try to create best products at possible price point.
You expect to keep the same at least, or increase the available SSD space. Reducing it is really stingy, like they reduced the iMac Fusion drives from 128GB SSD to 24. That'll be Cook's beancounter approach shining through.
You have absolutely no clue if Tim is the one that specifically pushed or encouraged this- in all probability he didn't, and it was the marketing team to decided to create more differentiation this way. I'm sure he has better things to do than dictate how much storage and memory goes into each model. But hey, don't let that spoil that comfortable little narrative that you've created for yourself. I also like that people seem to have a selective memory- Steve Jobs wasn't exactly generous with components either, and I see no evidence that Cook is any worse. I guess SJ was also a "bean-counter".
Absolutely every major product gets passed under TC's nose before release. He saw this and accepted it. Of course, he could have rejected it. He didn't.
They are doing what that always do. Trying to get you up onto a higher rung of the ladder where revenues increase and margins are higher. Was this particular move right? Not in my opinion. elijahg has a very valid point. Everybody has their own particular sweet spot and this hasn't hit mine. I also think the move was stingy. 256GB should be the starting point.
Apple doesn't announce broken down figures but there is a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that suggests the new models are not selling in the 'best ever' numbers that some people claim.
First, we had heavy discounting from some sellers in the run up to Christmas and right across the new spread. In spite of the intense criticism of the new models, no special mention was made in the last two quarters earnings conference calls. When asked, TC described sales of the new MBPs as simply 'strong'. Most defended the 'success' of the new design and threw in that the MBA was eol and that the new line was the future. So here we are in the middle of 2017 and not only did the MBA not disappear but it got a little bump. Add to that that we have seen one of the fastest upgrades to the MBP in living memory and you begin to feel that Apple needed this refresh to edge things along a little faster.
And if that wasn't enough already for some people to take thought, we also got an iMac upgrade that married so called 'legacy' ports with the new ports in what can only be described as a transition done in the right way.
The big question right now is if Apple will stick with these specs right through to the next real refresh or give them a boost in the run up to Christmas. That will depend on demand for these units over the next five months.
After severely screwing up the last Xmas season, at least things should be in decent shape this time around. Just as well, as they will have their hands full with the new iPhones.
Contriversial laptop for sure. Purchased and returned five 15" models after getting complaints from employees on keyboard noise in meetings, and not liking the keyboard overall.
Some also complained about the fact the trackpad was triggered accidentally while typing.
We now bought older, still boxed models but it was hard to find them.
Considering the price (very high) I'm surprised why Apple delivered a keyboard which is worse compared to the previous generation.
You expect to keep the same at least, or increase the available SSD space. Reducing it is really stingy, like they reduced the iMac Fusion drives from 128GB SSD to 24. That'll be Cook's beancounter approach shining through.
"Stingy?" That's simply silly, although I can understand that you were mislead into thinking that by the silly analysis by the staff who wrote this. Apple reduced the price by $200 for those who didn't need the 256GB SSD, and preferred the option of the cost savings with higher specs elsewhere! If you think you need the 256GB SSD, Apple has it for the exact same price as before PLUS all the nice upgrades. This is borderline "fake news," and sooner or later people are going to have to wake up and realize their credibility is on the line when writing articles; thus they need to be scrupulous to the facts, not some narrative.
I get the feeling you didn't even read the review, or just skimmed it. There's no narrative being peddled, here. Or, maybe you and I read different reviews.
Plus, if a review has no opinions in it, then it becomes PR regurgitation.
What "facts" got missed? Is the flash storage in fact not half of what it was in the 2016 entry? Did Apple not peddle this as the replacement to the $1499 model in the keynote, making a big deal about the price cut?
FTA: "Given all that, the new $1,299 model appears to be similar in comparison to the older model. However, the SSD storage has been shrunk to 128GB, probably to hit the lower price point. This is a problem, given that the OS and accompanying applications take about 30GB of that space."
and...
"But, Apple cut a big corner in the device's on-board storage to reduce the price to $1,299 -- and we feel that it shouldn't have. If you own the 2016, you have at least 256GB of storage. We feel that the 128GB is a big step backwards for those considering the 2017 who already own a 2016."
Where, exactly is your beef?
Do you actually believe it's a normal thing for people to upgrade their MBPs annually??
What I love are the comments begrudging a capitalist company making profit.
The reality is that Apple has obviously hit on a spot (product feature/pricing) that gets people to release more cash for certain features they want.
Sorry - Apple didn't hit the spot. Last year Apple failed to deliver AirPods on time. This year we got teased with two new products that won't be widely available for Christmas. Apple can't be surprised each and every year about the global #1 "capitalist event".
Recently Apple cut entry level pricing for iPad. The iPad Air 2 was 21% more expensive. Obviously Apple didn't really hit the spot with the old pricing. Could the same be true for features and price of their laptops? Absolutely. 17Q1 was about saturating the market. The next quarters will show.
And I did choose.
Load of nonsense. while delayed, AirPods are an amazing product that are a marvel of tech and a joy to use. And now you're criticizing them for revealing a sneak peak at two new products -- despite the fact that people complain about them not showing enough early enough. just can't please the haters, they always find a way to fault apple for doing it wrong.
What I love are the comments begrudging a capitalist company making profit.
The reality is that Apple has obviously hit on a spot (product feature/pricing) that gets people to release more cash for certain features they want.
Sorry - Apple didn't hit the spot. Last year Apple failed to deliver AirPods on time. This year we got teased with two new products that won't be widely available for Christmas. Apple can't be surprised each and every year about the global #1 "capitalist event".
Recently Apple cut entry level pricing for iPad. The iPad Air 2 was 21% more expensive. Obviously Apple didn't really hit the spot with the old pricing. Could the same be true for features and price of their laptops? Absolutely. 17Q1 was about saturating the market. The next quarters will show.
And I did choose.
How selective, to choose a sentence or two then apply it to your completely different, not at all what I was talking about, argument. I've seen worse ways to claim victory. Well done.
You expect to keep the same at least, or increase the available SSD space. Reducing it is really stingy, like they reduced the iMac Fusion drives from 128GB SSD to 24. That'll be Cook's beancounter approach shining through.
You have absolutely no clue if Tim is the one that specifically pushed or encouraged this- in all probability he didn't, and it was the marketing team to decided to create more differentiation this way. I'm sure he has better things to do than dictate how much storage and memory goes into each model. But hey, don't let that spoil that comfortable little narrative that you've created for yourself. I also like that people seem to have a selective memory- Steve Jobs wasn't exactly generous with components either, and I see no evidence that Cook is any worse. I guess SJ was also a "bean-counter".
I think Jobs on the other hand would have cared about those little details that Cook doesn't have time to deal with.
Little details such as what?
Jobs was famous for his attention to detail bordering on pedantry, risking accusations of obsession. On the other hand, he didn't put much priority on getting Personal Affirmation by receiving gongs at gatherings of the great and good either.
What Jobs would have done, is make a real big deal about reducing the cost for the MBP, all without sacrificing quality (we reduced the price while speeding it up!) and tie it in with the discontinuation of the MBA. Thus it would have been to a price point, say $999 (for the next generation of Macheads: the ultimate school notebook). The RDF would descend and then no one would have cared about the 128gb SSD, and sung hallelujah. -and the MBA would be properly replaced rather than hanging around to die of dementia and sad neglect.
Jobs has a keen feeling of numbers. When he introduced the iPhone to the world, he spent a lot of time explaining why 3.5" is best. Then for 3GS, he invented retina display. The whole Android copycats followed his advice faithfully since. There are numerous other examples that can be explained in terms of his focus on associating numbers to user experiences.
The people in the world can be divided into this characteristics, knowing the meaning of numbers and not. Learning mathematics does not make a person knowing the meaning of numbers. To a person that does not like numbers 3.5" or retina display have no meaning.
You expect to keep the same at least, or increase the available SSD space. Reducing it is really stingy, like they reduced the iMac Fusion drives from 128GB SSD to 24. That'll be Cook's beancounter approach shining through.
"Stingy?" That's simply silly, although I can understand that you were mislead into thinking that by the silly analysis by the staff who wrote this. Apple reduced the price by $200 for those who didn't need the 256GB SSD, and preferred the option of the cost savings with higher specs elsewhere! If you think you need the 256GB SSD, Apple has it for the exact same price as before PLUS all the nice upgrades. This is borderline "fake news," and sooner or later people are going to have to wake up and realize their credibility is on the line when writing articles; thus they need to be scrupulous to the facts, not some narrative.
I get the feeling you didn't even read the review, or just skimmed it. There's no narrative being peddled, here. Or, maybe you and I read different reviews.
Plus, if a review has no opinions in it, then it becomes PR regurgitation.
What "facts" got missed? Is the flash storage in fact not half of what it was in the 2016 entry? Did Apple not peddle this as the replacement to the $1499 model in the keynote, making a big deal about the price cut?
FTA: "Given all that, the new $1,299 model appears to be similar in comparison to the older model. However, the SSD storage has been shrunk to 128GB, probably to hit the lower price point. This is a problem, given that the OS and accompanying applications take about 30GB of that space."
and...
"But, Apple cut a big corner in the device's on-board storage to reduce the price to $1,299 -- and we feel that it shouldn't have. If you own the 2016, you have at least 256GB of storage. We feel that the 128GB is a big step backwards for those considering the 2017 who already own a 2016."
Where, exactly is your beef?
Do you actually believe it's a normal thing for people to upgrade their MBPs annually??
Not generally, no. However, there was and is a LOT of chatter about doing it to "take advantage" of Kaby Lake.
My Mid 2012 MBA 13" i7 8GB 256GB kind of just died so just got the 2017 MBP 13" Non Touch Bar i7 16GB 128GB. Reassuring to see that Kaby Lake has some really nice gains. I am interested to see how this benches against the 2016 MBP 13" Touch Bar i7 version since I was looking at that version refurbished (close to the same price) or the 2017 MBP 13" Touch Bar.
Honestly I don't mind the 128GB HD, now for most it will be too small and not future proof but for me I don't store anything on my laptop really and I just use it for a ton of streaming and writing. Heck I used to have an 11" MBA 64GB and that was fine. I think some people have mentioned this but $1,299 really is that sweet spot for a premium laptop. I think that's the most a lot of people want to spend before accessories, taxes, and maybe Applecare. I guess I could have gotten by w/ a Macbook but 1 port is just too little, 12" is a tad too small, and the M7 w/ 16GB is $1750 since the M3 starts at a whopping $1,299. What I would like to see is the Macbook fill the MBA role when it's eventually eliminated and start at $999, but I don't work for Apple so who cares what I want right? Ideally if the Macbook started at $999 getting an i7 16GB 256GB would be sub $1,500, which would have given much more pause in making my decision. Either way the MBP 13" is what it is and priced where it's at, and for me it's competitively priced since a XPS 13" w/ no discounts with a similar build (but w/ 256GB) costs $1,800 and my mid 2012 MBA originally configured out to $1,500 (I bought it refurbished though).
Comments
It is what it is.
What Jobs would have done, is make a real big deal about reducing the cost for the MBP, all without sacrificing quality (we reduced the price while speeding it up!) and tie it in with the discontinuation of the MBA. Thus it would have been to a price point, say $999 (for the next generation of Macheads: the ultimate school notebook). The RDF would descend and then no one would have cared about the 128gb SSD, and sung hallelujah. -and the MBA would be properly replaced rather than hanging around to die of dementia and sad neglect.
Recently Apple cut entry level pricing for iPad. The iPad Air 2 was 21% more expensive. Obviously Apple didn't really hit the spot with the old pricing. Could the same be true for features and price of their laptops? Absolutely. 17Q1 was about saturating the market. The next quarters will show.
And I did choose.
They are doing what that always do. Trying to get you up onto a higher rung of the ladder where revenues increase and margins are higher. Was this particular move right? Not in my opinion. elijahg has a very valid point. Everybody has their own particular sweet spot and this hasn't hit mine. I also think the move was stingy. 256GB should be the starting point.
Apple doesn't announce broken down figures but there is a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that suggests the new models are not selling in the 'best ever' numbers that some people claim.
First, we had heavy discounting from some sellers in the run up to Christmas and right across the new spread. In spite of the intense criticism of the new models, no special mention was made in the last two quarters earnings conference calls. When asked, TC described sales of the new MBPs as simply 'strong'. Most defended the 'success' of the new design and threw in that the MBA was eol and that the new line was the future. So here we are in the middle of 2017 and not only did the MBA not disappear but it got a little bump. Add to that that we have seen one of the fastest upgrades to the MBP in living memory and you begin to feel that Apple needed this refresh to edge things along a little faster.
And if that wasn't enough already for some people to take thought, we also got an iMac upgrade that married so called 'legacy' ports with the new ports in what can only be described as a transition done in the right way.
The big question right now is if Apple will stick with these specs right through to the next real refresh or give them a boost in the run up to Christmas. That will depend on demand for these units over the next five months.
After severely screwing up the last Xmas season, at least things should be in decent shape this time around. Just as well, as they will have their hands full with the new iPhones.
Some also complained about the fact the trackpad was triggered accidentally while typing.
We now bought older, still boxed models but it was hard to find them.
Considering the price (very high) I'm surprised why Apple delivered a keyboard which is worse compared to the previous generation.
Shame because these laptops are otherwise great.
Do you actually believe it's a normal thing for people to upgrade their MBPs annually??
The people in the world can be divided into this characteristics, knowing the meaning of numbers and not. Learning mathematics does not make a person knowing the meaning of numbers. To a person that does not like numbers 3.5" or retina display have no meaning.
Honestly I don't mind the 128GB HD, now for most it will be too small and not future proof but for me I don't store anything on my laptop really and I just use it for a ton of streaming and writing. Heck I used to have an 11" MBA 64GB and that was fine. I think some people have mentioned this but $1,299 really is that sweet spot for a premium laptop. I think that's the most a lot of people want to spend before accessories, taxes, and maybe Applecare. I guess I could have gotten by w/ a Macbook but 1 port is just too little, 12" is a tad too small, and the M7 w/ 16GB is $1750 since the M3 starts at a whopping $1,299. What I would like to see is the Macbook fill the MBA role when it's eventually eliminated and start at $999, but I don't work for Apple so who cares what I want right? Ideally if the Macbook started at $999 getting an i7 16GB 256GB would be sub $1,500, which would have given much more pause in making my decision. Either way the MBP 13" is what it is and priced where it's at, and for me it's competitively priced since a XPS 13" w/ no discounts with a similar build (but w/ 256GB) costs $1,800 and my mid 2012 MBA originally configured out to $1,500 (I bought it refurbished though).