I'm so sick of the Tim Cook era, where every product redesign comes with a substantial price increase over previous model. When Steve was there, products got better at the same price points (e.g.MBP--->unibody MBP), or even were less expensive at the same time (e.g. polycarbonate iMac--->aluminum iMac).
Why wouldn't a new device, with a larger screen, and likely a true "Pro" version of the Pro, cost more? It's going to have a more expensive screen, likely larger battery and potentially more powerful CPU/GPU combos. It should cost more... Even if it has the same config as the "better" 15" (8-core, 16GB and 512GB SSD) it would only be ~$200 more than the 15".
Yeah but see...that's reasonable, and not what it will be.
Reasonable would be $2,999 for 8-core, 16 GB, and 512 GB.
Instead it will be $2,999 for 8-core, 16 GB, and 256 GB.
16GB? You'll be lucky. The "best" config of any of Apple's range (except the Mac Pro) still only has an abysmal 8GB RAM.
No. The 15" MacBook Pro comes with at least 16 GB.
I'm so sick of the Tim Cook era, where every product redesign comes with a substantial price increase over previous model. When Steve was there, products got better at the same price points (e.g.MBP--->unibody MBP), or even were less expensive at the same time (e.g. polycarbonate iMac--->aluminum iMac).
Why wouldn't a new device, with a larger screen, and likely a true "Pro" version of the Pro, cost more? It's going to have a more expensive screen, likely larger battery and potentially more powerful CPU/GPU combos. It should cost more... Even if it has the same config as the "better" 15" (8-core, 16GB and 512GB SSD) it would only be ~$200 more than the 15".
And Jobs raised prices too. Look at the Mac mini. Started at $499, raised to $599 in 2006, and raised again to $699 in 2010.
Because technology gets better and therefore cheaper over time. I paid $3,000 for a top of the line Macbook Pro from 2007 through 2015, and it kept getting better and better. Now, the minimum Macbook Pro that matches those old specs and meets my needs cost over $4,000, but it actually performs worse than before due to thermal issues and is less useful due to connectivity options.
I'm so sick of the Tim Cook era, where every product redesign comes with a substantial price increase over previous model. When Steve was there, products got better at the same price points (e.g.MBP--->unibody MBP), or even were less expensive at the same time (e.g. polycarbonate iMac--->aluminum iMac).
Why wouldn't a new device, with a larger screen, and likely a true "Pro" version of the Pro, cost more? It's going to have a more expensive screen, likely larger battery and potentially more powerful CPU/GPU combos. It should cost more... Even if it has the same config as the "better" 15" (8-core, 16GB and 512GB SSD) it would only be ~$200 more than the 15".
And Jobs raised prices too. Look at the Mac mini. Started at $499, raised to $599 in 2006, and raised again to $699 in 2010.
Because technology gets better and therefore cheaper over time. I paid $3,000 for a top of the line Macbook Pro from 2007 through 2015, and it kept getting better and better. Now, the minimum Macbook Pro that matches those old specs and meets my needs cost over $4,000, but it actually performs worse than before due to thermal issues and is less useful due to connectivity options.
That being said, if they make an enjoyable keyboard again, I'm willing to suck it up and pay a lot more. One problem at a time. Don't discount inflation - what did cars and houses cost back in 2007?
Can you please elaborate on the thermal issues? I'd love to hear this.
I'm so sick of the Tim Cook era, where every product redesign comes with a substantial price increase over previous model. When Steve was there, products got better at the same price points (e.g.MBP--->unibody MBP), or even were less expensive at the same time (e.g. polycarbonate iMac--->aluminum iMac).
Why wouldn't a new device, with a larger screen, and likely a true "Pro" version of the Pro, cost more? It's going to have a more expensive screen, likely larger battery and potentially more powerful CPU/GPU combos. It should cost more... Even if it has the same config as the "better" 15" (8-core, 16GB and 512GB SSD) it would only be ~$200 more than the 15".
Yeah but see...that's reasonable, and not what it will be.
Reasonable would be $2,999 for 8-core, 16 GB, and 512 GB.
Instead it will be $2,999 for 8-core, 16 GB, and 256 GB.
16GB? You'll be lucky. The "best" config of any of Apple's range (except the Mac Pro) still only has an abysmal 8GB RAM.
No. The 15" MacBook Pro comes with at least 16 GB.
Well I'll be damned. That must be fairly recent then, and those are the only ones to have that. The "better" models should have 16GB minimum, if not the "best" ones. That 5400RPM 24" iMac needs to be axed though. It's a real dog.
I'm so sick of the Tim Cook era, where every product redesign comes with a substantial price increase over previous model. When Steve was there, products got better at the same price points (e.g.MBP--->unibody MBP), or even were less expensive at the same time (e.g. polycarbonate iMac--->aluminum iMac).
Why wouldn't a new device, with a larger screen, and likely a true "Pro" version of the Pro, cost more? It's going to have a more expensive screen, likely larger battery and potentially more powerful CPU/GPU combos. It should cost more... Even if it has the same config as the "better" 15" (8-core, 16GB and 512GB SSD) it would only be ~$200 more than the 15".
Yeah but see...that's reasonable, and not what it will be.
Reasonable would be $2,999 for 8-core, 16 GB, and 512 GB.
Instead it will be $2,999 for 8-core, 16 GB, and 256 GB.
16GB? You'll be lucky. The "best" config of any of Apple's range (except the Mac Pro) still only has an abysmal 8GB RAM.
No. The 15" MacBook Pro comes with at least 16 GB.
Well I'll be damned. That must be fairly recent then, and those are the only ones to have that. The "better" models should have 16GB minimum, if not the "best" ones. That 5400RPM 24" iMac needs to be axed though. It's a real dog.
No actually MacBook Pro's have come with 16GB for quite some time now. Like since 2014...
elijahg said That 5400RPM 24" iMac needs to be axed though. It's a real dog.
What 24" iMac? LOL
As to predicting the end of the 15" MPB, there could be two options. Apple keeps it as a MacBook Pro, and the new 16" model comes loaded with more features and more storage and memory options (64GB) and names it something to denote its higher performance, not Pro MacBook Pro, but something people will argue about for a few months (there was a lot of whining when the iBook went to MacBook, and there was the iPad brouhaha) and then it'll be accepted.
Since Apple dropped the MacBook, the MBP ˆ be the new MB (a demotion) and the 16" be the only Mac Pro. But I don't see Apple doing that. It would be a slam on the MBP lineup.
As a real 'Pro' category, Apple could stop honing the edges and make it a little thicker for more battery. As a Pro-Pro, it could have user upgradeable memory and storage. Not likely, and if it did it would cost that much more.
Apple could eventually put the 16.4" display in the current MBP as previously mentioned, and make a larger MacBook Pro Max with a 17.x display in a slightly bigger form factor, again with a larger battery.
elijahg said That 5400RPM 24" iMac needs to be axed though. It's a real dog.
What 24" iMac? LOL
As to predicting the end of the 15" MPB, there could be two options. Apple keeps it as a MacBook Pro, and the new 16" model comes loaded with more features and more storage and memory options (64GB) and names it something to denote its higher performance, not Pro MacBook Pro, but something people will argue about for a few months (there was a lot of whining when the iBook went to MacBook, and there was the iPad brouhaha) and then it'll be accepted.
Since Apple dropped the MacBook, the MBP ˆ be the new MB (a demotion) and the 16" be the only Mac Pro. But I don't see Apple doing that. It would be a slam on the MBP lineup.
As a real 'Pro' category, Apple could stop honing the edges and make it a little thicker for more battery. As a Pro-Pro, it could have user upgradeable memory and storage. Not likely, and if it did it would cost that much more.
Apple could eventually put the 16.4" display in the current MBP as previously mentioned, and make a larger MacBook Pro Max with a 17.x display in a slightly bigger form factor, again with a larger battery.
I think they're living in the past thinking its the present or something. Nothing they've said has been even remotely true for today's Macs.
So, just a 1" difference? Meh... I think Steve Jobs did another roll in his grave.
They'd also have to make a solid keyboard again, at least. They really should get back to user-upgradable HDs and ram.
I was hoping the screen PPI would be one step denser, so that the default scaling mode they started using would go back to a native scale, which looks sharper. Sure you can go back a scaling mode and make it native integer scale again, but then you lose that real estate.
If Apple's listening, as they've been recently claiming, and since they've brought some pros in house to oversee their product development efforts, I hope to see the following improvements to the MacBook Pro:
Totally new keyboard - end of the butterfly mechanism. I think this is a lock. Face ID - I think this is a possibility. Improved FaceTime camera. Return of some I/O - specifically HDMI & SD card slot. This seems pie in the sky, but one can hope. Who cares about the TouchBar? Meh.
I'm so sick of the Tim Cook era, where every product redesign comes with a substantial price increase over previous model. When Steve was there, products got better at the same price points (e.g.MBP--->unibody MBP), or even were less expensive at the same time (e.g. polycarbonate iMac--->aluminum iMac).
Why wouldn't a new device, with a larger screen, and likely a true "Pro" version of the Pro, cost more? It's going to have a more expensive screen, likely larger battery and potentially more powerful CPU/GPU combos. It should cost more... Even if it has the same config as the "better" 15" (8-core, 16GB and 512GB SSD) it would only be ~$200 more than the 15".
Yeah but see...that's reasonable, and not what it will be.
Reasonable would be $2,999 for 8-core, 16 GB, and 512 GB.
Instead it will be $2,999 for 8-core, 16 GB, and 256 GB.
16GB? You'll be lucky. The "best" config of any of Apple's range (except the Mac Pro) still only has an abysmal 8GB RAM.
No. The 15" MacBook Pro comes with at least 16 GB.
Well I'll be damned. That must be fairly recent then, and those are the only ones to have that. The "better" models should have 16GB minimum, if not the "best" ones. That 5400RPM 24" iMac needs to be axed though. It's a real dog.
Macxpress's statement of 2014 is correct. I know it's hard to remember all this hardware so I use MacTracker for a great resource and quick reference.
Another interesting tidbit is that Apple started soldering the RAM in the MBP back in 2012. This is the 8th year of having soldered RAM and people still think Apple will change, even after they now solder the SSD, too. Maybe people are right since the Mac mini now has socketed RAM again, but I think that's a very different case.
So, just a 1" difference? Meh... I think Steve Jobs did another roll in his grave.
They'd also have to make a solid keyboard again, at least. They really should get back to user-upgradable HDs and ram.
Do you see a difference between a 13" and 15" display? I certainly do. I used a 13" for many years but found the 12" MacBook to be far too small for my needs despite only being an inch smaller.
Even if you don't, I think 12.4% more display area is a great thing, and that's before we get into the benefits of not having a major reduction of the internal volume for a given thickness for the footprint if they reduced the bezels for the 15.4" display.
So, just a 1" difference? Meh... I think Steve Jobs did another roll in his grave.
They'd also have to make a solid keyboard again, at least. They really should get back to user-upgradable HDs and ram.
Steve Jobs is dust by now. There's probably some hair left over, but he had so little of it...
I want one USB-A port instead of the fourth TB port.
i suspect that is unlikely..
Yeah, replacing modern ports with old, slow ports are what makes a real Pro computer.
Do you think that the latest Mac Pro is not "real Pro computer" because it has USB-A ports?
No. What kind of question is that? You're talking about a basic I/O PCIe board which is an option to buy (as far as we know) on a giant machine where you're not removing built-in 40Gbps Thunderbolt 3 port and replacing it with a shitty 5Gbps USB-A port, which are two completely different things.
I want one USB-A port instead of the fourth TB port.
i suspect that is unlikely..
Yeah, replacing modern ports with old, slow ports are what makes a real Pro computer.
Do you think that the latest Mac Pro is not "real Pro computer" because it has USB-A ports?
No. What kind of question is that? You're talking about a basic I/O PCIe board which is an option to buy (as far as we know) on a giant machine where you're not removing built-in 40Gbps Thunderbolt 3 port and replacing it with a shitty 5Gbps USB-A port, which are two completely different things.
No need to replace any of the TB3 ports. There's plenty of room in that chassis for the TB3 ports and a USBA port. And an HDMI. And an SD card slot.
What I don't get about apologists for the MacBook Pro's stupid port offering is: how is adding more ports a bad thing? Would anyone possibly be actively put off buying a MacBook Pro if it had four TB3 + USBA + HDMI + SD Card?
I want one USB-A port instead of the fourth TB port.
i suspect that is unlikely..
Yeah, replacing modern ports with old, slow ports are what makes a real Pro computer.
Do you think that the latest Mac Pro is not "real Pro computer" because it has USB-A ports?
No. What kind of question is that? You're talking about a basic I/O PCIe board which is an option to buy (as far as we know) on a giant machine where you're not removing built-in 40Gbps Thunderbolt 3 port and replacing it with a shitty 5Gbps USB-A port, which are two completely different things.
Devices as the Lenovo P1 have two USB-C ports, two USB-A ports, HDMI and even a SD card reader in a chassis similar and lighter to the Macbook Pro 15". IMO, there was no need to remove USB-A in the latest Macbook to make it a "real Pro computer".
Comments
i suspect that is unlikely..
As to predicting the end of the 15" MPB, there could be two options. Apple keeps it as a MacBook Pro, and the new 16" model comes loaded with more features and more storage and memory options (64GB) and names it something to denote its higher performance, not Pro MacBook Pro, but something people will argue about for a few months (there was a lot of whining when the iBook went to MacBook, and there was the iPad brouhaha) and then it'll be accepted.
Since Apple dropped the MacBook, the MBP ˆ be the new MB (a demotion) and the 16" be the only Mac Pro. But I don't see Apple doing that. It would be a slam on the MBP lineup.
As a real 'Pro' category, Apple could stop honing the edges and make it a little thicker for more battery. As a Pro-Pro, it could have user upgradeable memory and storage. Not likely, and if it did it would cost that much more.
Apple could eventually put the 16.4" display in the current MBP as previously mentioned, and make a larger MacBook Pro Max with a 17.x display in a slightly bigger form factor, again with a larger battery.
Totally new keyboard - end of the butterfly mechanism. I think this is a lock.
Face ID - I think this is a possibility.
Improved FaceTime camera.
Return of some I/O - specifically HDMI & SD card slot. This seems pie in the sky, but one can hope.
Who cares about the TouchBar? Meh.
Another interesting tidbit is that Apple started soldering the RAM in the MBP back in 2012. This is the 8th year of having soldered RAM and people still think Apple will change, even after they now solder the SSD, too. Maybe people are right since the Mac mini now has socketed RAM again, but I think that's a very different case.
15.4" @ 16:9 = 101.33" square
16.4" @ 16:9 = 114.92" square
Even if you don't, I think 12.4% more display area is a great thing, and that's before we get into the benefits of not having a major reduction of the internal volume for a given thickness for the footprint if they reduced the bezels for the 15.4" display.
Steve Jobs is dust by now. There's probably some hair left over, but he had so little of it...
What I don't get about apologists for the MacBook Pro's stupid port offering is: how is adding more ports a bad thing? Would anyone possibly be actively put off buying a MacBook Pro if it had four TB3 + USBA + HDMI + SD Card?