While I understand (but disagree with) the call for a 15", after all that's basically what the product line looked like pre-Intel (12"/14" iBook, 12"/15"/17" PowerBook), why on earth does anyone think a consumer 17" is anywhere near as reasonable? Are you listening to yourselves? A 17" consumer Apple notebook? Sometimes I think you folks just discovered this company yesterday.... we are talking about people who deliberately make *very* clear distinctions between "Pro" and "consumer" and have been doing it more and moreso for the past several years. The idea of them offering a consumer product in the same form factor as their top of the line pro portable is beyond laughable. Maybe 17" is becoming slightly more commonplace as a consumer model in commodity PC land, but it's still looked on as pretty bulky for a notebook.
They continue to move further and further away from the typical PC-land way of doing things, reap huge rewards, and you expect them do a 180 and become "HP with a funny OS" .. *shakes head in disbelief*
why on earth does anyone think a consumer 17" is anywhere near as reasonable?
I think it's "reasonable" in that Apple could make and sell a MacBook with 17" screen for considerably less (about $1000) than the 17" MacBook Pro and still have a healthy gross margin.
I don't think that it's going to happen though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianus
we are talking about people who deliberately make *very* clear distinctions between "Pro" and "consumer" and have been doing it more and moreso for the past several years.
IMHO this is a most un-clever move on Apple's part because the market they are selling to is not divided in this clear-cut manner. A 17" screen is not a high-end feature any more; just ignoring that fact is not going to change it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianus
The idea of them offering a consumer product in the same form factor as their top of the line pro portable is beyond laughable.
A MacBook is not the same form factor. It is denser and bigger. A 17" MacBook would compare to a 17" MacBook Pro thus:
-- Heavier
-- Bigger
-- Less powerful CPU
-- Vastly less powerful graphics
-- Less RAM
-- Smaller HDD
-- No firewire 800
-- Fewer USB 2.0 ports
-- No ExpressCard slot
-- No backlit keyboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianus
Maybe 17" is becoming slightly more commonplace as a consumer model in commodity PC land, but it's still looked on as pretty bulky for a notebook.
There's no "maybe" about it. All of Apple's competitors offer less powerful 17" laptops than Apple for vastly less money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianus
you expect them do a 180 and become "HP with a funny OS" .. *shakes head in disbelief*
No. Adding screen options to an already existing product is not "doing a 180". How is the 13" MacBook not an "HP with a funny OS", but a laptop with exactly the same appearance and aesthetics as a MacBook but with a 17" screen is?
IMHO this is a most un-clever move on Apple's part because the market they are selling to is not divided in this clear-cut manner. A 17" screen is not a high-end feature any more; just ignoring that fact is not going to change it.
For most people, 17" is either a luxury or just too much computer to be called a portable (and Apple has shown zero interest in the idea of "desktop replacement" notebooks). Whether prices have gone down or more people are offering that size is immaterial. The reason I said I understood (but disagreed with) the calls for a 15" is that that is sort of the "standard" laptop size these days. Not so for 17", so they may as well continue to offer that only as a pro item. Not recognizing this is a sign that you're thinking like a smart "prosumer", and that is not who Apple is targeting with the MacBook.
Quote:
A MacBook is not the same form factor. It is denser and bigger.
It's the same size, more or less. Screen size defines the laptop. nobody says I'm getting a 1-incher or a such-and-such-pounder. Let's not split hairs; what you're asking is for this to be the one spot in the lineup where the top of the line pro machine has a more or less direct consumer equivalent, the only significant differences being in the specs. And as I said, this might be understandable at the 15" size, the "sweet spot" as someone else described it and therefore a natural intersection for the pro and consumer lines, but to say there is no difference for the 17" or 13" just isn't being realistic. This is simply not a company that believes in offering every choice that is technologically feasible and/or matches the competition.
Quote:
There's no "maybe" about it. All of Apple's competitors offer less powerful 17" laptops than Apple for vastly less money.
So? Other manufacturers offer them. Other manufacturers offer a lot of things Apple doesn't, and won't, such as a mid-range headless, or a sub-$500. When in their entire history has that that ever influenced them to do anything?
Quote:
No. Adding screen options to an already existing product is not "doing a 180". How is the 13" MacBook not an "HP with a funny OS", but a laptop with exactly the same appearance and aesthetics as a MacBook but with a 17" screen is?
*sigh*. You people need to learn to think abstractly, I wasn't saying a MacBook was an "HP with a funny OS", I was saying you seem to expect the company to be just like any other PC maker. I'm speaking of the conviction of the 17" MacBook/headless Conroe crowd that somehow, having Intel processors magically converts Apple to a commodity PC shop who can be expected to behave in the same way as an HP or a Dell in terms of the breadth of its product offerings, with the only distinguishing factor being the OS.
If you actually paid any attention to what they've been doing the past few years, you'd realize they've been moving even further and further away from that approach; the laptop line being just the latest in a string of moves designed to even more cleanly delineate and distinguish their product lines from one another than they already were (example: dropping the lower end Power Macs, continuing the trend with the Mac Pro). Whether that's the "right" move or not is certainly debatable and it is not my point; my point is that you folks aren't paying attention. Doing what you ask would be a complete reversal, a 180, as it were.
The arguments against Apple offering a 17-inch MacBook are silly. The gap in both offerings and price couldn't be more clear!
<snip>
One display size for its consumer notebook? LAME!
Again: 15", understandable; 17", why? Would offering two display sizes for its consumer notebook be lame?
If you must insist there be no "gaps", a 15" would completely fill it and you'd have a perfectly balanced line:
DESKTOP (ACD -- iMac)
30" pro -- high end, no consumer equivalent
23" pro -- 24" consumer
20" pro -- 20" consumer
low end, no pro equivalent -- 17" consumer
NOTEBOOK (MBP -- MB)
17" pro -- high end, no consumer equivalent
15" pro -- 15" consumer
low end, no pro equivalent -- 13" consumer
See? In every case there'd be overlap in the middle, but not at the lowest and highest ends -- this is more or less how it was before this year. So, how is the lack of a 17" consumer model a "gap"?
I think you underestimate what consumers are willing to buy. Apple could be making mucho bucks selling a 15-inch MacBook and I think more people would buy a 17-inch than the pros who buy them.
I think you underestimate what consumers are willing to buy. Apple could be making mucho bucks selling a 15-inch MacBook and I think more people would buy a 17-inch than the pros who buy them.
I like the elitism, myself. I don't want a computer anyone would buy, I want one that people with some taste and insight would buy, that looks better than the others, runs more elegantly, etc. And if it costs more, that separates the riff from the raff. As an old English prof of mine used to say, "The masses ARE asses," and if I wanted a Ferrari with a Dodge engine, I'd get a Viper (or some such thing that doesn't look as good, or drive as well, but it DOES cost less -- cool, 17", costs less, is like a Dell, or an HP -- that's what I want, for sure).
Whether prices have gone down or more people are offering that size is immaterial.
No, it's not. For Apple to be able to produce a laptop that lots of people would buy, but then not produce it, is brain-dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianus
It's the same size, more or less.
I meant all things being equal, a MacBook is bigger. 15.4" and 17" MacBooks would be bigger than the MacBook Pro equivalents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianus
So? Other manufacturers offer them. Other manufacturers offer a lot of things Apple doesn't, and won't, such as a mid-range headless, or a sub-$500. When in their entire history has that that ever influenced them to do anything?.
Ignoring what is happening in the market is a deeply bad business move. Apple's prices have come down a lot over the last several years and this is because of what's happened in the rest of the market.
But again, I'm notexpecting Apple to bring out a 17" MacBook. I just think it would be a good business move if they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianus
I wasn't saying a MacBook was an "HP with a funny OS", I was saying you seem to expect the company to be just like any other PC maker. I'm speaking of the conviction of the 17" MacBook/headless Conroe crowd that somehow, having Intel processors magically converts Apple to a commodity PC shop who can be expected to behave in the same way as an HP or a Dell in terms of the breadth of its product offerings, with the only distinguishing factor being the OS.
If Apple provided the options for 15.4" and 17" screens on the MacBook, and introduced a mid-range tower, their line-up would still be much, much smaller than Dell's, HP's, Acer's etc. etc. So no, I'm not calling for them to offer the breadth of product offerings of commodity PC makers. That's unnecessary. Just a little more choice - in a sizeable segment of the market that Apple for some reason currently totally ignores - would be good.
I like the elitism, myself. I don't want a computer anyone would buy, I want one that people with some taste and insight would buy, that looks better than the others, runs more elegantly, etc. And if it costs more, that separates the riff from the raff.
The existence of a 17" MacBook would not eradicate the 17" MacBook Pro. So you could still get what you want.
The existence of a 17" MacBook would not eradicate the 17" MacBook Pro. So you could still get what you want.
I don't disagree, I just kinda like the rarefied atmosphere. Just as long as the distinctions remain large enough. People seem to want a MacBook keyboard in the pro (not nearly as good to me as the pro keyboard) and other things that will make them converge. The more separate, the better. As much as a headless Mac tower would be interesting, it doesn't bother me there is none, as it makes the Mac Pro that much more "pro". Same on the laptops.
A MacBook is not the same form factor. It is denser and bigger. A 17" MacBook would compare to a 17" MacBook Pro thus:
-- Heavier
-- Bigger
-- Less powerful CPU
-- Vastly less powerful graphics
-- Less RAM
-- Smaller HDD
-- No firewire 800
-- Fewer USB 2.0 ports
-- No ExpressCard slot
-- No backlit keyboard
There's no "maybe" about it. All of Apple's competitors offer less powerful 17" laptops than Apple for vastly less money.
imagine how many ppl would bitch and moan about a 17" macbook being bigger than the 17" MBP yet with fewer ports/features just to cripple it behind the MBP?
i think a 15" black mb would be cool, and would be very tempted to get one, tho' a black MBP would be better for motion, AE etc...
Comments
They continue to move further and further away from the typical PC-land way of doing things, reap huge rewards, and you expect them do a 180 and become "HP with a funny OS" .. *shakes head in disbelief*
why on earth does anyone think a consumer 17" is anywhere near as reasonable?
I think it's "reasonable" in that Apple could make and sell a MacBook with 17" screen for considerably less (about $1000) than the 17" MacBook Pro and still have a healthy gross margin.
I don't think that it's going to happen though.
we are talking about people who deliberately make *very* clear distinctions between "Pro" and "consumer" and have been doing it more and moreso for the past several years.
IMHO this is a most un-clever move on Apple's part because the market they are selling to is not divided in this clear-cut manner. A 17" screen is not a high-end feature any more; just ignoring that fact is not going to change it.
The idea of them offering a consumer product in the same form factor as their top of the line pro portable is beyond laughable.
A MacBook is not the same form factor. It is denser and bigger. A 17" MacBook would compare to a 17" MacBook Pro thus:
-- Heavier
-- Bigger
-- Less powerful CPU
-- Vastly less powerful graphics
-- Less RAM
-- Smaller HDD
-- No firewire 800
-- Fewer USB 2.0 ports
-- No ExpressCard slot
-- No backlit keyboard
Maybe 17" is becoming slightly more commonplace as a consumer model in commodity PC land, but it's still looked on as pretty bulky for a notebook.
There's no "maybe" about it. All of Apple's competitors offer less powerful 17" laptops than Apple for vastly less money.
you expect them do a 180 and become "HP with a funny OS" .. *shakes head in disbelief*
No. Adding screen options to an already existing product is not "doing a 180". How is the 13" MacBook not an "HP with a funny OS", but a laptop with exactly the same appearance and aesthetics as a MacBook but with a 17" screen is?
Apple Pro Desktop Display Sizes:
20-inch Cinema Display
23-inch Cinema Display
30-inch Cinema Display
Apple Consumer Desktop Display Sizes:
17-inch iMac
20-inch iMac
24-inch iMac
Apple Professional Notebook Display Sizes:
15.4-inch MacBook Pro
17-inch MacBook Pro
Apple Consumer Notebook Display Sizes:
13.3-inch MacBook
One display size for its consumer notebook? LAME!
IMHO this is a most un-clever move on Apple's part because the market they are selling to is not divided in this clear-cut manner. A 17" screen is not a high-end feature any more; just ignoring that fact is not going to change it.
For most people, 17" is either a luxury or just too much computer to be called a portable (and Apple has shown zero interest in the idea of "desktop replacement" notebooks). Whether prices have gone down or more people are offering that size is immaterial. The reason I said I understood (but disagreed with) the calls for a 15" is that that is sort of the "standard" laptop size these days. Not so for 17", so they may as well continue to offer that only as a pro item. Not recognizing this is a sign that you're thinking like a smart "prosumer", and that is not who Apple is targeting with the MacBook.
A MacBook is not the same form factor. It is denser and bigger.
It's the same size, more or less. Screen size defines the laptop. nobody says I'm getting a 1-incher or a such-and-such-pounder. Let's not split hairs; what you're asking is for this to be the one spot in the lineup where the top of the line pro machine has a more or less direct consumer equivalent, the only significant differences being in the specs. And as I said, this might be understandable at the 15" size, the "sweet spot" as someone else described it and therefore a natural intersection for the pro and consumer lines, but to say there is no difference for the 17" or 13" just isn't being realistic. This is simply not a company that believes in offering every choice that is technologically feasible and/or matches the competition.
There's no "maybe" about it. All of Apple's competitors offer less powerful 17" laptops than Apple for vastly less money.
So? Other manufacturers offer them. Other manufacturers offer a lot of things Apple doesn't, and won't, such as a mid-range headless, or a sub-$500. When in their entire history has that that ever influenced them to do anything?
No. Adding screen options to an already existing product is not "doing a 180". How is the 13" MacBook not an "HP with a funny OS", but a laptop with exactly the same appearance and aesthetics as a MacBook but with a 17" screen is?
*sigh*. You people need to learn to think abstractly, I wasn't saying a MacBook was an "HP with a funny OS", I was saying you seem to expect the company to be just like any other PC maker. I'm speaking of the conviction of the 17" MacBook/headless Conroe crowd that somehow, having Intel processors magically converts Apple to a commodity PC shop who can be expected to behave in the same way as an HP or a Dell in terms of the breadth of its product offerings, with the only distinguishing factor being the OS.
If you actually paid any attention to what they've been doing the past few years, you'd realize they've been moving even further and further away from that approach; the laptop line being just the latest in a string of moves designed to even more cleanly delineate and distinguish their product lines from one another than they already were (example: dropping the lower end Power Macs, continuing the trend with the Mac Pro). Whether that's the "right" move or not is certainly debatable and it is not my point; my point is that you folks aren't paying attention. Doing what you ask would be a complete reversal, a 180, as it were.
The arguments against Apple offering a 17-inch MacBook are silly. The gap in both offerings and price couldn't be more clear!
<snip>
One display size for its consumer notebook? LAME!
Again: 15", understandable; 17", why? Would offering two display sizes for its consumer notebook be lame?
If you must insist there be no "gaps", a 15" would completely fill it and you'd have a perfectly balanced line:
DESKTOP (ACD -- iMac)
30" pro -- high end, no consumer equivalent
23" pro -- 24" consumer
20" pro -- 20" consumer
low end, no pro equivalent -- 17" consumer
NOTEBOOK (MBP -- MB)
17" pro -- high end, no consumer equivalent
15" pro -- 15" consumer
low end, no pro equivalent -- 13" consumer
See? In every case there'd be overlap in the middle, but not at the lowest and highest ends -- this is more or less how it was before this year. So, how is the lack of a 17" consumer model a "gap"?
I think you underestimate what consumers are willing to buy. Apple could be making mucho bucks selling a 15-inch MacBook and I think more people would buy a 17-inch than the pros who buy them.
I like the elitism, myself. I don't want a computer anyone would buy, I want one that people with some taste and insight would buy, that looks better than the others, runs more elegantly, etc. And if it costs more, that separates the riff from the raff. As an old English prof of mine used to say, "The masses ARE asses," and if I wanted a Ferrari with a Dodge engine, I'd get a Viper (or some such thing that doesn't look as good, or drive as well, but it DOES cost less -- cool, 17", costs less, is like a Dell, or an HP -- that's what I want, for sure).
Whether prices have gone down or more people are offering that size is immaterial.
No, it's not. For Apple to be able to produce a laptop that lots of people would buy, but then not produce it, is brain-dead.
It's the same size, more or less.
I meant all things being equal, a MacBook is bigger. 15.4" and 17" MacBooks would be bigger than the MacBook Pro equivalents.
So? Other manufacturers offer them. Other manufacturers offer a lot of things Apple doesn't, and won't, such as a mid-range headless, or a sub-$500. When in their entire history has that that ever influenced them to do anything?.
Ignoring what is happening in the market is a deeply bad business move. Apple's prices have come down a lot over the last several years and this is because of what's happened in the rest of the market.
But again, I'm not expecting Apple to bring out a 17" MacBook. I just think it would be a good business move if they did.
I wasn't saying a MacBook was an "HP with a funny OS", I was saying you seem to expect the company to be just like any other PC maker. I'm speaking of the conviction of the 17" MacBook/headless Conroe crowd that somehow, having Intel processors magically converts Apple to a commodity PC shop who can be expected to behave in the same way as an HP or a Dell in terms of the breadth of its product offerings, with the only distinguishing factor being the OS.
If Apple provided the options for 15.4" and 17" screens on the MacBook, and introduced a mid-range tower, their line-up would still be much, much smaller than Dell's, HP's, Acer's etc. etc. So no, I'm not calling for them to offer the breadth of product offerings of commodity PC makers. That's unnecessary. Just a little more choice - in a sizeable segment of the market that Apple for some reason currently totally ignores - would be good.
I like the elitism, myself. I don't want a computer anyone would buy, I want one that people with some taste and insight would buy, that looks better than the others, runs more elegantly, etc. And if it costs more, that separates the riff from the raff.
The existence of a 17" MacBook would not eradicate the 17" MacBook Pro. So you could still get what you want.
The existence of a 17" MacBook would not eradicate the 17" MacBook Pro. So you could still get what you want.
I don't disagree, I just kinda like the rarefied atmosphere. Just as long as the distinctions remain large enough. People seem to want a MacBook keyboard in the pro (not nearly as good to me as the pro keyboard) and other things that will make them converge. The more separate, the better. As much as a headless Mac tower would be interesting, it doesn't bother me there is none, as it makes the Mac Pro that much more "pro". Same on the laptops.
A MacBook is not the same form factor. It is denser and bigger. A 17" MacBook would compare to a 17" MacBook Pro thus:
-- Heavier
-- Bigger
-- Less powerful CPU
-- Vastly less powerful graphics
-- Less RAM
-- Smaller HDD
-- No firewire 800
-- Fewer USB 2.0 ports
-- No ExpressCard slot
-- No backlit keyboard
There's no "maybe" about it. All of Apple's competitors offer less powerful 17" laptops than Apple for vastly less money.
imagine how many ppl would bitch and moan about a 17" macbook being bigger than the 17" MBP yet with fewer ports/features just to cripple it behind the MBP?
i think a 15" black mb would be cool, and would be very tempted to get one, tho' a black MBP would be better for motion, AE etc...
sennen