You called that a rumor about 17" MBPs would be reported in AI?
You're simply amazing!
In all seriousness though, I really doubt Apple would do this. I love m7 17" and the expansive screen is vital for so many power users.
The 17" is not so much a "laptop" as a "portable and very compact desktop/laptop workstation." You don't pop it open on the airplane (use your iPad or iPhone.) Essentially, when you get to your destination, you open up your high powered work space.
I always find statements like this (particularly considering the current MBP's, including the 17" model are FAR lighter and sleeker than ANY of their PC counterparts) to be illogical, if not amusing. "Too bulky to be portable in today's world"... are you serious? Did the world suddenly shrink to the size of a broom closet? Have we suddenly been forced to operate within zones that are only as large as our own bodies? No? Good, just checking.
So, let's just get to the heart of the matter: when it comes to portability, it really comes down to personal choice. Just because your individual preference is to have something smaller does not mean that others desire or need the same. As others have posted in this thread, while "smaller, lighter, faster" are the en vogue buzzwords for electronic devices, that is not always the way to go, depending on your needs. For a lot of on-the-go activities - checking e-mail, paying a bill, a quick view of a photo, etc. - yes, having an iPhone (or any other smartphone) or an iPad is fine. But, when it's time to get down to work and, I'm going to be spending a lot of time away from my dedicated work space, staring at a screen the size of wallet or a notepad causes a tremendous amount of strain on the eyes and is COMPLETELY impractical, and that's before you get to the issue of overall processing and system capabilities. So, yes, there is still a market for the 17" MBP, regardless of "general" consumer tastes and sales figures, and it has little to do with the "issue" of portability.
<div class="quote-container" style="margin-top: 5px; margin-right: 20px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 20px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; "> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px; border-top-width: 1px; border-right-width: 1px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(217, 218, 216); border-right-color: rgb(217, 218, 216); border-bottom-color: rgb(217, 218, 216); border-left-color: rgb(217, 218, 216); background-color: rgb(241, 241, 241); "> Originally Posted by <strong style="font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; ">Seankill</strong> <a href="/t/149540/apple-predicted-to-discontinue-17-inch-macbook-pro/40#post_2099482" style="color: rgb(18, 86, 183) !important; "><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; max-width: 100%; cursor: default; " /></a><br /> <br /> <br /> Buying a PC is exactly what I will do. I need the space because iPad won't do heavy things such as modeling and even if it did, doing them by finger would suck<br /> Was planning on buying a MacBook pro 17 in a year with internship money, if it is discontinued. I will not be switching from PC to Mac.</div> <div> </div></div><p> I can't blame you.</p><p> </p><p> As you have stated previously, every member in your family have and love their Dells. </p><p> </p><p> Pretty hard to share their software if <strong>you</strong> were to switch. And to have to buy Mac Apps, in particular for modelling, it would probably cost you a prohibitive penny, as well as the time to deprogram your PC upbringing.</p><p> </p><p> That said, I don't know why you even bother to comment on what Apple, or what other say, may intend to do. It seems obvious you never really intend to go Mac.</p>
You couldn't be more wrong. I am waiting for the day to switch to mac and just install windows along side it. My brother plans to do the same I'm sure. I am happy with my dell but will say macs are better in a heart beat. Having an iPhone and and iPad, it makes sense that I prefer apple products. Mainly cause they work. However, I do want a 17inch screen, it may not be all the much bigger but it's a selling point for me.
<p> I hope this news is true. The 17" MacBook Pro annoys me. These are supposed to be portable machines ffs. Consumers don't want to carry these huge laptops around with them. 15" should be the maximum.</p>
I do. I need the space to do 3D modeling etc.
If this is true( I doubt it), I will be disappointed in apple and they will lose any shot of ever having my business for computers.
Here is a scale image of the 17" and 15" next to a 24" monitor:
The 15" and 17" aren't all that different in size. You get 30% more viewing area (130sqi vs 100 sqi) for $300 and it's still a TN panel. For that same $300, you can get a 24" IPS display with 276sqi of viewing area - more than double the 17" display and a high quality panel for colour accuracy.
The 17" does have the high resolution of 1920 x 1200 but even if they ship the 15" with the high-res option by default (1680 x 1050), that's the same pixel density. If they sort out resolution independence, they can get 1920 x 1200 on it.
I think it actually makes the least sense to discontinue the 17" now that it's becoming more portable but Apple has to think about shipping volumes and manufacturing costs. They have to mill the chassis differently so cutting it out of the lineup will save them money. As usual, this is just what an analyst thinks will happen. The only difference between him and us is he gets paid for it. If they did decide to cut it out due to low demand though, now would be the time to do it.
You see, the thing is I need to be monitor free. I currently have an old LCD monitor hooked up to my 15.4 inch laptop. However, there are some 4-10 hours a day where I am not at my desk in my room. However , I continue to use my PC outside of my room (iPad has helped cut down on it some). Weight isn't an issue. I already have a book bag with a book or two that'll always weigh more than a laptop.
So I don't want to have to carry around a monitor to have a big screen. Nor do I need a new one.
However, I understand why apple may be cutting it to save money. But I'll be hesitant to go Mac if they cut it.
I always plan to buy laptops every 6-7 years. So putting 2000-3500 down on a laptop isn't all that bad. As long as school and soon work don't require me to upgrade more often then the high price makes sense. And I'll probably never own another desktop again.
The 15" and 17" aren't all that different in size. You get 30% more viewing area (130sqi vs 100 sqi) for $300 and it's still a TN panel. For that same $300, you can get a 24" IPS display with 276sqi of viewing area - more than double the 17" display and a high quality panel for colour accuracy.
That makes lots of sense. I guess I'll just buy a 15" MBP and a 24" IPS display to carry with me when I travel. I'm really going to have a lot of success using that configuration in an airline seat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxhead64
There's some really good deals on the 17" Sandy Bridge line up now (30% off) - delivered (no tax, free overnight shipping) for just over $1700, almost $800 off.
For many people, that's going to be the way to go. When I bought my last MBP (5 years ago), I wanted the top end version for longevity. At the time, software demands were still growing.
Today, though, even my 5 year old computer works just fine for the things I do - which mimic the majority of people traveling with their laptops. Email, web browsing, word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, some light photo editing, etc. Since my Core 2 Duo (2.33 GHz) system with 3 GB of RAM is working just fine and doesn't really slow me down noticeably, even last year's Sandy Bridge model would be more than enough. The savings would probably allow me to upgrade to SSD - which is going to be far more important than the slightly improved CPU. And for people who need heavy GPU performance, they're going to be relying on the discrete GPU, so the better Ivy Bridge performance won't matter much.
You can argue that MacPro's are not needed any more because thunderbolt allows you to attach powerful extension boxes to iMacs and MacMinis.
You can also argue that even small MacBook Pros are capable of connecting to powerful extension boxes and big thunderbolt displays.
BUT: a lot of filmmakers, photographers are taking their MacBook Pros with them into the field. A 17" MBP is a powerful desktop replacement when your'e out there somewhere on location. It's got a beautiful large screen for editing, motions graphis and photography work. A 17" MBP fits in a bag easily. A 17" MBP can travel with you in a backpack. It's the ultimate tool for professional mobility.
When you have to bring an extra display to do your work, the entire mobile scenario doesn't work any more - not for professional users.
Ironically, when you look at Apple's own website for Final Cut Pro X - it's a 17" MPB they're showing: http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/
Apple - please don't kill your professional market. Editors in particular need the extra screen real estate a 17" MBP offers when editing on the road!!!!!!!!
The 17" does have the high resolution of 1920 x 1200 but even if they ship the 15" with the high-res option by default (1680 x 1050), that's the same pixel density. If they sort out resolution independence, they can get 1920 x 1200 on it.
I think it actually makes the least sense to discontinue the 17" now that it's becoming more portable but Apple has to think about shipping volumes and manufacturing costs. They have to mill the chassis differently so cutting it out of the lineup will save them money. As usual, this is just what an analyst thinks will happen. The only difference between him and us is he gets paid for it. If they did decide to cut it out due to low demand though, now would be the time to do it.
1920 x 1200 is nice to have when you're trying to do development on the road. I assume the same for heavy duty photoshop users as well. I have the hi-res 15" MBP and it's not quite as nice as my old 17" from that perspective. But it sure is a lot more portable. Another downside to the 17" is that it didn't fit into hotel safes.
If the 13" MBP had a dedicated GPU I'd have gone for that instead of the 15" MBP. Dropping the DVD drive in favor of a GPU and 2 TB ports would make that a much nicer pro machine. I can live with the smaller monitor and if I can't I can lug along that monitor2go for long trips.
Heck, for long trips I'd hit the local best buy or other big electronics store and get the LG 23" IPS235V IPS monitor for $199 and expense it. Or have one FedEx'd to the hotel from the office the next trip. 1920x1080 is good enough for even a month long gig.
Now with Thunderbolt it's a lot more viable to drop the 17" IMHO for expansion. I only hauled along a eSATA RAID once with my 17" MBP but it was required for that job. The expresscard slot was a must to do that. Today, not so much. Folks that really really need one today can grab something like this:
That makes lots of sense. I guess I'll just buy a 15" MBP and a 24" IPS display to carry with me when I travel. I'm really going to have a lot of success using that configuration in an airline seat.
I can tell you that the 17", outside of business class, was annoying. The 15" is much better. YMMV.
I love the 17" MBP, but I can also see using a 15" MBP as long as it now has a Thunderbolt port. The 17" has a slot for an Express 34 card, which the smaller models do not. I need that Express card for my SATA drives. However, Thunderbolt is faster than SATA and that is included in the 15" Macs. That 15" MBP hooked up to a 27" LCD Apple display would be a nice combo for video editing.
Who is Ming-Chi Kuo and where did he get sales figure from? I'm so sick of every utterance from a wall street analyst being considered news these days and picked up on every rumro site/blog. One day it's a TV rumor, the next an iPad mini. Another it's a new iPhone in June with a liquid metal casing. The next is an October iPhone with in cell technology (most people, including myself, probably don't even know what in cell means). Now it's killing off the 17" MBP based on no evidence other than some analyst making a prediction. I'll take my cues from Apple's earnings call tomorrow.
I think he's a financial analyst with an IT specialty who is based in Taipei, Taiwan and called the discontinuation of the polycarb MB.
Which is to say: his expertise is self proclaimed and imaginary (financial analyst), he probably knows little about Apple computers anyway (Financial analyst AND an IT specialty,) he's far removed from any reliable source of information about Apple product strategy (he's not Tim Cook,) and one of his predictions panned out (polycarb MB.)
Here is a scale image of the 17" and 15" next to a 24" monitor:
The 15" and 17" aren't all that different in size. You get 30% more viewing area (130sqi vs 100 sqi) for $300 and it's still a TN panel. For that same $300, you can get a 24" IPS display with 276sqi of viewing area - more than double the 17" display and a high quality panel for colour accuracy.
The 17" does have the high resolution of 1920 x 1200 but even if they ship the 15" with the high-res option by default (1680 x 1050), that's the same pixel density. If they sort out resolution independence, they can get 1920 x 1200 on it.
I think it actually makes the least sense to discontinue the 17" now that it's becoming more portable but Apple has to think about shipping volumes and manufacturing costs. They have to mill the chassis differently so cutting it out of the lineup will save them money. As usual, this is just what an analyst thinks will happen. The only difference between him and us is he gets paid for it. If they did decide to cut it out due to low demand though, now would be the time to do it.
I find it pointless owning a laptop if you won't take it anywhere. The external display solution can work well, but it will not help you on the road or away from your desk. I really have no idea how many users buy 17" laptops these days, but I doubt that was ever their top seller. There is one thing i'd like to mention, $300 IPS displays are not necessarily the best available, and IPS does not automatically mean perfect color, especially when coupled with the use of led backlighting. In fact the cheapest thing I'd look at if I wanted a close color reference would be something like a PA241w and those are are around $1200 with hood + colorimeter+software. TN isn't perfect, but it's improved quite a lot. The problem remains that led has too many profiling issues regardless of panel type, and that is your real problem.
He may get paid for his opinions, but that doesn't make them any better. Most of these articles contain very little supporting information. I knew one on the future of the 17" would come up. I knew the one about a thinner 15" "effectively killing the pro" would come up as everyone remembered the Air cited as "the future". Sometimes it seems like these require something to comment on, so they make up speculations whether they believe them or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
1920 x 1200 is nice to have when you're trying to do development on the road. I assume the same for heavy duty photoshop users as well. I have the hi-res 15" MBP and it's not quite as nice as my old 17" from that perspective. But it sure is a lot more portable. Another downside to the 17" is that it didn't fit into hotel safes.
If the 13" MBP had a dedicated GPU I'd have gone for that instead of the 15" MBP. Dropping the DVD drive in favor of a GPU and 2 TB ports would make that a much nicer pro machine. I can live with the smaller monitor and if I can't I can lug along that monitor2go for long trips.
Heck, for long trips I'd hit the local best buy or other big electronics store and get the LG 23" IPS235V IPS monitor for $199 and expense it. Or have one FedEx'd to the hotel from the office the next trip. 1920x1080 is good enough for even a month long gig.
Now with Thunderbolt it's a lot more viable to drop the 17" IMHO for expansion. I only hauled along a eSATA RAID once with my 17" MBP but it was required for that job. The expresscard slot was a must to do that. Today, not so much. Folks that really really need one today can grab something like this:
For anything visual a laptop screen always feels small once you subtract the space required for ui elements. Thunderbolt is still not really a perfect solution. I wish they hadn't coupled it to the display output. If I recall correctly, the TB chip used in the macbook pros is the same one the 27" imac uses with two ports assigned. The Air uses a lighter chip.
I read elsewhere that Kuo estimates that Apple sold 1.5 million 13" MB Pros, 500k 15" MB Pros, and only 50k 17" MB Pros in Q1 2012. Out of 3.1 million MacBooks of all types, including 1.1 million MB Airs evenly split between the 11" and 13" models. Interesting numbers, and rather disappointing for fans of the 17" MB Pro (if Kuo's numbers are in the ballpark.)
You can argue that MacPro's are not needed any more because thunderbolt allows you to attach powerful extension boxes to iMacs and MacMinis.
You can also argue that even small MacBook Pros are capable of connecting to powerful extension boxes and big thunderbolt displays.
BUT: a lot of filmmakers, photographers are taking their MacBook Pros with them into the field. A 17" MBP is a powerful desktop replacement when your'e out there somewhere on location. It's got a beautiful large screen for editing, motions graphis and photography work. A 17" MBP fits in a bag easily. A 17" MBP can travel with you in a backpack. It's the ultimate tool for professional mobility.
When you have to bring an extra display to do your work, the entire mobile scenario doesn't work any more - not for professional users.
Ironically, when you look at Apple's own website for Final Cut Pro X - it's a 17" MPB they're showing: http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/
Apple - please don't kill your professional market. Editors in particular need the extra screen real estate a 17" MBP offers when editing on the road!!!!!!!!
I would expect to see a lot more apps using the iPad as a secondary display/input device. When that happens the 15" might work out pretty well for your workflow.
Here's one guy using his ipad with FCPX:
Viable only for events right now but I can see the potential.
And of course there's this:
But if you need the 17" you need the 17". I'd still lug along the iPad though.
I can see where some would need/want a 17" portable workstation and for them I hope apple not only keeps it around but gives it a thinner lighter design. Although for me, I had a 17" laptop at one time and kept it only about a year and went back to a 15" because it was just too much to haul around for my needs. Since then my idea of a "portable" computer/device for my needs changed drastically after buying my iPad2. I do all my serious work in my office where I would much rather have a large monitor and more capable machine to work with rather than trying to use one machine for both office and travel which, while the 17" works well for this (aside from lugging it around) for travel; it was quite limited compared to a desktop machine when I get back to the office. I learned this lesson after trying to use the 17" for both for a while. Oh the times they are a changin.... for me anyway :-)
Can't wait to see what Apple is going to come out with in the next few _?___ so I can get my new Mac! I am the type of person that; when I decide to do something I just do it, and because of that I had almost give in to my impulses and thought about going ahead and buying what is out now. But my better sense has gotten hold of me now and it's just too close to some kind of announcement to not wait. It'll probably be the new iMac unless.... there happens to be a totally awesome redesigned Mac Pro, well I just couldn't resist that :-)
You hope something you don't even use is discontinued? What is wrong with you? Do you think Apple can run a viable business by selling only the products you buy? And considering it's a MacBook Pro, why are you even talking about consumers.
I guess you never read any of the Mac Pro or FCP threads. This attitude is pretty common around here.
I guess you never read any of the Mac Pro or FCP threads. This attitude is pretty common around here.
So where're these threads written about consumers that HOPE the Mac Pro is discontinued? I seem to have missed them. And also missed why consumers should be listened to about that.
I read elsewhere that Kuo estimates that Apple sold 1.5 million 13" MB Pros, 500k 15" MB Pros, and only 50k 17" MB Pros in Q1 2012. Out of 3.1 million MacBooks of all types, including 1.1 million MB Airs evenly split between the 11" and 13" models. Interesting numbers, and rather disappointing for fans of the 17" MB Pro (if Kuo's numbers are in the ballpark.)
Using $1199 for the 13" MBP, $1799 for the 15" MBP and $2499 for the 17" MBP = $1.8B for the 13", $900M for the 15" and $125M for the 17".
That's revenue of course. I'm going to guess that the margins on the 15" and 17" are better than the 13". If not, I'd be mildly surprised.
Still, if they only sell 200K 17" MBP in a year that's half a billion in revenue and overall higher ASPs. I'm figuring anyone that doesn't need the 17" display is already getting the top end 15" MBP.
I see hundreds of Apple laptops a year in my job, being bought by all kinds of people for all kinds of uses and in my experience, over the long haul, and on average, almost no one buys a 15" or a 17" MacBook Pro, although the 15" is far more popular than the 17". Those that do (again IMO), tend to be show-offs, or concerned with having the "biggest/best" laptop in the room far more than they are concerned with issues connected with actually using the machine.
Have you considered that maybe those with higher end machines tend to know how to use/repair them without your amazing assistance?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
I called this.
You called that a rumor about 17" MBPs would be reported in AI?
You're simply amazing!
In all seriousness though, I really doubt Apple would do this. I love m7 17" and the expansive screen is vital for so many power users.
The 17" is not so much a "laptop" as a "portable and very compact desktop/laptop workstation." You don't pop it open on the airplane (use your iPad or iPhone.) Essentially, when you get to your destination, you open up your high powered work space.
So, let's just get to the heart of the matter: when it comes to portability, it really comes down to personal choice. Just because your individual preference is to have something smaller does not mean that others desire or need the same. As others have posted in this thread, while "smaller, lighter, faster" are the en vogue buzzwords for electronic devices, that is not always the way to go, depending on your needs. For a lot of on-the-go activities - checking e-mail, paying a bill, a quick view of a photo, etc. - yes, having an iPhone (or any other smartphone) or an iPad is fine. But, when it's time to get down to work and, I'm going to be spending a lot of time away from my dedicated work space, staring at a screen the size of wallet or a notepad causes a tremendous amount of strain on the eyes and is COMPLETELY impractical, and that's before you get to the issue of overall processing and system capabilities. So, yes, there is still a market for the 17" MBP, regardless of "general" consumer tastes and sales figures, and it has little to do with the "issue" of portability.
You couldn't be more wrong. I am waiting for the day to switch to mac and just install windows along side it. My brother plans to do the same I'm sure. I am happy with my dell but will say macs are better in a heart beat. Having an iPhone and and iPad, it makes sense that I prefer apple products. Mainly cause they work. However, I do want a 17inch screen, it may not be all the much bigger but it's a selling point for me.
You see, the thing is I need to be monitor free. I currently have an old LCD monitor hooked up to my 15.4 inch laptop. However, there are some 4-10 hours a day where I am not at my desk in my room. However , I continue to use my PC outside of my room (iPad has helped cut down on it some). Weight isn't an issue. I already have a book bag with a book or two that'll always weigh more than a laptop.
So I don't want to have to carry around a monitor to have a big screen. Nor do I need a new one.
However, I understand why apple may be cutting it to save money. But I'll be hesitant to go Mac if they cut it.
I always plan to buy laptops every 6-7 years. So putting 2000-3500 down on a laptop isn't all that bad. As long as school and soon work don't require me to upgrade more often then the high price makes sense. And I'll probably never own another desktop again.
The 15" and 17" aren't all that different in size. You get 30% more viewing area (130sqi vs 100 sqi) for $300 and it's still a TN panel. For that same $300, you can get a 24" IPS display with 276sqi of viewing area - more than double the 17" display and a high quality panel for colour accuracy.
That makes lots of sense. I guess I'll just buy a 15" MBP and a 24" IPS display to carry with me when I travel. I'm really going to have a lot of success using that configuration in an airline seat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxhead64
There's some really good deals on the 17" Sandy Bridge line up now (30% off) - delivered (no tax, free overnight shipping) for just over $1700, almost $800 off.
For many people, that's going to be the way to go. When I bought my last MBP (5 years ago), I wanted the top end version for longevity. At the time, software demands were still growing.
Today, though, even my 5 year old computer works just fine for the things I do - which mimic the majority of people traveling with their laptops. Email, web browsing, word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, some light photo editing, etc. Since my Core 2 Duo (2.33 GHz) system with 3 GB of RAM is working just fine and doesn't really slow me down noticeably, even last year's Sandy Bridge model would be more than enough. The savings would probably allow me to upgrade to SSD - which is going to be far more important than the slightly improved CPU. And for people who need heavy GPU performance, they're going to be relying on the discrete GPU, so the better Ivy Bridge performance won't matter much.
You can argue that MacPro's are not needed any more because thunderbolt allows you to attach powerful extension boxes to iMacs and MacMinis.
You can also argue that even small MacBook Pros are capable of connecting to powerful extension boxes and big thunderbolt displays.
BUT: a lot of filmmakers, photographers are taking their MacBook Pros with them into the field. A 17" MBP is a powerful desktop replacement when your'e out there somewhere on location. It's got a beautiful large screen for editing, motions graphis and photography work. A 17" MBP fits in a bag easily. A 17" MBP can travel with you in a backpack. It's the ultimate tool for professional mobility.
When you have to bring an extra display to do your work, the entire mobile scenario doesn't work any more - not for professional users.
Ironically, when you look at Apple's own website for Final Cut Pro X - it's a 17" MPB they're showing: http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/
Apple - please don't kill your professional market. Editors in particular need the extra screen real estate a 17" MBP offers when editing on the road!!!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The 17" does have the high resolution of 1920 x 1200 but even if they ship the 15" with the high-res option by default (1680 x 1050), that's the same pixel density. If they sort out resolution independence, they can get 1920 x 1200 on it.
I think it actually makes the least sense to discontinue the 17" now that it's becoming more portable but Apple has to think about shipping volumes and manufacturing costs. They have to mill the chassis differently so cutting it out of the lineup will save them money. As usual, this is just what an analyst thinks will happen. The only difference between him and us is he gets paid for it. If they did decide to cut it out due to low demand though, now would be the time to do it.
1920 x 1200 is nice to have when you're trying to do development on the road. I assume the same for heavy duty photoshop users as well. I have the hi-res 15" MBP and it's not quite as nice as my old 17" from that perspective. But it sure is a lot more portable. Another downside to the 17" is that it didn't fit into hotel safes.
If the 13" MBP had a dedicated GPU I'd have gone for that instead of the 15" MBP. Dropping the DVD drive in favor of a GPU and 2 TB ports would make that a much nicer pro machine. I can live with the smaller monitor and if I can't I can lug along that monitor2go for long trips.
Heck, for long trips I'd hit the local best buy or other big electronics store and get the LG 23" IPS235V IPS monitor for $199 and expense it. Or have one FedEx'd to the hotel from the office the next trip. 1920x1080 is good enough for even a month long gig.
Now with Thunderbolt it's a lot more viable to drop the 17" IMHO for expansion. I only hauled along a eSATA RAID once with my 17" MBP but it was required for that job. The expresscard slot was a must to do that. Today, not so much. Folks that really really need one today can grab something like this:
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresscard34thunderbolt.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That makes lots of sense. I guess I'll just buy a 15" MBP and a 24" IPS display to carry with me when I travel. I'm really going to have a lot of success using that configuration in an airline seat.
I can tell you that the 17", outside of business class, was annoying. The 15" is much better. YMMV.
I love the 17" MBP, but I can also see using a 15" MBP as long as it now has a Thunderbolt port. The 17" has a slot for an Express 34 card, which the smaller models do not. I need that Express card for my SATA drives. However, Thunderbolt is faster than SATA and that is included in the 15" Macs. That 15" MBP hooked up to a 27" LCD Apple display would be a nice combo for video editing.
Thunderbolt adaptation to currently common ports is sloooowwwly getting there.
But, I would say, not there yet.
I will bet I am not in the minority of people who opted for the 17 inch MacBook Pro for the expansion port.
Discontinuing that option in the 15 was certainly disappointing to me.
The screen on the 17 is pretty awesome, but I have definitely left my laptop home to avoid lugging it around.
I look forward to Thunderbolt becoming a real option, if it ever does.
Cost held FireWire adoption back over the inferior USB, and the same may happen with Thunderbolt.
$50 cables and $200+ adapters will not get us there.
For me, the Thunderbolt port is just a Display Port for my 23-inch Cinema Display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Who is Ming-Chi Kuo and where did he get sales figure from? I'm so sick of every utterance from a wall street analyst being considered news these days and picked up on every rumro site/blog. One day it's a TV rumor, the next an iPad mini. Another it's a new iPhone in June with a liquid metal casing. The next is an October iPhone with in cell technology (most people, including myself, probably don't even know what in cell means). Now it's killing off the 17" MBP based on no evidence other than some analyst making a prediction. I'll take my cues from Apple's earnings call tomorrow.
I think he's a financial analyst with an IT specialty who is based in Taipei, Taiwan and called the discontinuation of the polycarb MB.
Which is to say: his expertise is self proclaimed and imaginary (financial analyst), he probably knows little about Apple computers anyway (Financial analyst AND an IT specialty,) he's far removed from any reliable source of information about Apple product strategy (he's not Tim Cook,) and one of his predictions panned out (polycarb MB.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Here is a scale image of the 17" and 15" next to a 24" monitor:
The 15" and 17" aren't all that different in size. You get 30% more viewing area (130sqi vs 100 sqi) for $300 and it's still a TN panel. For that same $300, you can get a 24" IPS display with 276sqi of viewing area - more than double the 17" display and a high quality panel for colour accuracy.
The 17" does have the high resolution of 1920 x 1200 but even if they ship the 15" with the high-res option by default (1680 x 1050), that's the same pixel density. If they sort out resolution independence, they can get 1920 x 1200 on it.
I think it actually makes the least sense to discontinue the 17" now that it's becoming more portable but Apple has to think about shipping volumes and manufacturing costs. They have to mill the chassis differently so cutting it out of the lineup will save them money. As usual, this is just what an analyst thinks will happen. The only difference between him and us is he gets paid for it. If they did decide to cut it out due to low demand though, now would be the time to do it.
I find it pointless owning a laptop if you won't take it anywhere. The external display solution can work well, but it will not help you on the road or away from your desk. I really have no idea how many users buy 17" laptops these days, but I doubt that was ever their top seller. There is one thing i'd like to mention, $300 IPS displays are not necessarily the best available, and IPS does not automatically mean perfect color, especially when coupled with the use of led backlighting. In fact the cheapest thing I'd look at if I wanted a close color reference would be something like a PA241w and those are are around $1200 with hood + colorimeter+software. TN isn't perfect, but it's improved quite a lot. The problem remains that led has too many profiling issues regardless of panel type, and that is your real problem.
He may get paid for his opinions, but that doesn't make them any better. Most of these articles contain very little supporting information. I knew one on the future of the 17" would come up. I knew the one about a thinner 15" "effectively killing the pro" would come up as everyone remembered the Air cited as "the future". Sometimes it seems like these require something to comment on, so they make up speculations whether they believe them or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
1920 x 1200 is nice to have when you're trying to do development on the road. I assume the same for heavy duty photoshop users as well. I have the hi-res 15" MBP and it's not quite as nice as my old 17" from that perspective. But it sure is a lot more portable. Another downside to the 17" is that it didn't fit into hotel safes.
If the 13" MBP had a dedicated GPU I'd have gone for that instead of the 15" MBP. Dropping the DVD drive in favor of a GPU and 2 TB ports would make that a much nicer pro machine. I can live with the smaller monitor and if I can't I can lug along that monitor2go for long trips.
Heck, for long trips I'd hit the local best buy or other big electronics store and get the LG 23" IPS235V IPS monitor for $199 and expense it. Or have one FedEx'd to the hotel from the office the next trip. 1920x1080 is good enough for even a month long gig.
Now with Thunderbolt it's a lot more viable to drop the 17" IMHO for expansion. I only hauled along a eSATA RAID once with my 17" MBP but it was required for that job. The expresscard slot was a must to do that. Today, not so much. Folks that really really need one today can grab something like this:
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresscard34thunderbolt.html
For anything visual a laptop screen always feels small once you subtract the space required for ui elements. Thunderbolt is still not really a perfect solution. I wish they hadn't coupled it to the display output. If I recall correctly, the TB chip used in the macbook pros is the same one the 27" imac uses with two ports assigned. The Air uses a lighter chip.
I read elsewhere that Kuo estimates that Apple sold 1.5 million 13" MB Pros, 500k 15" MB Pros, and only 50k 17" MB Pros in Q1 2012. Out of 3.1 million MacBooks of all types, including 1.1 million MB Airs evenly split between the 11" and 13" models. Interesting numbers, and rather disappointing for fans of the 17" MB Pro (if Kuo's numbers are in the ballpark.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by THX1965
You can argue that MacPro's are not needed any more because thunderbolt allows you to attach powerful extension boxes to iMacs and MacMinis.
You can also argue that even small MacBook Pros are capable of connecting to powerful extension boxes and big thunderbolt displays.
BUT: a lot of filmmakers, photographers are taking their MacBook Pros with them into the field. A 17" MBP is a powerful desktop replacement when your'e out there somewhere on location. It's got a beautiful large screen for editing, motions graphis and photography work. A 17" MBP fits in a bag easily. A 17" MBP can travel with you in a backpack. It's the ultimate tool for professional mobility.
When you have to bring an extra display to do your work, the entire mobile scenario doesn't work any more - not for professional users.
Ironically, when you look at Apple's own website for Final Cut Pro X - it's a 17" MPB they're showing: http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/
Apple - please don't kill your professional market. Editors in particular need the extra screen real estate a 17" MBP offers when editing on the road!!!!!!!!
I would expect to see a lot more apps using the iPad as a secondary display/input device. When that happens the 15" might work out pretty well for your workflow.
Here's one guy using his ipad with FCPX:
Viable only for events right now but I can see the potential.
And of course there's this:
But if you need the 17" you need the 17". I'd still lug along the iPad though.
I can see where some would need/want a 17" portable workstation and for them I hope apple not only keeps it around but gives it a thinner lighter design. Although for me, I had a 17" laptop at one time and kept it only about a year and went back to a 15" because it was just too much to haul around for my needs. Since then my idea of a "portable" computer/device for my needs changed drastically after buying my iPad2. I do all my serious work in my office where I would much rather have a large monitor and more capable machine to work with rather than trying to use one machine for both office and travel which, while the 17" works well for this (aside from lugging it around) for travel; it was quite limited compared to a desktop machine when I get back to the office. I learned this lesson after trying to use the 17" for both for a while. Oh the times they are a changin.... for me anyway :-)
Can't wait to see what Apple is going to come out with in the next few _?___ so I can get my new Mac! I am the type of person that; when I decide to do something I just do it, and because of that I had almost give in to my impulses and thought about going ahead and buying what is out now. But my better sense has gotten hold of me now and it's just too close to some kind of announcement to not wait. It'll probably be the new iMac unless.... there happens to be a totally awesome redesigned Mac Pro, well I just couldn't resist that :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav
You hope something you don't even use is discontinued? What is wrong with you? Do you think Apple can run a viable business by selling only the products you buy? And considering it's a MacBook Pro, why are you even talking about consumers.
I guess you never read any of the Mac Pro or FCP threads. This attitude is pretty common around here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail
I guess you never read any of the Mac Pro or FCP threads. This attitude is pretty common around here.
So where're these threads written about consumers that HOPE the Mac Pro is discontinued? I seem to have missed them. And also missed why consumers should be listened to about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
I read elsewhere that Kuo estimates that Apple sold 1.5 million 13" MB Pros, 500k 15" MB Pros, and only 50k 17" MB Pros in Q1 2012. Out of 3.1 million MacBooks of all types, including 1.1 million MB Airs evenly split between the 11" and 13" models. Interesting numbers, and rather disappointing for fans of the 17" MB Pro (if Kuo's numbers are in the ballpark.)
Using $1199 for the 13" MBP, $1799 for the 15" MBP and $2499 for the 17" MBP = $1.8B for the 13", $900M for the 15" and $125M for the 17".
That's revenue of course. I'm going to guess that the margins on the 15" and 17" are better than the 13". If not, I'd be mildly surprised.
Still, if they only sell 200K 17" MBP in a year that's half a billion in revenue and overall higher ASPs. I'm figuring anyone that doesn't need the 17" display is already getting the top end 15" MBP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I see hundreds of Apple laptops a year in my job, being bought by all kinds of people for all kinds of uses and in my experience, over the long haul, and on average, almost no one buys a 15" or a 17" MacBook Pro, although the 15" is far more popular than the 17". Those that do (again IMO), tend to be show-offs, or concerned with having the "biggest/best" laptop in the room far more than they are concerned with issues connected with actually using the machine.
Have you considered that maybe those with higher end machines tend to know how to use/repair them without your amazing assistance?