Apple predicted to discontinue 17-inch MacBook Pro

145679

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 199
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post





    Since your point is so incredibly cogent and you are so correct, surely you will admit that you don't **need** any MBP at all, and that you only want one. Surely you will admit you could get along just as well with an 8 GB iPod touch instead?


     


    I'm sure that was clever in your mind, but now that it's written down, it really just makes you look silly, hmmm?  


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post


     


     


    Then you've got an "issue" with anyone who does 3D, Video, and high end graphics. I'm even sure spreadsheet users like larger screens. And then there are people who LIKE larger screens because they have large eyes I suppose.


     


    I have to wonder at people who project only their own sense of what is important on the world without considering the "needs" of others. YES, we can all "get by" with a 15" -- but there are people on the fence and if they can't get a larger monitor, they might get a PC. Heck, I might be curious about creating a Hackintosh laptop if there is no 17".



     


     


    I'm not projecting any sense of what it is important.  I'm sure having a 17" is highly preferable to some people.  What I'm taking issue with is that some people are claiming they "can't work" on a 15" machine and they "need" a 17".   We heard the same comments when they redesigned the MBP in 2009.  OMG! They took away ports!  How will I function!  Screw Apple!  

  • Reply 162 of 199
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bikertwin View Post


    The current 17" is 1920 by 1200. They're moving everything to Retina, right?



     


    Not for awhile.  Pixel density for the 17" MBP is only 133.19.  Pixel doubled would make it 266, which would be about the level of the New iPad, which should qualify it based on usage distance.  Whenever they get around to that

  • Reply 163 of 199
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

    What I'm taking issue with is that some people are claiming they "can't work" on a 15" machine and they "need" a 17". 


     


    Do you make the same statement about the Mac Pro?

  • Reply 164 of 199


    Dumbest thing I've ever read. I prefer 17" by far. End of story.

  • Reply 165 of 199
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    You need to be a little more open minded.
    sdw2001 wrote: »
    <p>  </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>DESuserIGN</strong> <a href="/t/149540/apple-predicted-to-discontinue-17-inch-macbook-pro/120#post_2100227"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <br /> Since your point is so incredibly cogent and you are so correct, surely you will admit that you don't **need** any MBP at all, and that you only want one. Surely you will admit you could get along just as well with an 8 GB iPod touch instead?</div></div><p>  </p><p> I'm sure that was clever in your mind, but now that it's written down, it really just makes you look silly, hmmm?  </p>
    It is better to be silly than to be completely assinine. Your position on screen size seems to completely dismiss anything but your own experience as valid.

    <p>  </p><p>  </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>Fake_William_Shatner</strong> <a href="/t/149540/apple-predicted-to-discontinue-17-inch-macbook-pro/120#post_2100690"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p>  </p> <p>  </p> <p> Then you've got an "issue" with anyone who does 3D, Video, and high end graphics. I'm even sure spreadsheet users like larger screens. And then there are people who LIKE larger screens because they have large eyes I suppose.</p> <p>  </p> <p> I have to wonder at people who project only their own sense of what is important on the world without considering the "needs" of others. YES, we can all "get by" with a 15" -- but there are people on the fence and if they can't get a larger monitor, they might get a PC. Heck, I might be curious about creating a Hackintosh laptop if there is no 17".</p> </div></div><p>  </p><p>  </p><p> I'm not projecting any sense of what it is important.  I'm sure having a 17" is highly preferable to some people.  What I'm taking issue with is that some people are claiming they "can't work" on a 15" machine and they "need" a 17".
    I'm an owner of a 15" machine and I can see where that would be an issue. I get around that by use of a large screen connected to my MBP on the desktop. It can be a productivity negative at times working with a small screen, so yeah I can see people needing one.

    Remember these are people actually "working" with their laptops, that is putting bread and butter on the table.
      We heard the same comments when they redesigned the MBP in 2009.  <em>OMG! They took away ports!  How will I function!  Screw Apple!  </em></p>
    So? For some the lost of ports on the 15" MBP pushed them to the 17" MBP. At the time Thunderbolt didn't exist thus there was no way to connect up in a productive way. Your problem is that you only see life through rose colored glasses tuned to your needs. Step into somebody else's shoes for a bit and see how a 17" machine might actually be put to use.

    As to the 17" machines fate, well Apple can do anything. They might even say screw it and drop both the 15" and 17" machines and replace them with a 16" machine. Anything is possible but most are unlikely. Some people have expressed the thought that any limited roll out may be due to the lack of hardware, I suspect there is a real possibility here that that is an issue. All we really can do is wait and see.
  • Reply 166 of 199
    macroninmacronin Posts: 1,174member


    I want a 20" MacBook Pro…!!! ;^p

  • Reply 167 of 199
    crunchcrunch Posts: 180member


    The 17" is the ONLY MBP with enough resolution - never mind pixel density (Retina). WSXGA+ (1680x1050) is the highest you can get on the 15", but it necessitates that you buy the most expensive 15" and then upgrade to the high resolution display. In other words, you might as well get a 17" UXGA (1920x1200) for LESS than the SXGA+ because all 17" models come with the high resolution display out of the box and the weight difference is only 1lb.


     


    Apple has always been a slickster with its pricing on its products. The same is true for the iMac. You can't get the lower-priced 27" and upgrade the CPU to an i7. You have to buy the highest model, which is still only an i5 and then you need to cough up yet another couple of hundred bucks for a true unencumbered i7. Intel uses mostly the same strategy, just not as blatantly obvious.


     


    Having said that, I enjoy my 6-month "old" 17" MBP, but I will upgrade to the new 15" Pro or Air or whatever, if the following conditions are met: Any Air must be quad-core and any Pro that's not 17" must have Retina-like pixel density and IPS technology or the option to add one! If I am to upgrade to an Ivy Bridge MBP let's say, I'll be going from the most tricked-out, one step from the Extreme Edition to the ENTRY level and have basically the SAME specs, except Intel's HD 4000 graphics, PCIe 3.0 and maybe USB 3.0. Checl it out for yourself: My current "highest-end Sandy Bridge CPU": Core i7-2860QM 2.5GHz/3.6GHz max. Turbo; "Entry-level" Ivy Bridge Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz/3.6GHz max. Turbo (same Turbo and only 100MHz difference on base clock frequency). There will be a Core i7-3860QM w/ 2.9GHz and 3.9GHz max. Turbo this Q4 2012. It'll take a little while to prove it.

  • Reply 168 of 199
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    You need to be a little more open minded.

    So? For some the lost of ports on the 15" MBP pushed them to the 17" MBP. At the time Thunderbolt didn't exist thus there was no way to connect up in a productive way. Your problem is that you only see life through rose colored glasses tuned to your needs. Step into somebody else's shoes for a bit and see how a 17" machine might actually be put to use.

    As to the 17" machines fate, well Apple can do anything. They might even say screw it and drop both the 15" and 17" machines and replace them with a 16" machine. Anything is possible but most are unlikely. Some people have expressed the thought that any limited roll out may be due to the lack of hardware, I suspect there is a real possibility here that that is an issue. All we really can do is wait and see.


     


    Yep they left the express slot on it. Prior to thunderbolt it was the fastest port, and even now we're still seriously lacking on thunderbolt peripherals. It was also cheap. You could get a really good eSATA card for $100 or so with much better performance than firewire 800. People on here accept the blogger/rumor site narratives far too often, and there's some seriously weird behavior at times. People actually say they wish X product was cancelled because they feel it's holding back their stock value or something of that sort with the justification that it's starving resources needed for another product. Prior to this article, the typical speculation was that they'd remove the 13" macbook pro in favor of pushing the air. There was one that they'd switch to NVidia, then another that they were considering this but backed off. The mac pro cancellation rumors have been going on for a while. If you recall there was one with an unnamed source saying Apple was questioning its future. I don't doubt internal discussion. I just doubt that the rumors came from any kind of credible source. The other thing that amuses me is the idea that one thing or another is holding Apple back from greater success. It's weird when the discussion trends away from what people would like Apple to make toward what they wish would be dropped. If they're using the comparison of one thing dwarfing another, that pretty much applies to the entire Mac line relative to the iphone and ipad, and yet a company like Apple would prefer to sell more than one device per consumer whenever possible. Beside that it's more likely that production would be held up by component supplies rather than at Foxconn's level. 

  • Reply 169 of 199
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post

    …even now we're still seriously lacking on thunderbolt peripherals.




    And that just ticks me off like you wouldn't believe. TAKE A FRICKING HIT on the price of the devices you sell now and get the dang port adopted. It'll be around for another decade or TWO, so you have all the time in the world to make that money back.


     


    I realize it's not that simple. image


     


    And EVERY FREAKING TIME I go to edit my posts, I hit the Quote button. It's just subconsciously wired that the Edit button is supposed to be over there… 

  • Reply 170 of 199
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Do you make the same statement about the Mac Pro?



     


    Not a valid comparison.  The Mac Pro is available with much greater power and expandability than, say, the iMac.  


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post


    Dumbest thing I've ever read. I prefer 17" by far. End of story.



     


    Fine...you prefer.  Several people do, apparently.  


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    You need to be a little more open minded.

    So? For some the lost of ports on the 15" MBP pushed them to the 17" MBP. At the time Thunderbolt didn't exist thus there was no way to connect up in a productive way. Your problem is that you only see life through rose colored glasses tuned to your needs. Step into somebody else's shoes for a bit and see how a 17" machine might actually be put to use.

    As to the 17" machines fate, well Apple can do anything. They might even say screw it and drop both the 15" and 17" machines and replace them with a 16" machine. Anything is possible but most are unlikely. Some people have expressed the thought that any limited roll out may be due to the lack of hardware, I suspect there is a real possibility here that that is an issue. All we really can do is wait and see.


     


    and


    Quote:


    It is better to be silly than to be completely assinine. Your position on screen size seems to completely dismiss anything but your own experience as valid.


     




     


    You are projecting.  I am fully aware that others use their MBP differently.  But the outrage over ports and screen size is ridiculous.  The 15" works for the vast majority of buyers, which is why Apple went the way it did.  And I've still not read a convincing argument why someone NEEDS a 17" screen.  


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crunch View Post


    The 17" is the ONLY MBP with enough resolution - never mind pixel density (Retina). WSXGA+ (1680x1050) is the highest you can get on the 15", but it necessitates that you buy the most expensive 15" and then upgrade to the high resolution display. In other words, you might as well get a 17" UXGA (1920x1200) for LESS than the SXGA+ because all 17" models come with the high resolution display out of the box and the weight difference is only 1lb.


     


    Apple has always been a slickster with its pricing on its products. The same is true for the iMac. You can't get the lower-priced 27" and upgrade the CPU to an i7. You have to buy the highest model, which is still only an i5 and then you need to cough up yet another couple of hundred bucks for a true unencumbered i7. Intel uses mostly the same strategy, just not as blatantly obvious.


     


    Having said that, I enjoy my 6-month "old" 17" MBP, but I will upgrade to the new 15" Pro or Air or whatever, if the following conditions are met: Any Air must be quad-core and any Pro that's not 17" must have Retina-like pixel density and IPS technology or the option to add one! If I am to upgrade to an Ivy Bridge MBP let's say, I'll be going from the most tricked-out, one step from the Extreme Edition to the ENTRY level and have basically the SAME specs, except Intel's HD 4000 graphics, PCIe 3.0 and maybe USB 3.0. Checl it out for yourself: My current "highest-end Sandy Bridge CPU": Core i7-2860QM 2.5GHz/3.6GHz max. Turbo; "Entry-level" Ivy Bridge Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz/3.6GHz max. Turbo (same Turbo and only 100MHz difference on base clock frequency). There will be a Core i7-3860QM w/ 2.9GHz and 3.9GHz max. Turbo this Q4 2012. It'll take a little while to prove it.



     


    What do you mean by "enough?"  What do you use your machine for?  


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


     


     


    Yep they left the express slot on it. Prior to thunderbolt it was the fastest port, and even now we're still seriously lacking on thunderbolt peripherals. It was also cheap. You could get a really good eSATA card for $100 or so with much better performance than firewire 800. People on here accept the blogger/rumor site narratives far too often, and there's some seriously weird behavior at times. People actually say they wish X product was cancelled because they feel it's holding back their stock value or something of that sort with the justification that it's starving resources needed for another product. Prior to this article, the typical speculation was that they'd remove the 13" macbook pro in favor of pushing the air. There was one that they'd switch to NVidia, then another that they were considering this but backed off. The mac pro cancellation rumors have been going on for a while. If you recall there was one with an unnamed source saying Apple was questioning its future. I don't doubt internal discussion. I just doubt that the rumors came from any kind of credible source. The other thing that amuses me is the idea that one thing or another is holding Apple back from greater success. It's weird when the discussion trends away from what people would like Apple to make toward what they wish would be dropped. If they're using the comparison of one thing dwarfing another, that pretty much applies to the entire Mac line relative to the iphone and ipad, and yet a company like Apple would prefer to sell more than one device per consumer whenever possible. Beside that it's more likely that production would be held up by component supplies rather than at Foxconn's level. 



     


    Did you use eSATA?  I know some people when bonkers.  Then again, I never met a single person that ever use the slot.  Apparently my experience was similar to Apple's research.  


     


     

  • Reply 171 of 199
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

    Not a valid comparison.  The Mac Pro is available with much greater power and expandability than, say, the iMac.  




    But we're talking about the MacBook Pro… And I don't understand why it's not valid.

  • Reply 172 of 199
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


     


     


    Did you use eSATA?  I know some people when bonkers.  Then again, I never met a single person that ever use the slot.  Apparently my experience was similar to Apple's research.  


     


     



     


    Yes. It had a couple other potential uses as well. It is like I said, if you required anything beyond firewire, you migrated to a 17". I just didn't bother updating as I don't use a laptop that much.

  • Reply 173 of 199
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member


    EOLing the Lapzilla would be a stupid decision.  Some people need a "portable desktop" and the 17" Macbook fits the bill.  So what if Apple doesn't ship as many as other models?  By that reasoning, Apple would soon be down to selling a single model for each type of computer, and after that they would start axing the iMac and Mini because they don't shift as many units as the Macbook, then they would ax the macbook because it doesn't sell as well as the iPhone and iPad, then they would ax the iPod, then the iPad, and finally they would only make an iPhone and sales on that would dwindle since Apple slaughtered it's own user base.  


     


    If the 17" MacBook isn't selling as well, maybe that's a sign that the design needs some tweaking for more features or value.  Apple is a successful company, they should be judiciously expanding their options instead of neutering consumer choices.

  • Reply 174 of 199


    Perfectly said. A company will not remain great if they abandon their most loyal high end users.

  • Reply 175 of 199
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post


     So what if Apple doesn't ship as many as other models?  By that reasoning, Apple would soon be down to selling a single model for each type of computer, and after that they would start axing the iMac and Mini because they don't shift as many units as the Macbook, then they would ax the macbook because it doesn't sell as well as the iPhone and iPad, then they would ax the iPod, then the iPad, and finally they would only make an iPhone and sales on that would dwindle since Apple slaughtered it's own user base.  



     


    I do find it weird when the discussion shifts away from what they might make and people suggest what they think or hope will be cancelled while lacking any insider knowledge on the subject.

  • Reply 176 of 199


    for those saying they need a 17" Because they need to do 3D work.... STFU and don't buy a Portable... buy a mac then.. not a macbook... seriously... if you use a portable to do 3D work.. why not use an more Stable horse?..

    portables aint that good... buy a mac an place it on the floor where ever you want the (not portable computer/mac) they pull more.. !

  • Reply 177 of 199
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleFanBoy713 View Post

    for those saying they need a 17" Because they need to do 3D work.... STFU and don't buy a Portable...


     


    Why should laptops be any less capable of performing those tasks? Why should people be limited in their choices when it's quite evident such a limitation would be artificial?


     



     buy a mac then.. not a macbook... seriously...


     


    A MacBook is a Mac. Seriously.


     


    Quote:


     if you use a portable to do 3D work.. why not use an more Stable horse?..



     


    I'd love to hear your explanation of this. Do laptops crash more than desktops? Do applications not work on them? Is there anything inherently different about their presentation?


     


    Quote:



    portables aint that good... buy a mac an place it on the floor where ever you want the (not portable computer/mac) they pull more.





     


    I wish I knew what this was saying.

  • Reply 178 of 199
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    EOLing the Lapzilla would be a stupid decision.  Some people need a "portable desktop" and the 17" Macbook fits the bill.  So what if Apple doesn't ship as many as other models?  By that reasoning, Apple would soon be down to selling a single model for each type of computer, and after that they would start axing the iMac and Mini because they don't shift as many units as the Macbook, then they would ax the macbook because it doesn't sell as well as the iPhone and iPad, then they would ax the iPod, then the iPad, and finally they would only make an iPhone and sales on that would dwindle since Apple slaughtered it's own user base.  
    Isn't this pretty much what Apple is doing with the iPods, that is slaughtering the user base?

    One of the reasons I advocate for the XMac is to expand the user base. This requires a smart selection of models to avoid the product line bloat of the past, but done wisely allows for far more satisfied customers.

    So while I think dropping the 17" MBP or for that matter making the MBPs to AIR like is stupid I can see Apple doing just that. Eventually if customers start to fell to hemmed in they will look for solutions outside of Apple.

    If the 17" MacBook isn't selling as well, maybe that's a sign that the design needs some tweaking for more features or value.  Apple is a successful company, they should be judiciously expanding their options instead of neutering consumer choices.

    Personally I have no desire for a 17" laptop but I'm equally distressed about what might happen to the 15" MBP. Frankly if Apple can't manage a decent desktop I may be forced to go the MBP route again. The problem is if that machine is a major regression in capability why would I want such a MBP.

    In a nut shell I tend to agree that Apple needs to expand options available to consummers. They need to do that wisely of course but that isn't a big deal. Apple also needs to closely watch the value equation for its machines. There is little reason for the high prices seen on its laptoPs considering the often very modest enclosed hardware.

    In any event -yeah axing the 17" without a replacement would be stupid beyond belief. Even Ford realizes the value of the F350 over the mainstream F150.
  • Reply 179 of 199
    elderlocelderloc Posts: 146member
    Apple is not in the business of making trucks :-) I just hope they don't consider the 17 a truck.

    I was hoping the 17 would hang on a little longer as the last full feature portable. It's really nice for editing video especially when you need 1920.
  • Reply 180 of 199
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Why should laptops be any less capable of performing those tasks? Why should people be limited in their choices when it's quite evident such a limitation would be artificial?


     



     


     


    Some 3D work need quadros.  You aren't getting one of those in an iMac either but even when considering the gaming GPUs the iMac is sporting the Radeon HD 6970M with 2GB DDR5 while the 17" MBP is running a Radeon HD 6770M with 1GB DDR5.


     


    Laptops are less capable than desktops.  Just like a Mac Pro is less mobile.  The limitation isn't artificial so much as driven by design goals.


     


     


    Quote:


    I'd love to hear your explanation of this. Do laptops crash more than desktops? Do applications not work on them? Is there anything inherently different about their presentation?




     


     


    Yes actually.  At least compared to Mac Pros.  The quadros are designed for extended render times vs gaming times with better heat management which leads to longer life and fewer crashes.  I don't think there's much controversy in claiming a Mac Pro more stable than either the MBP or the iMac.  At least when you are getting kernel panics from crappy nVidia drivers.


     


    Also the MBP has only two slots for RAM while the iMac 4.  IMHO the real limitation for the 17" to be a real desktop replacement is RAM.  32GB on the iMac > 16GB on the MBP.


     


    A revamped 17" MBP should IMHO come with the option for the best mobile GPU and the same number of ram slots as the top iMac.  Battery life is secondary IMHO for the top end fully spec'd 17".  You don't need or want desktop parts but for the 17" MBP minimizing the gap as much as possible is probably the way to go even at the expense of price and internal battery run time (that's what external batteries are for).


     


    Quote:



    I wish I knew what this was saying.




     


    It means if I was doing a lot of Maya work I'd have a Mac Pro today vs a 15" MBP.  Since I'm doing nothing more taxing than JOGL I'm good with the MBP.

Sign In or Register to comment.