I believe this is true. 17" MacBook Pro is dead and will become merely a collectors item. But I don't care. The 17" is no longer required now we're getting these incredible retina displays in the 15" model. It has all the screen resolution we need.
Yet another person that does not understand relationship between resolution and screen size. Resolution is entirely independent of screen size. iPad 3 has screen 10'' screen with 2048x1536 pixels. But you don't see more on screen than you do on a typical 13'' laptop with 1280x800 pixels. That's because more pixels (almost 3 times as many) are used to render UI elements. If you just upped the pixels and continued to render stuff with as little pixels as on a smaller resolution, everything on screen would be incredibly tiny.
On a 72 DPI screen 10 point font might be rendered with only 20 pixels, but on 300 DPI screen the same 10 point font might be rendered with 100 pixels. This means you see less of stuff on screen, but the stuff you do see is rendered with many more pixels, which means finer detail is better and aliasing is gone.
In short, if you take a typical web page on iPad and 13'' Macbook Pro, text has same physical size, but the text on iPad is rendered with more pixels looking sharper. You don't see more of text on iPad 3, in fact you see less of it.
Apple should just discontinue all computers and sell iPhone and iPad appliances. This year marks the last dollar I will ever spend on Apple ecosystem. Enough is enough.
Bye, then. Not sure what you're getting at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokenuser
That extra clarity is because things can be drawn at a finer resolution. It also means that if things are drawn at the same resolution at they currently are, you can fit a helluva lot more on the same sized screen.
But that isn't happening. Which is good for him, because it's not what he wants.
Retire the 17" MacBook Pro? Damn. It's the only size laptop I am ever interested in, whether Windows or Apple. The 13" MacBook Pro has a junk 1280x800 resolution, the 15 inch also has a junk default 1440x900 resolution with a marginally better 1680x1050 option. The 17" has the nice, crisp 1920x1200 resolution that I consider my minimum preference. I love my optical drive and use it somewhat frequently and wouldn't be interested in an external drive to carry around the times I need it. I like having the extra USB port and express card option that the smaller ones don't offer. I like the heft of the laptop as well.
I know the 17" is a very very limited market with high up front costs. I wouldn't even consider a 15" retina display laptop. It's just too small overall without the extra ports that I want.
If you don't like this decision, you can try to appeal to Tim Cook at: [email protected] Although he doesn't read all his email messages from strangers, like Steve did.
Regarding the 17" model - Apple will prob just do what it ALWAYS does, not upgrade it but keep the current model in stock and avail for years.
That's not what it always does. The XServe was discontinued a few months after being EOL'd, while the iPod classic, by virtue of its continued existence for four years, has shown it hasn't been EOL'd at all.
[RIGHT][/RIGHT] Well I am waiting till next week to know for sure, if they do discontinue it, I will then have to weigh up getting a new 15" with all the new specs or see if a saving of £600 off a new 17" is enough to keep me wanting the 17".
£1589 for a new 17" that is with the current spec might not be a bad deal. If I was unaware of wwdc then I would probably have got one now.
If you don't like this decision, you can try to appeal to Tim Cook at: [email protected]
Although he doesn't read all his email messages from strangers, like Steve did.
Steve did NOT read all of his email from strangers, are you serious?
The 17" is less then 2% of sales man, nothing absurd about discontinuing it.
I agree, Why the hell would anyone want to lug around a 17" you would use an external monitor or projector at that point. I would rather see a 14" come in to play.
It seems like now that Apple is on top of the hill they care less and less about catering to us long time, loyal mac users that have been there with them for 15 years plus... you remember us, right? You know the ones that had to jump through hoops to send documents and emails to windows users. The ones that used to get laughed at all the time for using macs... the ones that kept the company alive, when it should have been dead.
So now we have to contend with service and treatment we just aren't used to as mac customers... with mac back in the day, it was all about service, and the customer. They always went the extra mile with the little things for the loyal customers, that's one of the reasons we loved them so much.
Believe me, with the amount of financial surplus they have acquired at this point, keeping a 17" pro model and the G5 tower is NO sweat off their backs financially. Don't even get me started on how they threw pro users under the bus with dumbing down their software either for the pro crowd.
If you didn't live through the years before the ipod hit with the company, it's very hard to explain, but let me put it like this... They always did right by the customer, and went out of their way to service the pro user and new comer alike, and made sure both sides had what they needed to do the things they needed to do. Customer service was second to none. If they could do all that back then with the small amount of money they were pulling in, I'm sure they could figure out how to get it done with the billions they are pulling in each year now.
Yet another person that does not understand relationship between resolution and screen size. Resolution is entirely independent of screen size. iPad 3 has screen 10'' screen with 2048x1536 pixels. But you don't see more on screen than you do on a typical 13'' laptop with 1280x800 pixels. That's because more pixels (almost 3 times as many) are used to render UI elements. If you just upped the pixels and continued to render stuff with as little pixels as on a smaller resolution, everything on screen would be incredibly tiny.
The description you gave is only true if the application is resolution independent. If you take an excel spreadsheet, for example that was developed on a system with 13" 1024x768 screen and display it on a 13" 2048x1536 screen, everything will be 1/4 the size. Since we're talking about laptops, the icons are not automatically quadrupled in size. If you have your desktop set up on a Mac with current screen resolutions and then migrate everything to a display of the same size with twice the linear (4 times the area) resolution, everything will be 1/4 the size.
Go fall off a cliff please. WE PROFESSIONALS like what we use, pay for and need. It's our world don't fick with it … please.
You do what you want, and let the other do what they want. Don't like big, don't buy it, but please don't tell us (The Professionals) go somewhere else,
we like you are entitled to have what we want, to want what we want, and to hope to get what we want.
For me, here's hoping they don't drop the 17" PRO (I have 4), and I (and MANY others) hope they do in fact update the Pro line of desktops. Because as PROS, we need them (or at least think we do).
Believe me, with the amount of financial surplus they have acquired at this point, keeping a 17" pro model and the G5 tower is NO sweat off their backs financially.
Particularly since they make money on every model they sell; indeed.
Quote:
Don't even get me started on how they threw pro users under the bus with dumbing down their software either for the pro crowd.
Oh, you mean that thing that didn't happen at all? Sure, sure…
Here is my take. The 17 inch model is typically sold to professionals, or to those with money that want the biggest screen they can get. Now, these people are generally considered to be savvy consumers when it comes to products, and it wouldn't surprise me if this market generally buys their products within the first 6 months of their release date since money is not an object and they typically want the product in the beginning of their lifecycle, rather than towards the end. If this is true, then there might be a pent up demand, just like most people are patiently waiting for a product refresh since waiting 6 months or so isn't that big of a problem. Everyone that keeps up to date on the latest technology knows that Apple is going to refresh their products this year and with all of the media attention, it wouldn't surprise me that the last quarter and current quarter sales of their computer products is much lower than normal.
I think that Apple should keep this product on the price list and continually refresh the product when there is a compelling reason. Professionals that use these products are typically an important enough market since they assist in driving software and hardware mfg to provide products for high end applications.
What I have noticed in the past is that the 17 inch models were refreshed AFTER the 15 inch models. This has happened before and maybe due to constrain on the panel or other components.
The 17" is less then 2% of sales man, nothing absurd about discontinuing it.
I think it depends on who's buying the 17". If it's disproportionately used by iOS and Mac developers and graphic artists, etc., which I suspect is the case, then it might be worth it to Apple to keep making it.
Also, there appears to be an update coming for the Mac Pro, yet it too must account for only a small percentage of overall Mac sales. Again, one reason might be because the Mac Pro is also disproportionately used by content creators and developers who indirectly support the Apple software ecosystem. So the sales numbers aren't the only thing Apple considers.
I simply don't see Apple abandoning the Pro. What analysts fail to ever get right about Apple is the fact that Apple simply doesn't have a commodity mentality. If they discontinue something it's going to be because there is a compelling choice available and it's NOT go to Windows. The Pro is used by the recording industry, film, photography, and more. These people have stood by Apple and Apple has always stood by them. I would bet that a lot of the heavy lifting of code at Apple is done on a Pro.
What you high resolution lovers don't get is that some of us need big screens, not smaller screens with better definitions. In my case glaucoma (unfixable) and cataracts (fixable but not yet ripe) and good old fashion older eyes mandate a font of 18 or so as default. Making the screen smaller only means that less of a given page is visible at smaller screen sizes.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksodos
I believe this is true. 17" MacBook Pro is dead and will become merely a collectors item. But I don't care. The 17" is no longer required now we're getting these incredible retina displays in the 15" model. It has all the screen resolution we need.
Yet another person that does not understand relationship between resolution and screen size. Resolution is entirely independent of screen size. iPad 3 has screen 10'' screen with 2048x1536 pixels. But you don't see more on screen than you do on a typical 13'' laptop with 1280x800 pixels. That's because more pixels (almost 3 times as many) are used to render UI elements. If you just upped the pixels and continued to render stuff with as little pixels as on a smaller resolution, everything on screen would be incredibly tiny.
On a 72 DPI screen 10 point font might be rendered with only 20 pixels, but on 300 DPI screen the same 10 point font might be rendered with 100 pixels. This means you see less of stuff on screen, but the stuff you do see is rendered with many more pixels, which means finer detail is better and aliasing is gone.
In short, if you take a typical web page on iPad and 13'' Macbook Pro, text has same physical size, but the text on iPad is rendered with more pixels looking sharper. You don't see more of text on iPad 3, in fact you see less of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario
Apple should just discontinue all computers and sell iPhone and iPad appliances. This year marks the last dollar I will ever spend on Apple ecosystem. Enough is enough.
Bye, then. Not sure what you're getting at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokenuser
That extra clarity is because things can be drawn at a finer resolution. It also means that if things are drawn at the same resolution at they currently are, you can fit a helluva lot more on the same sized screen.
But that isn't happening. Which is good for him, because it's not what he wants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filmantopia
At least until Apple gets into the diaper business. Then you may want to consider wearing them.
Apple users are so decidedly stupid that you guys can't insult me any more.
Retire the 17" MacBook Pro? Damn. It's the only size laptop I am ever interested in, whether Windows or Apple. The 13" MacBook Pro has a junk 1280x800 resolution, the 15 inch also has a junk default 1440x900 resolution with a marginally better 1680x1050 option. The 17" has the nice, crisp 1920x1200 resolution that I consider my minimum preference. I love my optical drive and use it somewhat frequently and wouldn't be interested in an external drive to carry around the times I need it. I like having the extra USB port and express card option that the smaller ones don't offer. I like the heft of the laptop as well.
I know the 17" is a very very limited market with high up front costs. I wouldn't even consider a 15" retina display laptop. It's just too small overall without the extra ports that I want.
Although he doesn't read all his email messages from strangers, like Steve did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevemost
Regarding the 17" model - Apple will prob just do what it ALWAYS does, not upgrade it but keep the current model in stock and avail for years.
That's not what it always does. The XServe was discontinued a few months after being EOL'd, while the iPod classic, by virtue of its continued existence for four years, has shown it hasn't been EOL'd at all.
Christian Bale? Is that you?
Well I am waiting till next week to know for sure, if they do discontinue it, I will then have to weigh up getting a new 15" with all the new specs or see if a saving of £600 off a new 17" is enough to keep me wanting the 17".
£1589 for a new 17" that is with the current spec might not be a bad deal. If I was unaware of wwdc then I would probably have got one now.
Steve did NOT read all of his email from strangers, are you serious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounou
The 17" is less then 2% of sales man, nothing absurd about discontinuing it.
I agree, Why the hell would anyone want to lug around a 17" you would use an external monitor or projector at that point. I would rather see a 14" come in to play.
It seems like now that Apple is on top of the hill they care less and less about catering to us long time, loyal mac users that have been there with them for 15 years plus... you remember us, right? You know the ones that had to jump through hoops to send documents and emails to windows users. The ones that used to get laughed at all the time for using macs... the ones that kept the company alive, when it should have been dead.
So now we have to contend with service and treatment we just aren't used to as mac customers... with mac back in the day, it was all about service, and the customer. They always went the extra mile with the little things for the loyal customers, that's one of the reasons we loved them so much.
Believe me, with the amount of financial surplus they have acquired at this point, keeping a 17" pro model and the G5 tower is NO sweat off their backs financially. Don't even get me started on how they threw pro users under the bus with dumbing down their software either for the pro crowd.
If you didn't live through the years before the ipod hit with the company, it's very hard to explain, but let me put it like this... They always did right by the customer, and went out of their way to service the pro user and new comer alike, and made sure both sides had what they needed to do the things they needed to do. Customer service was second to none. If they could do all that back then with the small amount of money they were pulling in, I'm sure they could figure out how to get it done with the billions they are pulling in each year now.
The description you gave is only true if the application is resolution independent. If you take an excel spreadsheet, for example that was developed on a system with 13" 1024x768 screen and display it on a 13" 2048x1536 screen, everything will be 1/4 the size. Since we're talking about laptops, the icons are not automatically quadrupled in size. If you have your desktop set up on a Mac with current screen resolutions and then migrate everything to a display of the same size with twice the linear (4 times the area) resolution, everything will be 1/4 the size.
Go fall off a cliff please. WE PROFESSIONALS like what we use, pay for and need. It's our world don't fick with it … please.
You do what you want, and let the other do what they want. Don't like big, don't buy it, but please don't tell us (The Professionals) go somewhere else,
we like you are entitled to have what we want, to want what we want, and to hope to get what we want.
For me, here's hoping they don't drop the 17" PRO (I have 4), and I (and MANY others) hope they do in fact update the Pro line of desktops. Because as PROS, we need them (or at least think we do).
Skip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noze Pickins
Believe me, with the amount of financial surplus they have acquired at this point, keeping a 17" pro model and the G5 tower is NO sweat off their backs financially.
Particularly since they make money on every model they sell; indeed.
Quote:
Don't even get me started on how they threw pro users under the bus with dumbing down their software either for the pro crowd.
Oh, you mean that thing that didn't happen at all? Sure, sure…
Here is my take. The 17 inch model is typically sold to professionals, or to those with money that want the biggest screen they can get. Now, these people are generally considered to be savvy consumers when it comes to products, and it wouldn't surprise me if this market generally buys their products within the first 6 months of their release date since money is not an object and they typically want the product in the beginning of their lifecycle, rather than towards the end. If this is true, then there might be a pent up demand, just like most people are patiently waiting for a product refresh since waiting 6 months or so isn't that big of a problem. Everyone that keeps up to date on the latest technology knows that Apple is going to refresh their products this year and with all of the media attention, it wouldn't surprise me that the last quarter and current quarter sales of their computer products is much lower than normal.
I think that Apple should keep this product on the price list and continually refresh the product when there is a compelling reason. Professionals that use these products are typically an important enough market since they assist in driving software and hardware mfg to provide products for high end applications.
What I have noticed in the past is that the 17 inch models were refreshed AFTER the 15 inch models. This has happened before and maybe due to constrain on the panel or other components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounou
The 17" is less then 2% of sales man, nothing absurd about discontinuing it.
I think it depends on who's buying the 17". If it's disproportionately used by iOS and Mac developers and graphic artists, etc., which I suspect is the case, then it might be worth it to Apple to keep making it.
Also, there appears to be an update coming for the Mac Pro, yet it too must account for only a small percentage of overall Mac sales. Again, one reason might be because the Mac Pro is also disproportionately used by content creators and developers who indirectly support the Apple software ecosystem. So the sales numbers aren't the only thing Apple considers.
I simply don't see Apple abandoning the Pro. What analysts fail to ever get right about Apple is the fact that Apple simply doesn't have a commodity mentality. If they discontinue something it's going to be because there is a compelling choice available and it's NOT go to Windows. The Pro is used by the recording industry, film, photography, and more. These people have stood by Apple and Apple has always stood by them. I would bet that a lot of the heavy lifting of code at Apple is done on a Pro.
What you high resolution lovers don't get is that some of us need big screens, not smaller screens with better definitions. In my case glaucoma (unfixable) and cataracts (fixable but not yet ripe) and good old fashion older eyes mandate a font of 18 or so as default. Making the screen smaller only means that less of a given page is visible at smaller screen sizes.