'When you think about it this way, the four Thunderbolt 3 USB-C ports on the MacBook Pro are actually better equipped and more versatile than the previous design. My last system was a 2015 MacBook Pro, which only had two USB Type-A ports — and when I was on the road and trying to charge and sync gadgets, I felt the pain.'
Actually you effectively only have 3 TB3/USB-C ports. A fourth port is required for the USB C power adapter. So you are one port behind the 2 TB2 and 2 USB3 2015 MBP.
And you don't have an HDMI out, or SD card reader. So you would have to surrender a port for that.
Again the touchbar Mac leaves us wanting.
'When you think about it this way, the four Thunderbolt 3 USB-C ports on the MacBook Pro are actually better equipped and more versatile than the previous design. My last system was a 2015 MacBook Pro, which only had two USB Type-A ports — and when I was on the road and trying to charge and sync gadgets, I felt the pain.'
Actually you effectively only have 3 TB3/USB-C ports. A fourth port is required for the USB C power adapter. So you are one port behind the 2 TB2 and 2 USB3 2015 MBP.
And you don't have an HDMI out, or SD card reader. So you would have to surrender a port for that.
Again the touchbar Mac leaves us wanting.
Why do you have to surrender that port? Get something that provides power and connectivity.
'When you think about it this way, the four Thunderbolt 3 USB-C ports on the MacBook Pro are actually better equipped and more versatile than the previous design. My last system was a 2015 MacBook Pro, which only had two USB Type-A ports — and when I was on the road and trying to charge and sync gadgets, I felt the pain.'
Actually you effectively only have 3 TB3/USB-C ports. A fourth port is required for the USB C power adapter. So you are one port behind the 2 TB2 and 2 USB3 2015 MBP.
And you don't have an HDMI out, or SD card reader. So you would have to surrender a port for that.
Again the touchbar Mac leaves us wanting.
How many people really used two Thunderbolt 2 ports while on the road? I assume most Thunderbolt 2 (and 3) accessories are on you desk, not on the road. If you're at home, connect and charge through a TB3 (or USB-C) dock, and you'll end up with more ports — and faster ones — than you did on a Thunderbolt 2 MacBook. Weak argument.
13” Macbook Pro is for those who cannot afford the 15” models, which is okay! But for another $800 more you can get the 15” model which has more features and is a lot more powerful too!
I think the choice between the 13" and the 15" has more to do with preference on bulk and weight and less to do with overall cost -- in that once you homogenize the choices between the top end of the 13" and 15" - the gap is not that wide and easily justifiable based on options included and options that open up. Basically common config example would be 16GB memory, 512GB SSD. The respective pricing for the 13" 2.7Ghz is 2,499, the 2.2Ghz 15" is 2,699 and the 2.6GHz 15" is 2,799. With that $300 gap from the 13" to the 15" you gain the GPU 560X and the option to go to 32GB on order. The gap looks wider just because the config starts with lower level options at base config.
In other words, the base 13" price is to get you into the store and then you will likely "need" to upgrade the memory and SSD to be less confining than getting a MacBook Pro and strangling it because you really could not afford it in the first place.
I concur about size and weight, especially if you travel with it. The one less pound of the 13" model means I can also bring my personal iPad Pro fully loaded with my fun & games & music & browser tuned to AppleInsider with me on business trips and still be under 5 lbs including power adapters. Not to mention that a larger computer requires a larger travel bag/backpack and takes up more space when you're crammed into livestock-class airline seating accommodations. Today's "lightweight" notebooks like the MBP13 that are fully adept at traveling do not make you sacrifice much at all over their larger siblings. In the past choosing the travel sized configuration usually resulted in a much less powerful machine with a sub-par display. You had to make a difficult and painful choice between saving your back or being less productive. Once you return from your travels you could always plug into a giant desktop monitor, and now, with a eGPU you can be fully cooking with gas when docked. It's never been easier than it is today to arrive at a low to no compromise solution for almost all of your needs.
13” Macbook Pro is for those who cannot afford the 15” models, which is okay! But for another $800 more you can get the 15” model which has more features and is a lot more powerful too!
I think the choice between the 13" and the 15" has more to do with preference on bulk and weight and less to do with overall cost -- in that once you homogenize the choices between the top end of the 13" and 15" - the gap is not that wide and easily justifiable based on options included and options that open up. Basically common config example would be 16GB memory, 512GB SSD. The respective pricing for the 13" 2.7Ghz is 2,499, the 2.2Ghz 15" is 2,699 and the 2.6GHz 15" is 2,799. With that $300 gap from the 13" to the 15" you gain the GPU 560X and the option to go to 32GB on order. The gap looks wider just because the config starts with lower level options at base config.
In other words, the base 13" price is to get you into the store and then you will likely "need" to upgrade the memory and SSD to be less confining than getting a MacBook Pro and strangling it because you really could not afford it in the first place.
I think that this was absolutely true of the 2017 13-inch, and very much the MacBook Air still.
It is a bit less true of the 13-inch now. That quad-core is a big deal.
I am not saying that the 13" is just to get you in the door and I think you missed what I was trying to say. The price difference between the 13" and 15" is narrower than it looks if you just go by the base configuration of each of the models. The base 13" is 8GB of memory, and 256GB of SSD and I would argue you can get away with that on the Macbook 12" (which I have)... since it is not going to be a laptop you push... but that same config option is more of a lead in... I doubt you want to buy a 13" and leave it at 8GB and 256GB only. With that choosing the 13" over the 15" I would think -- be more about form factor. (as a person with 5 damaged C-vertebrae form factor is important to some )
I understand your point of view and i do believe Apple castrates the base models to force upgrades. However the 8/256 config still allows many users to solve their needs. I actually ran on 256 GB for awhile. It was tight for my needs but totally usable.
Now would i buy such a machine today - nope! Sadly ive given up on Apple and their quest to become a trillion dollar company. At least for my laptop needs. It is hard to justify the extremely high prices when you run cross platform apps.
The new 13" MBP is at the same level as my 2017 MBP. I bought the 15" version because of the extra horsepower. In all practicality, I'd rather go back to the 13" as I use it truly as a portable machine, and plug it into an external monitor and keyboard at the office anyways.
It was tempting, but I'm going to stay with my MBP for at least the next refresh cycle. I want LPDDR4 (at the minimum) and am in no rush.
I'm pretty excited to see what Apple does with the next iMacs. These new processors are sweet. It's time that Apple includes 6,8 or more cores on their iMacs.
13” Macbook Pro is for those who cannot afford the 15” models, which is okay! But for another $800 more you can get the 15” model which has more features and is a lot more powerful too!
I think the choice between the 13" and the 15" has more to do with preference on bulk and weight and less to do with overall cost -- in that once you homogenize the choices between the top end of the 13" and 15" - the gap is not that wide and easily justifiable based on options included and options that open up. Basically common config example would be 16GB memory, 512GB SSD. The respective pricing for the 13" 2.7Ghz is 2,499, the 2.2Ghz 15" is 2,699 and the 2.6GHz 15" is 2,799. With that $300 gap from the 13" to the 15" you gain the GPU 560X and the option to go to 32GB on order. The gap looks wider just because the config starts with lower level options at base config.
In other words, the base 13" price is to get you into the store and then you will likely "need" to upgrade the memory and SSD to be less confining than getting a MacBook Pro and strangling it because you really could not afford it in the first place.
I think that this was absolutely true of the 2017 13-inch, and very much the MacBook Air still.
It is a bit less true of the 13-inch now. That quad-core is a big deal.
I am not saying that the 13" is just to get you in the door and I think you missed what I was trying to say. The price difference between the 13" and 15" is narrower than it looks if you just go by the base configuration of each of the models. The base 13" is 8GB of memory, and 256GB of SSD and I would argue you can get away with that on the Macbook 12" (which I have)... since it is not going to be a laptop you push... but that same config option is more of a lead in... I doubt you want to buy a 13" and leave it at 8GB and 256GB only. With that choosing the 13" over the 15" I would think -- be more about form factor. (as a person with 5 damaged C-vertebrae form factor is important to some )
I understand your point of view and i do believe Apple castrates the base models to force upgrades. However the 8/256 config still allows many users to solve their needs. I actually ran on 256 GB for awhile. It was tight for my needs but totally usable.
Now would i buy such a machine today - nope! Sadly ive given up on Apple and their quest to become a trillion dollar company. At least for my laptop needs. It is hard to justify the extremely high prices when you run cross platform apps.
Pretty well all of my billable work is cross-platform and does not "require" me to have a Mac, but then I actually am "a professional" (not a creative professional) so I make money with the computer... so even with the cost of the computer is a bit more - it works out to about 2% of my billables goes to buying my computer equipment (which is the bulk of my "tools" cost). It is something I don't lose sleep over. I am pretty frugal everywhere else, but not with my "tools". It is not worth my sanity to use something like Windows again...
I understand your point of view and i do believe Apple castrates the base models to force upgrades. However the 8/256 config still allows many users to solve their needs. I actually ran on 256 GB for awhile. It was tight for my needs but totally usable.
Now would i buy such a machine today - nope! Sadly ive given up on Apple and their quest to become a trillion dollar company. At least for my laptop needs. It is hard to justify the extremely high prices when you run cross platform apps.
Pretty well all of my billable work is cross-platform and does not "require" me to have a Mac, but then I actually am "a professional" (not a creative professional) so I make money with the computer... so even with the cost of the computer is a bit more - it works out to about 2% of my billables goes to buying my computer equipment (which is the bulk of my "tools" cost). It is something I don't lose sleep over. I am pretty frugal everywhere else, but not with my "tools". It is not worth my sanity to use something like Windows again...
My MBP is my revenue-generating tool while on the road, and my iMac is my revenue-generating too at home.
I could have went with cheaper Windows alternatives, and I did for years, then the reliability issues with those "cheaper" machines started to impact my billable time so I went with Macs. Best decision ever. They are rock-solid reliable, built well, and also happens to run (via virtual machine) any platform I need.
It may not serve needs of some, but it serves needs for most. People complaining about the price of a MBP aren't in any "pro" position.
The author of this article wrote that he eventually got used to the shallow keyboard on the new 13 inch MacBook Pro by typing more softly.
That’s like buying a new Steinway piano and being told to not play so forcefully because the key travel has been reduced. Sure, you will get used to it, but you would be better off buying a Casio electronic piano with chiclet keys.
The author of this article wrote that he eventually got used to the shallow keyboard on the new 13 inch MacBook Pro by typing more softly.
That’s like buying a new Steinway piano and being told to not play so forcefully because the key travel has been reduced. Sure, you will get used to it, but you would be better off buying a Casio electronic piano with chiclet keys.
Based on this logic, no one should have ever typed on a laptop keyboard, because flat keys aren’t as good as mechanical ones. So let’s all stick with desktops. Forever.
Here’s the beauty of it: Want your Steinway keys? Buy them and plug them into your Casio’s brain. It works.
A modern laptop (especially a MacBook Pro with Thunderbolt 3) is a versatile tool that can be a standalone computer if need be, but also expanded to whatever you need, including a formidable desktop replacement.
Is it technically possible for Apple to add a software feature so that two TB3 connections would "bond" or sync to give 80Gb/s to a double wide eGPU or 8K / 10K monitor?
It would have to be specific to Apple. It is explicitly disallowed in the TB3 spec. And, even if that's done, Apple is very clear about one 5K display per side of machine at present -- meaning per controller. An 8K display has more than twice the pixels that a pair of 5K displays do.
That said, TB3 at this point is several years old. It was introduced in 2015. I wouldn't be surprised to hear about an improvement in the next year or so.
Im actually surprised at the interest in 8k considering that 4K is on a slow take up in the consumer world. More so why woukd somebody considering a 13" laptop even be interested in 8K? Part if being a professional involves picking the right tool and in that regard the tech in 13" laptops isnt there for 8K.
As for TB3 i havent heard much at all about a TB4 standard coming out. At some point i would expect that they will have to drop copper wire so that might be a big transitional issue. Then again copper has come a long way. One option is offering more channels per port but to do that impacts everything in the data chain on the motherboard. I wouldnt be surprised to find another specialized port required for video at 8K. The concept of one port for all your I/O needs sounds nice but it can also box you in. DP-8K anybody?
As a replacement for an existing 1080P television, 4k is often chosen simply because it isn't much more costly than HD, with the availability of HDR as a common option.
I'm not interested in 8K per se, but there's a range of relatively inexpensive 8k and 10K cameras and support within FCP for these. Some PC graphics cards are available supporting single and multiple 8K monitors, so it would be expected that a Mac Pro might support such. Still, it would be a useful enhancement to be able to support an 8K monitor attached to an MBP in the future.
Looks like I fount my own detailed answer, literally right here at AI;
Two minor nitpicks, though. One, the comment about $20 for a lifetime licence of the BetterTouch tool being a downside. Really?
Two, this comment:
"Some of the improvements that occurred over three generations of Touch Bar MacBook Pros have nothing to do with Apple itself. In some cases, it's just the maturation of the market for USB-C and Thunderbolt 3 accessories, and the availability of excellent accessories and cables at reasonable prices, finally realizing the advantages of a reversible plug with ultra-fast data and power transfers".
Yet, the USB-C/Thunderbolt accessories market might have never matured but for Apple boldly embracing it ahead of the rest of the industry, despite all the criticism. This is similar to how the original USB specification and its widespread adoption itself owes it to Apple.
Surely, the maturation of the USB-C/Thunderbolt accessories market didn't happen just like that? Apple deserves way more credit for pushing the frontiers of technology here.
Is it technically possible for Apple to add a software feature so that two TB3 connections would "bond" or sync to give 80Gb/s to a double wide eGPU or 8K / 10K monitor?
It would have to be specific to Apple. It is explicitly disallowed in the TB3 spec. And, even if that's done, Apple is very clear about one 5K display per side of machine at present -- meaning per controller. An 8K display has more than twice the pixels that a pair of 5K displays do.
That said, TB3 at this point is several years old. It was introduced in 2015. I wouldn't be surprised to hear about an improvement in the next year or so.
Im actually surprised at the interest in 8k considering that 4K is on a slow take up in the consumer world. More so why woukd somebody considering a 13" laptop even be interested in 8K? Part if being a professional involves picking the right tool and in that regard the tech in 13" laptops isnt there for 8K.
As for TB3 i havent heard much at all about a TB4 standard coming out. At some point i would expect that they will have to drop copper wire so that might be a big transitional issue. Then again copper has come a long way. One option is offering more channels per port but to do that impacts everything in the data chain on the motherboard. I wouldnt be surprised to find another specialized port required for video at 8K. The concept of one port for all your I/O needs sounds nice but it can also box you in. DP-8K anybody?
As a replacement for an existing 1080P television, 4k is often chosen simply because it isn't much more costly than HD, with the availability of HDR as a common option.
I'm not interested in 8K per se, but there's a range of relatively inexpensive 8k and 10K cameras and support within FCP for these. Some PC graphics cards are available supporting single and multiple 8K monitors, so it would be expected that a Mac Pro might support such. Still, it would be a useful enhancement to be able to support an 8K monitor attached to an MBP in the future.
Looks like I fount my own detailed answer, literally right here at AI;
Titan Ridge is a small part of the equation. It being on the MBP is a red herring, and has more to do with it being the currently available chipset than anything else.
the 13-inch only supports DisplayPort 1.2, regardless of Titan Ridge supporting 1.4.
Comments
Now would i buy such a machine today - nope! Sadly ive given up on Apple and their quest to become a trillion dollar company. At least for my laptop needs. It is hard to justify the extremely high prices when you run cross platform apps.
It is the tone of the article that is the problem!
That it does not agree with your assessment?
Pretty well all of my billable work is cross-platform and does not "require" me to have a Mac, but then I actually am "a professional" (not a creative professional) so I make money with the computer... so even with the cost of the computer is a bit more - it works out to about 2% of my billables goes to buying my computer equipment (which is the bulk of my "tools" cost). It is something I don't lose sleep over. I am pretty frugal everywhere else, but not with my "tools". It is not worth my sanity to use something like Windows again...
What irrational nonsense.
That’s like buying a new Steinway piano and being told to not play so forcefully because the key travel has been reduced. Sure, you will get used to it, but you would be better off buying a Casio electronic piano with chiclet keys.
Here’s the beauty of it: Want your Steinway keys? Buy them and plug them into your Casio’s brain. It works.
A modern laptop (especially a MacBook Pro with Thunderbolt 3) is a versatile tool that can be a standalone computer if need be, but also expanded to whatever you need, including a formidable desktop replacement.
I'm not interested in 8K per se, but there's a range of relatively inexpensive 8k and 10K cameras and support within FCP for these. Some PC graphics cards are available supporting single and multiple 8K monitors, so it would be expected that a Mac Pro might support such. Still, it would be a useful enhancement to be able to support an 8K monitor attached to an MBP in the future.
Looks like I fount my own detailed answer, literally right here at AI;
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/01/08/intel-titan-ridge-thunderbolt-3-chipset-allows-for-8k-displays-better-usb-c-peripheral-connectivity
Thanks for the detailed review.
Two minor nitpicks, though. One, the comment about $20 for a lifetime licence of the BetterTouch tool being a downside. Really?
Two, this comment: "Some of the improvements that occurred over three generations of Touch Bar MacBook Pros have nothing to do with Apple itself. In some cases, it's just the maturation of the market for USB-C and Thunderbolt 3 accessories, and the availability of excellent accessories and cables at reasonable prices, finally realizing the advantages of a reversible plug with ultra-fast data and power transfers".
Yet, the USB-C/Thunderbolt accessories market might have never matured but for Apple boldly embracing it ahead of the rest of the industry, despite all the criticism. This is similar to how the original USB specification and its widespread adoption itself owes it to Apple.
Surely, the maturation of the USB-C/Thunderbolt accessories market didn't happen just like that? Apple deserves way more credit for pushing the frontiers of technology here.
the 13-inch only supports DisplayPort 1.2, regardless of Titan Ridge supporting 1.4.