New 16-inch MacBook Pro rumored to fit screen in current 15-inch case

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    jdiamondjdiamond Posts: 121member
    I'm really curious if this will be the start of a new "generation" of Macbook Pros, or if this is an unusually large "incremental update" to the 2016 generation?  While the Retina Macbook Pros lasted 4 years, many of the past generations were only 3 years, so it's possible this is the start of a new generation.  OTOH, if Apple is really going to ARM in 2021, then it wouldn't make sense to start over right now...
  • Reply 22 of 34
    jdiamondjdiamond Posts: 121member
    ApplePoor said:
    Hey guys and gals, the $3,000 price point has been the top Apple laptop price for many years before the over $5k 15".  The 17" was around that price in 2011, so bring that price point forward and the 16" starting price is not that unreasonable. It will  probably be closer to $6k or $7k when fleshed out with max memory and SSD.  I upgraded the 17" to more memory than Apple offered at the time and it now has two SSDs inside that are 1TB or larger. Still a viable machine for work but not so much fun to carry in a shoulder bag.

    Up until around 2017, $3,000 could always buy the top of the line maxed out Macbook Pro (ENDING PRICE), and that's what I always did, every single generation.  Now, in the era where a maxed out Macbook Pro costs $7,000 (which happened in a single year, up from $4,000 the year before, and $3,000 the year before that), for the first time ever, instead of just saying "give me the best one you can make", I have to go over every option and say "what's the lowest level I could live with?" - all trying to keep my end price under $4,000.  Even if you only need a 2TB hard drive, it's still hard to get it under $5K these days. :(  Since this price jump happened WAAAYYYY faster than inflation, I think it's fair game to gripe about it.  Remember how Tim Cook is no longer revealing unit sales, just revenue?  I'm afraid he's doing the economist thing, like "we get the most profit when we sell 1/4 the units at 5x the price".  The pitfall here is that the Mac platform is more valuable the more people use it.  Look at Adobe - it took 5 years, but they are finally starting to feel some serious business impacts from the "maximize revenue" route.

    viclauyyc
  • Reply 23 of 34
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,112member
    jdiamond said:
    ApplePoor said:
    Hey guys and gals, the $3,000 price point has been the top Apple laptop price for many years before the over $5k 15".  The 17" was around that price in 2011, so bring that price point forward and the 16" starting price is not that unreasonable. It will  probably be closer to $6k or $7k when fleshed out with max memory and SSD.  I upgraded the 17" to more memory than Apple offered at the time and it now has two SSDs inside that are 1TB or larger. Still a viable machine for work but not so much fun to carry in a shoulder bag.

    Up until around 2017, $3,000 could always buy the top of the line maxed out Macbook Pro (ENDING PRICE), and that's what I always did, every single generation.  Now, in the era where a maxed out Macbook Pro costs $7,000 (which happened in a single year, up from $4,000 the year before, and $3,000 the year before that), for the first time ever, instead of just saying "give me the best one you can make", I have to go over every option and say "what's the lowest level I could live with?" - all trying to keep my end price under $4,000.  Even if you only need a 2TB hard drive, it's still hard to get it under $5K these days. :(  Since this price jump happened WAAAYYYY faster than inflation, I think it's fair game to gripe about it.  Remember how Tim Cook is no longer revealing unit sales, just revenue?  I'm afraid he's doing the economist thing, like "we get the most profit when we sell 1/4 the units at 5x the price".  The pitfall here is that the Mac platform is more valuable the more people use it.  Look at Adobe - it took 5 years, but they are finally starting to feel some serious business impacts from the "maximize revenue" route.

    Your $3000 to $7000 comparison would make sense if and only if updates since 2017 were nothing but incremental ones. 32 RAM, T2, 8 core, 9th gen i9, 4 GB Vega 20 and 4 TB SSD are not incremental things. The top 2019 MBP costs more than the top 2017 MBP simply because the 2019 one offers more integration. Integration is the keyword here. As signaled by the new Mac Pro, as long as the iPads become more powerful, Macs will be more and more integrated. Computers, at least Macs will no longer be consumer goods than can be purchased at leisure. Those that are produced for leisure will be crushed by the iPad and smartphones. An individual who doesn’t have an absolute need for a Macbook Pro may no longer buy it, Apple doesn’t mind, they sell to corporations by ten thousands. Macs will grow towards the high end, more integrated models, not towards low-end mass market models and because of this there will not be a mass market “ARM Mac”. iPad is for mass market, Mac no longer.
    edited July 2019 StrangeDaysviclauyycwatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 34
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,821member
    elijahg said:
    Why is it that an iPhone XS is $999 and an iPhone XS Max is $1099, yet a 13” MacBook Pro is $1300 and a 16” MacBook Pro is $3200.

    I have never understood why Apple needs a bigger screen to have a $1100 to $1900 premium on a laptop (85% to 146% markup), while it only needs to be a 10% markup on a phone. It’s like saying a Toyota Yaris starts at $13,000 and the next size up Corolla starts at $24,000 to $32,000. Since when is a slightly bigger version only for the most privileged? Maybe when you start giving dividends to the most privileged, who knows. 
    Can you cite where you’re getting your mark up figures from?

    Speaking of cars...they’re very old technology, so why are they still expensive and more so every year? 
    Computers have been around in their current form for 40+ years. They aren't "new" tech. Arguably smartphones are new tech in comparison, and as Tux Kapono pointed out, the premium vs size there is much less. Other manufacturers don't charge quite the premium Apple does for a size bump. Obviously it is more expensive to make a larger device, and the larger devices tend to have better specs, but it's not that much more expensive. And as GeorgeBMac points out, what if you don't want those better specs, maybe for older people who just browse the web but want a larger screen? I suppose your excuse then StrangeDays is they're a "minority" and Apple shouldn't cater to them, etc.
    Like I said, the ICE automobile is very old tech -- why are cars not only still expensive, but get more expensive every year?

    As has been explained clearly, the larger-screen Macs have bigger high-DPI displays and will cost more, and they will likely have other improved components. Just go to Apple.com and compare the 20" to the 27" models and note the differences. 

    Or, rather than whine about Macs being too expensive for you (something entirely novel, and not at all something we haven't all ready a million times over the past thirty years), get yourself a Dell. Or start your own brand of premium devices, undercut Apple on the prices, and prove to us how we were wrong and you were right. Totally doable, right!?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 34
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,821member
    jdiamond said:
    ApplePoor said:
    Hey guys and gals, the $3,000 price point has been the top Apple laptop price for many years before the over $5k 15".  The 17" was around that price in 2011, so bring that price point forward and the 16" starting price is not that unreasonable. It will  probably be closer to $6k or $7k when fleshed out with max memory and SSD.  I upgraded the 17" to more memory than Apple offered at the time and it now has two SSDs inside that are 1TB or larger. Still a viable machine for work but not so much fun to carry in a shoulder bag.

    Up until around 2017, $3,000 could always buy the top of the line maxed out Macbook Pro (ENDING PRICE), and that's what I always did, every single generation.  Now, in the era where a maxed out Macbook Pro costs $7,000 (which happened in a single year, up from $4,000 the year before, and $3,000 the year before that), for the first time ever, instead of just saying "give me the best one you can make", I have to go over every option and say "what's the lowest level I could live with?" - all trying to keep my end price under $4,000.  Even if you only need a 2TB hard drive, it's still hard to get it under $5K these days. :(  Since this price jump happened WAAAYYYY faster than inflation, I think it's fair game to gripe about it.  Remember how Tim Cook is no longer revealing unit sales, just revenue?  I'm afraid he's doing the economist thing, like "we get the most profit when we sell 1/4 the units at 5x the price".  The pitfall here is that the Mac platform is more valuable the more people use it.  Look at Adobe - it took 5 years, but they are finally starting to feel some serious business impacts from the "maximize revenue" route.

    Apple's job isn't to sell you a Mac as cheaply as they can, no more than it is a hotel's job to rent rooms as cheaply as they can. In fact, if a hotel is 100% booked all the time it means their price is too low, and they will then raise the price, knowing that they may have some unoccupied rooms but will enjoy a better profit margin because of it. It's worth it. Same thing here -- Apple would rather maintain it's customary margin and have a lower market share than sell netbook-priced MBs and gain market share.

    Law of supply & demand. This is business 101, guys. Get out there into the real world and run a business for a while. Then you'll get it.

    I can appreciate that most everyone here likes Macs and want all the Macs as cheaply as possible, but that isn't Apple's job. They have their goals and the Mac is obviously reaching them, based on its revenue growth over the years. If that means you can't buy the top-tier offering, so be it; you were never entitled to it. Same with the iPhone -- the top-tier offering is pricey. But there are other models to choose from. (I myself always skimp on the storage since I use cloud storage these days and don't need all my files everywhere at all times).
    edited July 2019 watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 34
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,911member
    jdiamond said:
    ApplePoor said:
    Hey guys and gals, the $3,000 price point has been the top Apple laptop price for many years before the over $5k 15".  The 17" was around that price in 2011, so bring that price point forward and the 16" starting price is not that unreasonable. It will  probably be closer to $6k or $7k when fleshed out with max memory and SSD.  I upgraded the 17" to more memory than Apple offered at the time and it now has two SSDs inside that are 1TB or larger. Still a viable machine for work but not so much fun to carry in a shoulder bag.

    Up until around 2017, $3,000 could always buy the top of the line maxed out Macbook Pro (ENDING PRICE), and that's what I always did, every single generation.  Now, in the era where a maxed out Macbook Pro costs $7,000 (which happened in a single year, up from $4,000 the year before, and $3,000 the year before that), for the first time ever, instead of just saying "give me the best one you can make", I have to go over every option and say "what's the lowest level I could live with?" - all trying to keep my end price under $4,000.  Even if you only need a 2TB hard drive, it's still hard to get it under $5K these days. :(  Since this price jump happened WAAAYYYY faster than inflation, I think it's fair game to gripe about it.  Remember how Tim Cook is no longer revealing unit sales, just revenue?  I'm afraid he's doing the economist thing, like "we get the most profit when we sell 1/4 the units at 5x the price".  The pitfall here is that the Mac platform is more valuable the more people use it.  Look at Adobe - it took 5 years, but they are finally starting to feel some serious business impacts from the "maximize revenue" route.

    Apple's job isn't to sell you a Mac as cheaply as they can, no more than it is a hotel's job to rent rooms as cheaply as they can. In fact, if a hotel is 100% booked all the time it means their price is too low, and they will then raise the price, knowing that they may have some unoccupied rooms but will enjoy a better profit margin because of it. It's worth it. Same thing here -- Apple would rather maintain it's customary margin and have a lower market share than sell netbook-priced MBs and gain market share.

    Law of supply & demand. This is business 101, guys. Get out there into the real world and run a business for a while. Then you'll get it.

    I can appreciate that most everyone here likes Macs and want all the Macs as cheaply as possible, but that isn't Apple's job. They have their goals and the Mac is obviously reaching them, based on its revenue growth over the years. If that means you can't buy the top-tier offering, so be it; you were never entitled to it. Same with the iPhone -- the top-tier offering is pricey. But there are other models to choose from. (I myself always skimp on the storage since I use cloud storage these days and don't need all my files everywhere at all times).
    looking at the price of their current lineup, $3k isn't out of the question, but considering all of this is just rumor, isn't it a bit premature to complain about pricing that we really don't know anything about?
  • Reply 27 of 34
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 606member
    Why is it that an iPhone XS is $999 and an iPhone XS Max is $1099, yet a 13” MacBook Pro is $1300 and a 16” MacBook Pro is $3200.

    I have never understood why Apple needs a bigger screen to have a $1100 to $1900 premium on a laptop (85% to 146% markup), while it only needs to be a 10% markup on a phone. It’s like saying a Toyota Yaris starts at $13,000 and the next size up Corolla starts at $24,000 to $32,000. Since when is a slightly bigger version only for the most privileged? Maybe when you start giving dividends to the most privileged, who knows. 
    Can you cite where you’re getting your mark up figures from?

    Speaking of cars...they’re very old technology, so why are they still expensive and more so every year? 
    Some of it is the addition of high markup gadgets as well as safety features (of which have passed the point of diminishing returns). Other parts are based on charging what the customer will pay. 
  • Reply 28 of 34
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 606member
    My prediction from the moment this rumor was published has been it will be the current body MacBook Pro with a screen with a smaller bezel. I'll that I think the June update was probably targeted at having the 16" screen, but that supply or some other issue delayed it. Those who bought the June version are not going to happy if that is the case.
  • Reply 29 of 34
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,350member
    You lost me at 'According to Digitimes'. I'd like the rumor to be true, but as it's from who it's from, I won't hold my breath.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 34
    LordeHawkLordeHawk Posts: 168member
    hmlongco said:
    Why is it that an iPhone XS is $999 and an iPhone XS Max is $1099, yet a 13” MacBook Pro is $1300 and a 16” MacBook Pro is $3200.

    I have never understood why Apple needs a bigger screen to have a $1100 to $1900 premium on a laptop (85% to 146% markup), while it only needs to be a 10% markup on a phone. It’s like saying a Toyota Yaris starts at $13,000 and the next size up Corolla starts at $24,000 to $32,000. Since when is a slightly bigger version only for the most privileged? Maybe when you start giving dividends to the most privileged, who knows. 
    That $1,300 13" MacBook Pro has a smaller screen, a 4-core i5, 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD, Intel Iris Plus Graphics, and 2 TB Ports.

    At a $1,000 difference, a $2,300 15" MacBook Pro has a larger screen, AND a 6-core i7, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, Radeon Pro 555X Graphics, and 4 TB Ports. 

    Seems to me you're getting just a little bit more than a larger screen for your "markup".
    That's true.   It's also kind of a shame because some people want the screen without all the other stuff.   All they want to do is work on their spreadsheet.
    I just plug my iPad into my MBP and use 2 screens.

    Sorry if I’m ruining everybody’s bash on Apple because they make great products that cost more thread...
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 34
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,112member
    hmlongco said:
    Why is it that an iPhone XS is $999 and an iPhone XS Max is $1099, yet a 13” MacBook Pro is $1300 and a 16” MacBook Pro is $3200.

    I have never understood why Apple needs a bigger screen to have a $1100 to $1900 premium on a laptop (85% to 146% markup), while it only needs to be a 10% markup on a phone. It’s like saying a Toyota Yaris starts at $13,000 and the next size up Corolla starts at $24,000 to $32,000. Since when is a slightly bigger version only for the most privileged? Maybe when you start giving dividends to the most privileged, who knows. 
    That $1,300 13" MacBook Pro has a smaller screen, a 4-core i5, 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD, Intel Iris Plus Graphics, and 2 TB Ports.

    At a $1,000 difference, a $2,300 15" MacBook Pro has a larger screen, AND a 6-core i7, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, Radeon Pro 555X Graphics, and 4 TB Ports. 

    Seems to me you're getting just a little bit more than a larger screen for your "markup".
    That's true.   It's also kind of a shame because some people want the screen without all the other stuff.   All they want to do is work on their spreadsheet.
    Attach an external display or TV. 16" is a waste of money to work only on spreadsheets.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 34
    robgnycrobgnyc Posts: 7member
    I just wish they would offer a 15" or 16" model without the touchbar and if I'm really wishing, I'd also like a smaller trackpad like the old circa 2015 MacBook Pros and hell throw in some more ports too while you're at it.
  • Reply 33 of 34
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,540member
    robgnyc said:
    I just wish they would offer a 15" or 16" model without the touchbar and if I'm really wishing, I'd also like a smaller trackpad like the old circa 2015 MacBook Pros and hell throw in some more ports too while you're at it.
    Ah! You want a 2015 retina MacBook Pro 15". 

    Go buy one.
  • Reply 34 of 34
    xor99xor99 Posts: 2unconfirmed, member
    They can't fit a 16.0" screen in the current case unless they eliminate the side bezels entirely—they'd need the screen to be completely edgeless, going right up to the thin rubber gaskets on either side. With a 16:10 aspect ratio (standard for the Mac Book Pro, and also consistent with the predicted 3,072 x 1,920 pixels), a 16.0" diagonal screen would be 13.57" wide. The case is currently 13.75" wide, leaving only 0.08" on either side, which is just about the width of the gasket+case edge. And I'm not sure if they're going to be able to go edgeless. Thus I wouldn't be surprised if the footprint is a bit bigger.
    edited August 2019
Sign In or Register to comment.