# 17" dropped?? attack on pro market continues



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Apple predicted to discontinue 17-inch MacBook Pro
> 
> By AppleInsider Staff
> Published: 08:52 AM EST (05:52 AM PST)
> ...


continues

AppleInsider

They ARE heavy ( I'm on one currently ) but as with ignoring the Mac Pro market Apple seems to have better things to do. 

Until they get resolution independence the continuing trend to high PPi cause problems.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

I'm skeptical about 'Apple attacking the pros'.

I know there hasn't been an update for the Mac Pros in almost 2 years, but now that the Ivy Bridge processors are out, I expect that to be announced soon.

While I still prefer a tower, there was a report that the fastest iMac can outperform a 6 core Mac Pro. I know that depends on the specific tasks, but is that a bad thing?

Maybe...maybe not.

But for the Macbook Pros, it seems that more ppl are simply buying the 15" tricked out versions. If the 17"s are heavier and the smaller 15"s are just as powerful, then what's the big deal for pros to use the slightly smaller version? Maybe that's what they're doing.

I didn't read this article, but had read another similar one yesterday about them possibly dropping the 17".

Maybe it's just a matter of Apple realizing their smaller version can offer the same capability as the larger one.

And yes, I'm still waiting to hear what they say about the Mac Pro. I seriously think it would be an idiotic move on their part to discontinue that line given the 'halo' effect. With the marketing debacle of FCX, there are some shops out there just looking for a reason to go all PC (from what I've read on the forums so no scientific survey done


----------



## Paul82 (Sep 19, 2007)

Count me as one who wouldn't be all that surprised if they did drop them, the sales figures I was reading in an article yesterday wouldn't seem to justify the engineering/design resources required to release updated models. To be honest the number for the 17" I found to be shockingly low (50,000) so I could see the argument for dropping it. On the other hand I'm also not one who would ever consider buying one as I find them to be just too big for me, but the main thing I look for in a laptop is portability not power. That said I do think dropping the Mac pro would be a mistake as I'd think it would be relatively easy to keep up to date with spec bumps.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Queue "Flight of the Valkyries".

I have a hard time believing that Apple is so blatantly giving the cold shoulder to the Pro market, but the proof is in the pudding.

Unless they have a master plan up their sleeve that we don't know about there are fewer and fewer reasons these days to recommend high end Macs in the workplace.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

offering the high rez screen in the 15 could end up being the nail in the coffin for the 17 if this pans out. 

the stock 15 with 1440x900 is frigging useless, but with the high rez offering (and maybe, dare to dream a 1920x1200 ultra super duper high rez in the future) i wouldn't see a lot of reason to keep the 17 around...

fwiw i too am posting this from a 17". its my main daily drive machine


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

keebler27 said:


> I'm skeptical about 'Apple attacking the pros'.
> 
> I know there hasn't been an update for the Mac Pros in almost 2 years, but now that the *Ivy Bridge processors are out,* I expect that to be announced soon.
> 
> ...


I don't see Ivy bridge meaning anything to MacPros, they are not workstation processors. The biggest deal about them is the die size and what it means to power consumption with a moderate speed boost so it means the most for laptops not workstations like the Mac Pro. 

MPs have always run on Xeons so if and when Apple upgrades the MP it will almost certainly be with the Xeon E5 (announced in March) series of chips and not Ivy Bridge chips.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

screature said:


> I don't see Ivy bridge meaning anything to MacPros, they are not workstation processors. The biggest deal about them is the die size and what it means to power consumption with a moderate speed boost so it means the most for laptops not workstations like the Mac Pro.
> 
> MPs have always run on Xeons so if and when Apple upgrades the MP it will almost certainly be with the Xeon E5 (announced in March) series of chips and not Ivy Bridge chips.


Sorry - I thought the higher end Ivy's would be the ones.
Maybe Apple got the new E5's in March and are testing them out now 

Hopefully...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

cap10subtext said:


> I have a hard time believing that Apple is so blatantly giving the cold shoulder to the Pro market, but the proof is in the pudding.


sad but true.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

With only 50,000 17" models shipped, it sounds like pros are giving the cold shoulder to Apple.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> With only 50,000 17" models shipped,* it sounds like pros are giving the cold shoulder to Apple.*


Because Apple is giving the cold shoulder to Pros...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Because Apple is giving the cold shoulder to Pros...


What should the 17" models have offered to double or triple those numbers?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> What should the 17" models have offered to double or triple those numbers?


I don't think tApple could do anything to meet these numbers, becuase if you can get enough processing power, RAM and a dedicated GPU into a 15" laptop with external monitor options there is no need for a 17" laptop... the Ivy Bridge CPU is what is going to help kill the 17" MBP IMO.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

screature said:


> ...if you can get enough processing power, RAM and a dedicated GPU into a 15" laptop with external monitor options there is no need for a 17" laptop... the Ivy Bridge CPU is what is going to help kill the 17" MBP IMO.


The current high-end 15" MBP is identical to the current 17" MBP as of right now minus the display difference.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Lars said:


> The current high-end 15" MBP is identical to the current 17" MBP as of right now minus the display difference.


you're forgetting the ExpressCard/34 slot (only on the 17")


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

i-rui said:


> you're forgetting the ExpressCard/34 slot (only on the 17")


Yes, but the CPU, GPU and RAM is the same, as per what screature specifically pointed to.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lars said:


> The current high-end 15" MBP is identical to the current 17" MBP as of right now minus the display difference.





Lars said:


> Yes, but the CPU, GPU and RAM is the same, as per what screature specifically pointed to.


Well there you go then... never mind Ivy Bridge...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The 17" is native HD width - that's why video editors buy them and the express card is oriented around that. 17" is a standard laptop size making 1080P useable native.
The question may be that Apple stuffs 1080p into a 15.4 form factor.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

i-rui said:


> you're forgetting the ExpressCard/34 slot (only on the 17")


Bingoooo......


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

to be devils' advocate, thunderbolt on the 15" can do pretty much anything express card does and much, much more. 

also, gpu performance on the high end 15" should actually beat that of the 17" as its the same GPU pushing around less pixels


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

broad said:


> to be devils' advocate, thunderbolt on the 15" can do pretty much anything express card does and much, much more.


yes, and the devices will also cost much, much more.




broad said:


> also, gpu performance on the high end 15" should actually beat that of the 17" as its the same GPU pushing around less pixels


kind of a silly argument. if apple made them with 9" displays the GPU performance would be even faster.....but many professionals want more screen real estate.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

a thunderbolt-expresscard adapter is $169. if you don't see value in spending $169 to use existing expresscard gear with a far superior connection with numerous advanced options then i don't know what to tell you...thats your call i guess. 

it should also be mentioned that the $169 the adapter costs is less than the difference in price between the 15" and the 17"


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

the thunderbolt-expresscard adapter is a bulky brick, and doesn't offer 100% compatibility (as is often the case with these kind of solutions).

It's nice that there is *something* to bridge the gap, but don't pretend it's the same thing as using the native interface.

from here :

Sonnet Thunderbolt/ExpressCard34 Adapter



> Results from testing the adapter were disappointing. About 40% slower through the TB adapter compared to the Expresscard/34 slot on my 17" MBP. This with Sonnet eSATA Expresscards.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Video editors want native HD -.
I'm in a whacked out 17 just now and it's heavy but just a lovely workspace and everything is instant.

What the chat about dropping the 17 tells me is that there is a major chassis change and 1st gen of most of these changes should be poked and prodded for a year or so.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

yeah writing is on the wall for current body style for sure id say. its been the same since late 08. sooooo long in the tooth


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Its been that way for so long because it is a good design. I've never had a more solid, durable laptop. Hopefully its not just change for the sake of change. I'm going to assume that the new models will just be larger, more powerful versions of the Macbook Air.


----------



## dwp (Aug 12, 2003)

Pure conjecture on Mr. Ming-Chi Kuo's part. Oh, he did predict an end to the plastic Macbooks did the Apple aficionados not see that coming?!? I'm sure the vast majority of ehmacers did...

Frankly, I've grown a bit weary of analysts and the lazy hacks who write about them. So much is written about what Apple may or may not do it's become rather tiresome.

From a financial standpoint I'm sure Apple would love to do away with the 17" and have everyone who needs 1080p just to buy a 15" Macbook Pro, a 27" monitor and for the love of pete stay home! But they won't...

So I think the 17" Macbook Pro (along with the Mac Pro) will remain in the Apple line up a little bit longer. Just until something better comes along that the Apple marketing department can drive you into.

Oh and by the way Mr. Ming-Chi Kuo... I've analyzed the weather... it's going to rain.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

sometime


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

apple "analysts" are infuriating. they sit there guessing 52 times per year...theyre wrong like 49., but the 3 times they are right they think they're kreskin or something...

even a monkey throwing darts at a board would hit the bullseye once in a while.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> ts been that way for so long because it is a good design. I've never had a more solid, durable laptop. Hopefully its not just change for the sake of change. I'm going to assume that the new models will just be larger, more powerful versions of the Macbook Air.


They are a delight and take a lot of abuse - one client dropped his 17" 4' to concrete while open and running - landed on the corner.
Destroyed the drive, dents in the screen alumn and corner of the unibody
Machine works fine. :yikes:

Both of us were amazed at the really minimal damage considering it was dropped open and running onto to it's corner ( you know handing it off to another staff and both let go )

Pretty impressive abuse - not sure a large Air would have done as well as not as rigid.

Apple has an awfully good design for the MacBook Pro - just as for the MacPro. 
Durable effective chassis need not be changed just for the sake of change, Let's hope Apple resists that - leaves room for two drives and perhaps 4 ram slots. The optical drive can go.


----------



## Imtoast (Mar 7, 2011)

I would wonder what Steve Jobs would say by the statement of discontinuing the MBP 17"?? I own own and I am extremely happy with my decision coming from the PC world for a long long number of years. I wanted HD and larger screen estate, I don't I should downgrade myself to a smaller screen size given the DPI is much higher than a 17". 

ImToast


----------



## CoderMummy (Sep 9, 2011)

I know there's a few die hard 17" users, but from a business perspective, I can see why Apple would do it.

The 15" is the most popular model largely because people who pay for mobility want mobility. Lugging around a 17" versus a 15" is a huge weight difference. The biggest appeal of the Airs is the weight, but those of us who need more power want the Pros. The higher end 15" generally has very similar specs as the 17", so other than a marginally larger screen size you're not getting much other than excess weight.

If you want a bigger screen, you can always get a much larger external display than 17" (for a lot cheaper than the price increase from the 15" to the 17").


----------



## Imtoast (Mar 7, 2011)

CoderMummy said:


> If you want a bigger screen, you can always get a much larger external display than 17" (for a lot cheaper than the price increase from the 15" to the 17").


Some of us want the portability of a 17" so the weight issue is a compromise and the cost difference. I myself would continue to purchase a 17" if offered. However if not then I would be begrudged to purchase a 15" with retina display knowing its going to be a bit harder to see for some of us that are somewhat visually impaired.

ImToast


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

i think you're confusing "retina display" with simply increasing the pixel count...

if the rumours are true the "retina display" laptops look like they'll simply be a multiple of the current resolution..all the onscreen elements should appear the same, just that everything will be clearer (making it easier to see, technically) since there are more pixels.

to understand get an iPad 2 and a new iPad side by side and go to the same website...the iPad 3 is no harder to read..all the fonts are the same size, just the new iPad is clearer


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> If you want a bigger screen, you can always get a much larger external display than 17" (for a lot cheaper than the price increase from the 15" to the 17").


It's only $200 - 250 and has Cardbus port - many want 1:1 HD and also the extra real estate.

It weighs 1.1 lb more. - it has 2.3 million pixels versus 1.3 million pixels....77% more workspace than a 15".

Yes it's big but so is the 15" in a plane seat.


----------



## dwp (Aug 12, 2003)

What Apple decides to do with the 17" Macbook Pro and the Mac Pro line, in my mind, will indicate the kind of company Apple will want to be.

Apple always seemed to have a serious "Pro" edge to their product line. Gradually the "i" line has taken a larger role and has richly rewarded Apple with the fattest balance sheet they've ever had. It's a truly remarkable story.

Now that's not to say that the iMac or 13"/15" Macbook Pro don't work or can't be used in professional situations, but I always equate the 17" Macbook Pro and the Mac Pro tower as a "Professional" computer due to screen size, power and upgradability. Like coming to a knife fight with a bazooka.

Will Apple abandon the "Pro" market once and for all? I certainly hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised.


----------

