13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro and Updated iMacs Reportedly Due in September-October

[12dylan34]

I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I'm strongly hoping against a retina display on the iMac, or at least the option for the older design. I'll be using it professionally and it's an entirely unnecessary feature that does nothing but hog system resources to me. It would suck to wait and the that be the only option....

[GorgonPhone]

Originally Posted by jvmxtra

Please tell apple that this is their time to concentrate on getting a great iphone out. If they drop the ball on that, I am going to android period.

^^^so true apple cannot afford to mess up this ii0hone 5 .. it has to be a smash hit and have plenty of wow.. cause they will not get another pass like they got with the 4S.. which was a very boring update.. yes the 4S is a great improvement to the 4 but now we are ready for the 5 and the 5 must be a new beast nothing like the 4..

If apple fails with the 54 then android will have their biggest opportunity ever..

[keviig]

I bought the 15" MBPr a while ago, and honestly, it struggles with basic stuff such as scrolling and OS animations... How on earth would a retina 13" MBP without a proper GPU handle it? Thing is, it won't. Having a retina screen in the 15" is pushing the graphics technology enough for now.

[yascott]

The iMac needn't have a Retina Display on the caliber (density) of the iPhone/iPad/rMBP, since it's viewed so much further away from one's eyes. They just need to bump the resolution up to fit within the "sliding scale"--so I think it's completely feasible for the next iteration to have one.

I do think that 11" and 13" notebooks with Retina resolutions won't be out until Haswell, though.

[GekkePrutser]

Originally Posted by keviig

I bought the 15" MBPr a while ago, and honestly, it struggles with basic stuff such as scrolling and OS animations... How on earth would a retina 13" MBP without a proper GPU handle it? Thing is, it won't. Having a retina screen in the 15" is pushing the graphics technology enough for now.

The 15" retina has the same integrated GPU the 13" will have, it still has the HD4000 which it uses when not doing any video or 3D stuff. So 15" retina still runs in integrated mode most of the time if you're just doing desktop work.

So, the 13" if it will be integrated-only is going to have an even easier job due to the lower screen res (it will probably be 2560x1600) unless doing 3D work. The 13" was never meant for that anyway, this has always been the case.

The scrolling is also said to be better under ML and according to AnandTech is mainly caused by Safari's thread model rather than the GPU.

[yascott]

Originally Posted by keviig

I bought the 15" MBPr a while ago, and honestly, it struggles with basic stuff such as scrolling and OS animations... How on earth would a retina 13" MBP without a proper GPU handle it? Thing is, it won't. Having a retina screen in the 15" is pushing the graphics technology enough for now.

I only find that it struggles when compared to, say, a New iPad or the iPhone 4S, which have buttery-smooth animations. It's still a monumental upgrade to my Core Duo MBP, and things will improve a bit when Mountain Lion is released. And don't forget, a 13" screen would have fewer pixels to push.

Regardless, you're probably on to something. Yes, performance is a concern with the Ivy Bridge IGP, but more than anything it will be heat and battery capacity concerns (in such miniscule spaces) that will push the smaller Retina notebooks back to Haswell.

[DVD9]

Originally Posted by michaeljordan

I'm not sure what's the point of a retina macbook pro 13 inch, since the lighter and thinner form factor 13'' is already available in the form of a macbook air. That is already a pretty powerful computer for daily use. Unless people are in the market for a 13" with discrete graphics.

13" Macbook Air with pixelated P.O.S. screen.

[Tezcatlipoca]

September/October for the iMac?

Damn

I've already been waiting three months to finally make the switch from a Windows PC to a Mac. My PC is crap, and on its last legs...I don't want to have to wait another three months.

I had hoped the previous October rumours were BS, but the guy behind the new rumours has a reliable track record (unlike Digitimes), so maybe there is something to it...

[jjmiv]

does this mean the 13in retina display would get dedicated video? this is the one final feature that would probably steer me toward a mac, though i would miss the internal CD/DVD drive.

[belltree]

Originally Posted by Tiger8

I highly doubt Apple would do that, remember antenna-gate? Everyone thought Apple will modify the design second batch around, but they didn't.

I fail how to see how, in any way, help to predict whether Apple would do a die shrink on their processor. If they the process can be shrunk they get more dies per wafer which saves them $$. If Apple can save $$ they will do it.

[Randomoneh]

"Retina display" doesn't mean you don't benefit from higher resolution. Not seeing pixel grid doesn't mean you don't benefit from higher resolution.

[Antares]

Originally Posted by Mad Sativa

I'm sorry, but what does MoM mean?

Man or Muppet?

And I'm really unhappy about waiting until October for a new iMac. I have money waiting for one and its killing me. Sure, I don't "need" a new computer...but it sure would be nice. I'm running a core duo and its really age (speedwise). I update desktops every 5 to 6 years. So, I want the newest model to last that bit longer.

[Vespa Alex]

Originally Posted by Tezcatlipoca

September/October for the iMac?

Damn

I've already been waiting three months to finally make the switch from a Windows PC to a Mac. My PC is crap, and on its last legs...I don't want to have to wait another three months.

I'm in exactly the same position, albeit with a slightly better pc.

As for what's likely to arrive... A 13" retina MacBook pro is a logical follow on from the 15" version. Very similar spec, just a bit smaller screen which should be easier to make and less stressed.

For the iMac... The longer wait suggests a change in form factor rather than just a spec bump. I think it's fairly easy to predict the tech spec with some accuracy - USB 3 and so on - which just leaves the screens. All-retina displays isn't going to happen as they need to keep the entry level models affordable, but a retina iMac as a flagship desktop could do well. If the casing is being redone then screen sizes could change too. Monitor prices have dropped a lot since the 21.5" went on sale so a 24" screen could hit the same price points then maybe a 30" monster?

[PeterJP]

Hello Deconstruct,

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

But the MBA also had "the absolute minimum" changes.

Yes, but when I see how Apple is evolving, the MBP design is "old" (despite being launched the same year as the MBA design). The MBP is more "standard", i.e. optical drive, replacable components. Apple is currently convinced that the way to go is fixing things in place because this allows them to improve in certain areas that pleases more customers (overall user experience: size, screen, battery life as compared to upgradability, which is of use to a very small percentage of the user base). I think with the current rMBP, they are saying: the MBA experiment worked well, if we give such a design very high end specs, it should please 99.99% of the high end users even without the capability to swap components.

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

The MBA 13" and MBP 13" are no priced the same. If the MBP 13" sells twice as many units as the MBA 13" after the rMBP 13" comes out then there is a good chance the MBA 13" would be the model on death row.

Of course, the sales figures after the launch of the rMBP 13" are still unknown. It's quite possible, as you suggest, that Apple takes a wait and see approach and axes the one that is least popular. But I wouldn't expect so because I consider Apple to be a company of principles. They've been known to take a gamble like this before and come out on top.

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

The rMBP 13" would likely move into price points that the older MBA 13" used to occupy (above the MBP 13" ). If the weight of the rMBP 13" is trimmed to be within 0.5-0.8 lbs of the MBA 13" weight the difference wouldn't be that much. It would weight a bit more and not taper so dramatically but you'd get a retina display (and battery to drive it) in exchange. The MBA 13" could be retired.

I don't see it that way. Both the MBP and MBA have exactly the same dimensions, except for the thickness. If the rMBP is as thick as the MBA at its thickest point, it would be about twice the volume and therefore much closer to the MBP in feel. Also, a tapered design is one that slips into a bag really easily, making it a quick use-everywhere computer. But that, of course, is just how I happen to see it. I am very prejudiced about the MBA because I want the 11" to use it as a kind of PDA replacement (I had a "PDA" once that wasn't much smaller: the Psion 7 aka the first NetBook).

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

Apple would like users to prefer no optical drives , soldered ram , and non mainstream storage formats. However, there are some upsides to standard 2.5" drives and being able to do memory upgrades with SO-DIMMs. Having to jump to a 15" MBP to get user upgradable memory is kind of ridiculous and certainly unnecessary.

That's not how I see it and I'm guessing that's not how Apple sees it. In my very humble opinion, the days of user upgradable computers are as numbered as the days of user upgradable cars. Sure, if you really insist, you can swap fuses and ignition yourself. But nobody does it. The same with current laptops: if you really really really insist, you can swap a few bits. But nobody does it. Might as well fix them and improve in areas that most users do appreciate: weight, size, battery life.

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

I think the MBP 13" classic to stick around until the broad model update. That way they can measure whether customers like the MBP 13" more than the MBA 13". They could simply later by just dropping all of these adjectives (except retina)

Macbook 11" , Macbook 13" , Macbook retina 13" , Macbook 15" , Macbook retina 15"

In both your scenario and in mine, Apple would have three ranges over five laptops: the old MBP and MBA + the rMBP. I think that's awkward. If I'm allowed to go way over the top with my predictions, I would say that all MBPs will be kicked out eventually and replaced with the rMBPs. To give consumers a choice, I would expect a 15" MBA. So we would get:

MBA: 11", 13", 15"
(r)MBP: 13", 15".

Let's say that's the end of next year, after Haswell.

KGI Securities, I'm available as a freelance analyst, if you're interested


Peter.

[deconstruct60]

Originally Posted by PeterJP

I think with the current rMBP, they are saying: the MBA experiment worked well, if we give such a design very high end specs, it should please 99.99% of the high end users even without the capability to swap components.

The MBA experiment did not prove anything about the bulk of the Mac laptop buyers which is what is the critical issue. Not the upper 10% Mac laptop buyers.

The MBA exposed some flaws in Apple's minimalist initial design. One USB port and crippled I/O ( wifi only) is not enough. The current MBA has two USB 3.0 port (and two USB 2.0 ports immediately before) and Thunderbolt. The minimal at all costs is flawed.

Another example was when Apple prematurely nuked the FW ports off the immediate precusor to the MBP 13" design. Another bonehead move by Apple.

The MBA sales volume before the MBA 11" was relatively anemic. It regularly ranked below the Mac Pro in "top macs sold" on Apple's online store back when Apple let the Macs sales rankings be indirectly exposed. The lowest selling Mac model overall in terms of volume.


MBA is much higher now primarily because the 11" is the lowest price laptop Mac available. In that sense perhaps you're correct in that Apple may just "give" the MBA 13' the win not what but I doubt they would really want to gamble that way with the volume leader of the Mac laptop line-up.


The rMBP 13" isn't going to carry the water for "high volume Mac laptop" when it gets released. Its price is extremely likely to be much higher then either MBA or MBP 13".

I suspect that most MBA 13" seeking the "high price premium" 13" model will move up and select the rMBP 13" because they are the most similar. Those who are more price sensitive will buy a MBP 13" and hence drive volume sales.

It's quite possible, as you suggest, that Apple takes a wait and see approach and axes the one that is least popular. But I wouldn't expect so because I consider Apple to be a company of principles.

Yeah they have principles and one of those is selling what people want. This is a striaghtforward test they can conduct here. Lots of folks assume the answer is going to go the MBA 13". It may or may not.

I don't see it that way. Both the MBP and MBA have exactly the same dimensions, except for the thickness. If the rMBP is as thick as the MBA at its thickest point, it would be about twice the volume and therefore much closer to the MBP in feel.

"feel" isn't the primary issue.

Might as well fix them and improve in areas that most users do appreciate: weight, size, battery life.

That's the problem with a slimmed down rMBP 13" versus the MBA 13". It really doesn't put up a clear win on any of those. If there is a relatively small ( 0.5-0.8) weight difference and equal or better battery life with a much better processor ..... It loses. Its primary advantage is really just being cheaper.

The volume/size difference being overblown here. I think folks will trade off the taper for the better life and "twice as good" screen. The MBA taper is an extremely dubious sacrifice if that blocks you from a substantially better screen. A 07" rectangle is thin. Quite thin. It also wouldn't hurt to have two Thunderbolt ports also (instead of throwing that away too just for some "taper". Go back to 1 versus 2 USB socket evolution above for very similar reasons. )


Over time as the retina displays got cheaper the line-up could collapse some more.

In my very humble opinion, the days of user upgradable computers are as numbered as the days of user upgradable cars.

As long as Apple charges sky high mark-ups on memory and SSDs, this is a flawed analogy. It isn't so much folks want to crack open the computer and install these. it is much more so that they want better prices. The desire for better pricing doesn't go "old fashioned".

If Apple adjusted they BTO pricing to be more market driven, it wouldn't be an issue but until they do it is. The primary issue here is not "old" vs. "new" designs.

Over 2-3 more design iterations Apple may close out the classic MBP. I don't think prematurely killing them off is a winner for Apple. They can still pull substantial profits by iterating another iteration until get SoC Haswell (or follow on ) offerings that let them shrink the smaller rMBP designs and still get a discrete GPU in there.

[umbilical]

iMac with fixed ram and video and ssd? like macbook pro retina?
I dont think so... the idea of the imac is reemplace the macpro right? so I want an imac very upgradable ... 32gb ram , 1 o 2gb video, 1 ssd , no dvd drive, retina display

[PeterJP]

Hello deconstruct,

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

The MBA experiment did not prove anything about the bulk of the Mac laptop buyers which is what is the critical issue. Not the upper 10% Mac laptop buyers.

If 28% of the Mac notebook shipments by Q3 of 2011 (and probably growing) is "not the bulk of the Mac laptop buyers" then you're right. 28% is more than the upper 10% you're talking about.

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

The MBA exposed some flaws in Apple's minimalist initial design. One USB port and crippled I/O ( wifi only) is not enough. The current MBA has two USB 3.0 port (and two USB 2.0 ports immediately before) and Thunderbolt. The minimal at all costs is flawed.

It makes no sense to discuss the original MBA. While that machine may have angered you originally, there's no denying the current machines are both very capable, very good value for money and that they will last most users plenty of years before needing to upgrade. I'm saying "most users".

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

The MBA sales volume before the MBA 11" was relatively anemic.

... and way out of scope.

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

The rMBP 13" isn't going to carry the water for "high volume Mac laptop" when it gets released. Its price is extremely likely to be much higher then either MBA or MBP 13".

It would seem that, until you start comparing apples with apples.

current base MBA 13" (4GB+128GB SSD): 1280 euro
current MBP 13" similarly configured: 1480 euro

I expect the rMBP to be around 1600 euro for an 8/256 config, which is currently 1680 or 1880 for the MBA and MBP respectively.

If you're surprised by these numbers, compare a regular MBP 15" with 8GB and 256GB SSD (2500 euro) to a retina one (base model, 2300 euro). The retina models are cheaper than the standard MBP ones.

Sure, you don't have the choice of going for an optical drive and a hard drive. You also don't have the choice of a floppy anymore. The market is moving and Apple is a bit ahead, as usual.

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

The volume/size difference being overblown here. I think folks will trade off the taper for the better life and "twice as good" screen. The MBA taper is an extremely dubious sacrifice if that blocks you from a substantially better screen. A 07" rectangle is thin. Quite thin. It also wouldn't hurt to have two Thunderbolt ports also (instead of throwing that away too just for some "taper".

You think so. Plenty of others don't think so. That's what life's about: choice

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

As long as Apple charges sky high mark-ups on memory and SSDs, this is a flawed analogy.

I don't think you want to know how much markup you pay when you have your car maintained by a garage (let alone an official brand garage) as compared to doing it yourself. Apple starts looking really cheap if you want to go there


Peter.

[Tiger8]

Originally Posted by belltree

I fail how to see how, in any way, help to predict whether Apple would do a die shrink on their processor. If they the process can be shrunk they get more dies per wafer which saves them $$. If Apple can save $$ they will do it.

I was talking about updating internals to address the heat issue. Apple rarely -if ever- update a product midcycle with 'new internals', they usually preserve the goodies for the next generation.

[PadreQuevedo]

Originally Posted by edry.hilario

the retina macbook pro does have a glass protecting the screen remeber 60% less reflective.. what are you talking about ???

Hilário mesmo....What are YOU talking about? rMBP does NOT have glass cover.

[PadreQuevedo]

Can someone tell me why the MacBook Air line has better resolution displays than the MacBook Pro line?

[RetinaMacFreak]

I've read the comments other people have left about this source being close to the supply chain and being reliable but I can't see this happening. The chart shows the iPod being released right before the iPhone. Rumor has it that the iPod will also get a 4" screen. Why would they spill the beans on the next iPhone form factor by releasing an updated iPod with a larger screen before the iPhone? Same goes for the 13" MBP. They just released an updated model at WWDC; why would they go to the effort and expense of R&D updating processors and ports and then start producing the next model a few months later??! Tim Cook himself said "don't worry as we're working on something really great for later next year.". Granted, that was about the Mac Pro, but being that the Mac Pro, MBP, and the iMac saw little or no update, they would possibly be updated in a similar time frame, possibly with Intel Haswell processors scheduled for release later next year. In short, as an uneducated rumor mill worker, I could quite likely be very wrong but I seriously question the logic behind the iPod-before-iPhone release and the to-soon MBP update.

[deconstruct60]

Originally Posted by PeterJP

It makes no sense to discuss the original MBA. While that machine may have angered you originally, there's no denying the current machines are both very capable, very good value for money and that they will last most users plenty of years before needing to upgrade. I'm saying "most users".

You brought up the MBA experiment. The original machine was the experiment. To now at this point wave off the findings is just misdirection. Similarly, I'm not angry at the MBA. It is what is it. Namely, the 13" format does not proven track record of a being a large seller versus other Macs.

It would seem that, until you start comparing apples with apples.

current base MBA 13" (4GB+128GB SSD): 1280 euro
current MBP 13" similarly configured: 1480 euro

I expect the rMBP to be around 1600 euro for an 8/256 config, which is currently 1680 or 1880 for the MBA and MBP respectively

This isn't Apples to Apples. This is the non-market pricing BTO practices of Apple in action. Apple charges an extra $200 to swap a 128 GB SSD for a 500GB HDD. If Price the 500GB HDD at $50 that means apple is charging $250 for a 128 GB SSD. Look around. Folk can easily get a 128GB SSD from 3rd parties for $110-150.

.

If you're surprised by these numbers, compare a regular MBP 15" with 8GB and 256GB SSD (2500 euro) to a retina one (base model, 2300 euro). The retina models are cheaper than the standard MBP ones.

I'm not surprised. These are both marketing gimmicks to make Apple's non standard SSDs look better. If you actually look at the overall SSD market Apple's 2.5" SSDs are horribly priced. That's the only relevant factor in these examples.

Sure, you don't have the choice of going for an optical drive and a hard drive. You also don't have the choice of a floppy anymore. The market is moving and Apple is a bit ahead, as usual.

Apple could swap the ODD in the MBP 13" for a discrete GPU. Frankly, that would be an advantage for a retina screen ( to have more GPU "horsepower to move pixels at a high rate). This isn't about "old legacy technologies" or new. Likewise the HDD can be replaced with a SSD in a standard shape. (either 2.5" enclosure of mSATA ). In short, there are alternatives.

Advocating for the taper (i.e., lack of volume) is quite unlike saying some technology was going to be replaced by new tech ( RW-CDROMs would replace floppy or USB would replace ADB. ). It is making an argument that nothingness replaces some technology. That is weak, just as the original MBA experiment has proven true.

Even the new rMBP 15" did not follow that path. There is a change in the mix of sockets, but dropping down to two would have been highly dubious.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by PeterJP

If 28% of the Mac notebook shipments by Q3 of 2011 (and probably growing) is "not the bulk of the Mac laptop buyers" then you're right. 28% is more than the upper 10% you're talking about.

You should take note that until that refresh, they were pushing Core2duo ulv hardware in 2011. It was relatively weak for the year it was sold. The "my G3 still runs" crowd is going to be running a much earlier software generation so as to remain within the capabilities of the hardware. Beyond that you should keep in mind that these are estimates at best. Apple doesn't publish this kind of breakdown. Anyway Apple's marketing department is smarter than a very large number of consumers, and they realize that.

Originally Posted by PeterJP

It makes no sense to discuss the original MBA. While that machine may have angered you originally, there's no denying the current machines are both very capable, very good value for money and that they will last most users plenty of years before needing to upgrade. I'm saying "most users".

Many years may also be an exaggeration. Apple has bragged about their recent OS adoption rates which go against the idea that most people don't update the OS. If staying with what is current is a major factor, I'd suggest more like 3 years, 4 if you push it. Applecare ends and you have a little wiggle room. A lot of people on here are eager to push the machine onto someone else for as much as possible if they feel it has an impending hardware failure due to long term wear (likely battery or ssd write cycles).

Originally Posted by PeterJP

It would seem that, until you start comparing apples with apples.

current base MBA 13" (4GB+128GB SSD): 1280 euro
current MBP 13" similarly configured: 1480 euro

I expect the rMBP to be around 1600 euro for an 8/256 config, which is currently 1680 or 1880 for the MBA and MBP respectively.

If you're surprised by these numbers, compare a regular MBP 15" with 8GB and 256GB SSD (2500 euro) to a retina one (base model, 2300 euro). The retina models are cheaper than the standard MBP ones.

Sure, you don't have the choice of going for an optical drive and a hard drive. You also don't have the choice of a floppy anymore. The market is moving and Apple is a bit ahead, as usual.

They intentionally hold back the cheaper unit to try to drive you to their new thing. You're being conditioned to think it's a good deal as opposed to realizing that the lower model is actually a very bad deal. They wanted to justify a high minimum sale, so certain things were bundled with it. Note how the second thunderbolt port never made it into the cMBP design when they both use the same chip. Some of the ultrabooks actually managed to put in discrete graphics. If Apple was set on integrated, AMD could have been a better option for a more balanced unit.

Originally Posted by PeterJP

I don't think you want to know how much markup you pay when you have your car maintained by a garage (let alone an official brand garage) as compared to doing it yourself. Apple starts looking really cheap if you want to go there

Car maintenance is a much dirtier process that requires a lot of space and some remote knowledge of what you are doing. This is not the case with swapping in ram or a bigger drive. You make sure you have the right specs and the correct screwdriver. Those are the important things. Beyond that any idiot can do it. There are guides all over the internet and they basically say the same thing. Touch something metal first. Don't put your hands on raw circuitry. It does not take a huge array of tools or much finesse unless you're pulling out the logic board.

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

I'm not surprised. These are both marketing gimmicks to make Apple's non standard SSDs look better. If you actually look at the overall SSD market Apple's 2.5" SSDs are horribly priced. That's the only relevant factor in these examples.

I kind of expected a better base configuration this year. 128GB is starting to look ridiculous given the trends in the price of NAND.

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

Apple could swap the ODD in the MBP 13" for a discrete GPU. Frankly, that would be an advantage for a retina screen ( to have more GPU "horsepower to move pixels at a high rate). This isn't about "old legacy technologies" or new. Likewise the HDD can be replaced with a SSD in a standard shape. (either 2.5" enclosure of mSATA ). In short, there are alternatives.

The only reason they wouldn't add a discrete gpu is because they're cheap and extra parts cost money. When I look at it much of the time, I see their lower lines as being full of compromises and lacking in balance. They hit very specific details, but regardless of specs most of the design seems aimed at the lightest possible usage cases. Once again I've defeated Apple's love of dongle farms via a mini displayport to displayport cable thus eliminating the use of stupid dongles that fail constantly.

[vikpt]

13 in thinner, retina Macbook Pro! Yes please Apple!!!! October 2012 is perfect (as long as it doesn't cost very near the 15 rMBP price)

----------

Originally Posted by caligomez

I'm in the market for a spec'd out MBA 13".. Haven't pulled the trigger, waiting t see if this announcement is true. I would be kicking myself if a 13" rMBP came out a month after I got a $1,699 Air..

Which makes me think, why would Apple would be doing this? Cannibalizing its higher end 13" Airs, after just a couple of months of being released. Am I alone on this? From a consumer point of view, it just seems like I should wait on my decision after hearing this. Therefore, I don't believe this could be another one of Apple's "misinformation" campaigns.

Remember when there were rumors about 2 15 in MBP's coming out of WWDC 2012 (one non-retina and one retina) people were like "why would Apple release 2 15 in. in the same line?" Well, look what we have now...

[PeterJP]

Hello deconstruct,

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

You brought up the MBA experiment. The original machine was the experiment. To now at this point wave off the findings is just misdirection. Similarly, I'm not angry at the MBA. It is what is it. Namely, the 13" format does not proven track record of a being a large seller versus other Macs.

I was thinking of the whole MBA range as an experiment, actually. Not just the first version. Experiment as in: if we minimize size, making compromises on user upgradability, would it still sell ? The answer is clearly: yes, it sells quite well. It's not an MBP beater, but sales could've been marginal. I don't know how much % of MBA sales are 11" vs 13", but I'm guessing the 13" sales are double the 11" because most people prefer the real estate. But that's, of course, just a guess based mainly on forum input (and we all know how representative we are ). Apple isn't giving any numbers so we can speculate as much as we want on this topic.

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

This isn't Apples to Apples. This is the non-market pricing BTO practices of Apple in action. Apple charges an extra $200 to swap a 128 GB SSD for a 500GB HDD. If Price the 500GB HDD at $50 that means apple is charging $250 for a 128 GB SSD. Look around. Folk can easily get a 128GB SSD from 3rd parties for $110-150.

You're right. Here's the pricing with cheap 3rd party components:

MBA 13" 4/128: €1280
MBP 13" 4/128 SSD: €1400.

rMBP 15" 8/256: €2300
MBP 15" 8/256 SSD: €2200.

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

Apple could swap the ODD in the MBP 13" for a discrete GPU. Frankly, that would be an advantage for a retina screen ( to have more GPU "horsepower to move pixels at a high rate). This isn't about "old legacy technologies" or new. Likewise the HDD can be replaced with a SSD in a standard shape. (either 2.5" enclosure of mSATA ). In short, there are alternatives.

1) The GPU is a complete non-issue. The HD4000 is 2.5x more powerful than the "discrete" GPU in my 2009 Mac Mini that is quite capable of running large displays (2560x1600 + 1920x1200) simultaneously. The obsession on these forums about a discrete GPU can only be explained by obsessing around the concept of a discrete GPU without any relation to actual performance numbers. Read up on the sudden disappearance of the Retina "lag issue" in the latest release of ML, while you're at it.

2) With the Retina macbooks being 1.8cm thick and 2.5" SSDs being about 1cm, it'll be hard to fit one in.

There are alternatives, true. But that's not the road that Apple seems to be taking.


Peter.

----------

Hi Key,

Originally Posted by thekev

Many years may also be an exaggeration. Apple has bragged about their recent OS adoption rates which go against the idea that most people don't update the OS. If staying with what is current is a major factor, I'd suggest more like 3 years, 4 if you push it. Applecare ends and you have a little wiggle room.

I consider 4 years to be "many years" for a laptop. The longest I ever used a PC was 8 years and I upgraded it many times. Seen the fact that technology is performing beyond most people's needs these days, the upgrade cycle is a bit slower nowadays. I would not be surprised to find myself using a base 15" rMBP for 5 years without a problem.

Originally Posted by thekev

Car maintenance is a much dirtier process that requires a lot of space and some remote knowledge of what you are doing. This is not the case with swapping in ram or a bigger drive.

I'll tell my mom and dad next time they complain about the speed of their computers. I think this statement is mainly indicative of the fact that you are computer literate.


Peter.