I don't know 100% for sure if this is correct, but if so, is very telling IMHO. Good catch if true!
It absolutely is correct. MagSafe 2 are only on the 2012 MacBook Air and the retina MacBook Pros, despite the fact that the MacBook Air chassis was more than fine with the classic MagSafe, and despite the fact that they could've easily outfitted it on the non-retina MacBook Pros. But really, that is fairly telling seeing as we will probably see original MagSafe adapters disappearing from shelves in the same way that 'Book G4 adapters did. Mind you, we have years before that happens, but still, it's obvious that original MagSafe is giving way to MagSafe 2 in the same vein that 'Book G4 chargers and ports gave way to original MagSafe.
Totally agree! Being able to upgrade doesn't just mean doing it in 2-3 years. Sure, you can "max out" a rMBP too, but it will cost you an arm and a leg, and the base version isn't cheap to begin with. The current base 15" cMBP (2.3 Ghz) can be upgraded with a 500GB SSD and 16GB of memory for less than $450 (3rd party, NOT Apple). You can't even get 500GB SSD in the base rMBP, you have to go to the next one up (2.6Ghz), and you tack on 16GB RAM (which you MUST do now if you ever want 16GB), and you're at $3k. Meanwhile, if I go refurbished, I can have 500GB SSD, 16GB RAM 15" cMBP for around $2K, and buy a 27" external TB display for still cheaper than a comparable rMBP.
It's nice having choices, but I too agree that these will soon be taken away if you want to buy a Mac.
I think Apple will only nix the cMBP when they can sell the rMBP starting around $1800 (15"), basically $100 or so higher than current prices of cMBP, and keep their profits margins. No way they nix the cMBP and leave the same price gap between MBA and rMBP.
They'll lower the rMBP cost fairly quickly, or at least as far as they can given the panels and the mSATA SSDs. Currently, a 15" rMBP is fairly price-competitive with a cMBP equipped with a stock Apple-provided SSD drive. The machine that most badly needs the price drop is the 13" retina, being the worst deal out of any currently-shipping MacBook-branded laptop.
Regarding OS X, now that we have annual updates, expect Apple to try to push users to upgrade their machines more often than in the past. Even Mountain Lion dropped some 2007 Mac Pros. Something else will probably be the cutoff long before 4GB vs 8GB or 8GB vs 16GB.
First off, I don't remember anyone from Apple saying that updates to OS X are going to be annual; I'm pretty sure this is speculation. That being said, from what I've gathered, Lion was treated by many in the IT/Computer-repair world as Apple's Windows Vista, with many avoiding it and sticking to Snow Leopard, which was regarded as Apple's Windows XP. The impression I got was that they got wind of that and wanted to move quickly to polish Lion with Mountain Lion.
As for the machines that could run Lion but not Mountain Lion, notice that all of those machines had either an ATI Radeon X1xxx graphics board/chip, an Intel GMA 950/X3100, or an NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (in the case of the base model from the first generation of Mac Pro). What do these graphics boards all have in common? They've been abandoned by their manufacturer in terms of driver support, and with Mountain Lion, Apple finally did away with the 32-bit x86 kernel in favor of only having the 64-bit x86 kernel.
With Leopard, Apple only had the 32-bit kernel. With Snow Leopard, Apple had both, but defaulted to the 32-bit kernel (but would allow those that could run the 64-bit kernel to boot into it). With Lion, Apple had both, but defaulted to the 64-bit kernel unless the Mac couldn't support it, in which case it'd still boot to the 32-bit kernel. With Mountain Lion they removed the 32-bit kernel in favor of only having the 64-bit one. Long story short, that's the only reason why those machines, especially that first generation Mac Pro, are not running Mountain Lion, as there isn't all that much in Mountain Lion that requires having that much more muscle than was required in Lion (hence the RAM requirement not going up).
As for the Air, I knew back in 2008 this is where Apple was heading. It is a very attractive form factor. Although those early models were flawed (though my late 2008 with SSD served me well), today the MBA and base rMBP have enough power for the vast majority of the Mac's target market.
The 13" rMBP is $200 more than a comparable cMBP, $337 if you factor in the Superdrive and Thunderbolt adapters for FireWire and Gigabit Ethernet if you need them. Most users probably won't need all of them, and there are cheap DVD drives available from just about anywhere for people who want one just in case. It is clearly a premium, but not "insane." There will be room for Apple to come down in price, but clearly now with limited supplies of displays the premium pricing is justified. Apple will probably attempt to ramp up demand gradually.
The 13" rMBP is the worst deal out of all the MacBooks currently shipping. Much worse than the 15" rMBP is relative to its classic non-retina unibody counterpart. And yes, I'd use the word insane to describe a machine that starts at $1699 (before any academic discounts are applied, of course) and lacks a graphics processor with discrete video RAM, second highest notebook resolution in the world or not.
Oh I agree with you 100%. When Apple introduced the retina they managed to raise the price on the cMBP without anyone noticing. Back in 2011 I was considering buying a new one and I remember doing the calculations on what I would want and it amounted to around $2300-$2400 total. Today the same MBP is $2600-$2700 and prices on RAM and SSD are substantially less.
Wait, I'm sorry, how did they raide the price on the cMBP this year? To the best of my knowledge, all they did to the cMBP line in terms of pricing was kill off the 17" model.
The one thing I disagree with you is that I wouldn't be getting the same exact thing if I jumped to the base retina. I highly value the ability to upgrade it and having the option of keeping the OOD or using the space for additional storage. And as much as everyone here things Ethernet is ancient I still prefer that over WiFi when possible.
Storage is upgradable in the retina, it's just not common. But if you have the right screw-drivers, it's even easier to upgrade than it is in the cMBP; albeit only by virtue of not having to transfer those T6 torx bolts and the pull tab from drive to drive. Really, the major bummer is the integrated RAM. On a MacBook Air, I'd find that acceptible. On a MacBook Pro, not so much.
Well with retina you get to keep the 256GB SSD if you upgrade via OWC, which is not too shabby either, so we'll call it even there.
The only thing I do miss is another drive slot, even if it is apple proprietary type. Rip out one battery cell and put another SSD there damn it!
I also prefer Ethernet. I have no idea why apple didn't make a combo FW800+Ethernet adapter. If you want both you use up all your TB ports... I know most of people NEVER need either of them, but some of us like them, and then are either forced to give one up or pay ridiculous prices for vaporware docks.
Another thing, due to improved thermals GPU on the rMBP is clocked slightly higher. (10-15% or so i believe)
1. If you upgrade your SSD on an rMBP and then you have to mail in your MacBook Pro to the depot for service, bye bye AppleCare. Otherwise, you're at the mercy of your local AASP or Apple Store to honor your warranty if they find a problem with an unrelated component. This is another advantage that the cMBP has over the rMBP.
2. I agree with your stance on Ethernet, provided I need to do a lot of downloading or file transferring (which I do a lot). When I don't do those things, I'd prefer the convenience of being wireless. Largely though, I agree with your pro-ethernet stance and think that purchasing a Thunderbolt to Gigabit Ethernet adapter should not be a necessity.
3. The GPU may be clocked higher on the rMBP, but the OS still doesn't know how to properly utilize the GPU(s) to draw the higher pixel density. So, it evens out.
OWC is expensive, yeah. I wonder whether anyone else will try to make a rMBP SSD module.
Well again, it depends. I work on power most of the time. I hope to regain with one extra TB port what I lost with one SATA port.
Apple or OWC prices yeah. Not that they're much different...
To be honest would that be any different than a TB>Ethernet dongle? In one way it makes sense to have only "customizable" ports on the machine - everybody connects what he wishes to connect. I wish they would just add one more TB port he he.
Really, I wish more people made rMBP and MBA SSD modules. I wish I could just go to Fry's and buy a vast selection of them there. Let me fend for myself for the screw driver if Apple wants to keep the illusion of preventing customers from gaining access to the inside of the machine they paid for.
Otherwise I agree completely, there should be a second SATA connection on that machine given the two that are in every other currently shipping non-Air/non-retina/non-MacPro Mac. Alas, thinness wins again. I also agree with your as-many-thunderbolt-ports as possible sentiment, though I believe that there Apple is limited by how many ports the Thunderbolt controller can support.
