Apple Quietly Discontinues MacBook Pro 17"

[GoKyu]

Originally Posted by zapnyc

bah.
I'm usually the guy who opposes the "Apple-is-abandoning-pros" talk.

But the 17" provides vital screen real estate for video and audio editing away from your normal desk locations. I don't want to carry a second monitor around for that.

I think Phil showed pretty convincingly (and maybe intended to, in a subtle way) that the new retina MBP has more than enough resolution to handle video editing - remember when he showed Final Cut and said "See that video area? It's 100% pixel for pixel accurate 1080 resolution" (paraphrasing)

That's probably also why it costs more - most consumers will likely buy only the 15" regular MBP if they want a screen that size ($1800), but the pros who truly need that kind of resolution (video editors/graphic designers) will pay to go retina.

[Lone Deranger]

Originally Posted by inscrewtable

I predict that the next macbook pro will rise again as a 17" retina model.

I'm quite confident it will.

[Nuvi]

Originally Posted by GoKyu

I think Phil showed pretty convincingly (and maybe intended to, in a subtle way) that the new retina MBP has more than enough resolution to handle video editing - remember when he showed Final Cut and said "See that video area? It's 100% pixel for pixel accurate 1080 resolution" (paraphrasing)

That's probably also why it costs more - most consumers will likely buy only the 15" regular MBP if they want a screen that size ($1800), but the pros who truly need that kind of resolution (video editors/graphic designers) will pay to go retina.

Some of you guys seem to have difficulty of grasping this Retina / HiDPI consept. Sure the video is native 1080p but see how little you can see the timeline and other GUI elements. This is because GUI elements are HiDPI and therefore double the size of normal elements. In real world on the road editing you really don't want this huge ass viewer since you want to minimise scrolling. So what you end up doing is setting the viewer to 50% and you still have those huge GUI elements. The workspace on Retina MB Pro is same as in normal MBP 15" (1440x900) when using HiDPI Retina elements on Retina MBP. If you choose not to use HiDPI then you'll lose the Retina effect and GUI elements are tiny. The hard cold fact is that if you want more working space then you need bigger screen with even higher resolution (if you want retina that is). Retina and HiDPI GUI elements have zero effect on adding more working space. It will only give you sharper image just like in iPhone or in 3rd gen iPad.

[joe schmoe]

Well after the news of the discontinued MBP 17" I ran down to our local Apple store and bought one of the last in stock...While I was there, the store sold 3 others...Guess more people wanted a 17" MBP than Apple thought...Oh well I didn't get USB 3.0 but I still have a 17" MBP with Thunderbolt!

[NeferNefer]

Originally Posted by joe schmoe

Well after the news of the discontinued MBP 17" I ran down to our local Apple store and bought one of the last in stock...While I was there, the store sold 3 others...Guess more people wanted a 17" MBP than Apple thought...Oh well I didn't get USB 3.0 but I still have a 17" MBP with Thunderbolt!

And as I just wrote, I saw the same thing here, but I was too late to get one.

But I guess it's too much to hope for, that Apple would think about that and reconsider discontinuing the 17".

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by macnerd93

its understandable, most people I know bought the 13'' and 15'' models, I don't think I knew anyone apart from my old college which actually owned a 17'' MBP. The retina MBP has more than enough resolution anyways

I used a 17'' of the old style (PowerBook looking) MBP's for a couple of days and although it was awesome on a desk it was rather clunky, heavy and awkward when moving around. I can imagine it being a pain to use as well on stuff like aircraft tray tables and what not lol.

Just going to point out resolution does not make up for a larger display and more screen space to put stuff.

[pb641]

I suppose it is possible that a 17" could be resurrected in the new thinner profile, but I won't keep my hopes up.

My use is strictly internet research and word porcessing, (certainly not high end). In my previous career, I was a freelance programmer/analyst, and even then, I told people that Mac OS were superior. So, after becoming completely blown away by my first iphone three years ago, I took the plunge and went 17" MBP.

It is so nice to have that much screen. I can truly view and read 2 documents at once, (for example, a picture of some evidence on the left and my questions and thoughts on the right). It is truly ridiculous toargue the same can be done on a 15". I'm a trial lawyer, and in the courtroom, I cannot stress how important it is to appear relaxed and confident as opposed to leaning into a 15" and straining to view text.

The size and weight arguement is worthless. I know many others that use the 17" platform, and we all just accept the fact that it is big. Between the MBP, my Saddleback bag, a few files and other essentials like the mag safe, I am probably carrying around 20 lbs, gladly.

Sure, the 17" was only 1% of sales, (read correctly that means direct sales). It absolutely does not take into account all of the secondary sales that resulted from the initial 17". Also, they never said that the 17" actually lost money.

All things considered, I have come to the conclusion that the idiots trying to fill Jobs' shoes have convinced themselves that people will purchase the 15" AND a separate external monitor. They will have assumed that people will simply put up with a smaller screen away from thier main workspace. Pay $1k for a dumb external display? Nope.

IF the 17" is gone, it will prove to be a very poor decision that will impact far more than 1% of thier sales. Perhaps its time for Apple to receive a wake up call.

[jsw]

As an FYI, the 17" is still available and in stock on Amazon (for now).

I love my 17", even though it's four years old now, and I will miss the larger screen. The size never really got to me, and while I readily admit the 13" (and 11") laptops can be used places the 17" cannot, the 15" isn't really any more usable than the 17".

However, I see this progress as inevitable. My hope is that portable displays will become more common and usable (an iPad is great, but using an iPad as an external display via wifi or USB just isn't responsive enough in many cases). Assuming they will, carrying an auxiliary display won't be any big deal and might be more useful than the single large 17" one.

[duffmanth]

I hardly see anyone with 17" laptops anymore, Apple or otherwise.

[Amazing Iceman]

I was upset when I first read about it, but I came to think that I hardly ever take my MBP on the road now that I have my iPad, so I use it more like a desktop.
The reason why I preferred a 17" MacBook Pro was not just resolution but display size. It's true, the retina display has a very high resolution, but you don't really gain any real estate, as fonts will now use more pixels to remain within a standard readable size.

[Atlantico]

Originally Posted by Nuvi

You won't get any additional screen space on Retina MBP. It's just like the old 1440x900 15" MBP but with more sharper graphics just like in the new iPad.

Exactly, it is amazing that people don't understand this -- and furthermore, if the UI elements were *not* doubled in size and one would use the full 2880x1800 resolution with the normal size UI elements, one would have "very good" screen real estate (sort of) but one would have to use a magnifying glass to use the computer!

Which makes it rather a pointless exercise.

The "retina" (220dpi is now "retina" apparently) display of the 15" MBAP (MacBookAirPro) gives exactly 0% more screen real estate, but one can indeed watch 1080p videos without any sort of scaling (pixel-true) on that monitor.

They take up the same screen real estate as a 540p video would.

[the-wanderer]

Originally Posted by Nuvi

In the clone era Power Computing, UMAX and couple of others were selling fully licensed HIGH END Mac clones. They were much faster then Apple's. In matter of fact Power Computing had fastest personal computer around Windows machines included. Eventually Steve Jobs killed the clones (Apple bought Power Computing) because Apple wasn't able to compete with then.

Interesting bit of history. If you can't compete, buy the competition and sell mediocrity. Sounds likes Jobs took a page from Gates' philosophy.

All my laptops have been number crunching, video converting machines. I compile from the git and use ffmpeg every day and use MBP because it has good compilers, posix, gcc, etc and good gui with Xcode. I'll never buy some lame, under-powered i-Anything. Compiled ffmpeg and had friend do a test on his iPad and MacAir. The heat nearly roasted his balls as it was on his lap.

[heyitsjimi]

I have a mid 2009 MacBook Pro. The main reason I bought it was for the express card slot. I had a 15" before. I quickly became addicted to the larger screen. I wouldn't want to be without it. I do audio.

Come on you guys, it's not all that big & clunky. It only weighs 5 something pounds . That's heavy ?? It fits in the same bag I carried the 15" in.

I also don't have any interest in not being able to pop in a CD or DVD.

I'll be looking to find a bargain on the former latest & greatest 17" from before this fiasco. eBay here I come.

[NeferNefer]

Originally Posted by aurichie

This simplified choice of either a 13" or 15" laptop for professionals is great news for consumers. I own a 17" MBP and it's too big and bulky to be useful as a portable. I am thrilled to see Apple innovations with the new retina display have made the discontinuation of the 17"er something to celebrate rather than despair.

Why is it important to you that other people with other needs, do not have a choice? Why can't you choose the size you like, if other people still can make a different choice?

I don't understand these flame comments.

[mscriv]

This new front page article states the following:

In looking at scaling, the report explains the new slider option in System Preferences that allows users to select from a spectrum of resolutions that include not only the 1440x900 resolution in Retina quality using the full 2880x1800 pixels, but also larger desktop spaces at 1920x1200 and 1680x1050.

* bold emphasis mine

I'll have to see this in person to judge, but even if the 15" can do 1920x1200 (native 17" resolution) I still think elements could seem too small or difficult to read. Like I said, I'll need to play around with one to get a good feel for it.

[nemesys]

Working with Xcode 4 with its new "all-in-one" layout, I find the 17" to be perfect for this. No need for an external monitor since the 17" screen has enough screen estate for everything I do in Xcode.

A real shame they discontinued it. I see that I'm not alone in preferring to have a larger/heavier laptop but that has enough screen that you can use it without needing an external monitor which I will very likely need to get if I ever have to upgrade to a new MacBook Pro.

[ThunderSkunk]

Originally Posted by aurichie

It just avoids confusion for customers. If you spent any time in the MacBook Pro forum on here, you'd see almost daily the same question should I buy the 15" or 17" MBP? Apple has made that decision for everyone now. I think it's a good thing.

That may be the most shortsighted opinion I've ever read on here.

[justperry]

Originally Posted by mscriv

This new front page article states the following:



* bold emphasis mine

I'll have to see this in person to judge, but even if the 15" can do 1920x1200 (native 17" resolution) I still think elements could seem too small or difficult to read. Like I said, I'll need to play around with one to get a good feel for it.

Yup

Supported resolutions: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels

But then again, it's on a smaller 15" display so the question is, will it be useable?
Everything on the screen is smaller and may not be readable by many former 17" users.

Hopefully they will get a 17" again when new displays become available.

[NeferNefer]

Originally Posted by aurichie

It just avoids confusion for customers. If you spent any time in the MacBook Pro forum on here, you'd see almost daily the same question should I buy the 15" or 17" MBP? Apple has made that decision for everyone now. I think it's a good thing.

I find it so hard to believe that you're actually serious with this comment.

And in my case, I feel like Apple has made the choice for me to start thinking about moving platforms. It's just another sign from Apple, that they don't care about high end users anymore.

And I've been a very loyal Apple user since 1994, recruiting others.

[henrik5]

If it's all about resolution, iPhone 4 should have four times as many icons on its app pages. I expect the retina display to be fantastic but for me as a developer, I expect to see less code onscreen the I do on my 17" MBP.

I don't think that the 17" model is dead. If it was dead, Apple might as well make the announcement. By not making that statement, they hope to sell more of the 15" retina version. I think that we'll see a retina 17" in a couple of months, hopefully with a faster GPU.

[ElGrecus]

I've owned two 17" MBPs. They are fantastic. I don't need a desktop machine and I do a lot of 3d modeling. I need the space. I don't want to hook up another monitor when I'm working at the coffee table in front of the TV, or on the road. Added resolution just means more squinting. A 2" x 3" monitor at 100,000,000 pixels by 120,000,000 pixels is STILL a 2" x 3" monitor.

Apple: no matte option on laptops? No purchase for me. I've been an Apple user since 1983. But the glossy monitors give me migraines. Until there is a matte option, I'll have to look elsewhere or go blind. Is this not enough proof?... http://macmatte.wordpress.com/

[binoctex]

So lets say we can put 1 trillion pixels in a iPhone display - would you be willing to use that as your professional working environment. Obviously not - its too small for professional use no matter how many pixels there are.

As a 17" owner - I need the physical screen size to do my work. This may not be the case for everyone - but it is for me. Period.

I picked up a 17" because I needed a professional workhorse that I didn't have to squint at to handle all my work including coding in Eclipse, video editing with Final Cut, Illustrator work, among others.

The 15" macbook pro has 106 (106.59572) square inches of display whereas the 17" macbook pro has 130 (130.23) square inches.

What does this mean? The 17" macbook pro has 22% MORE visible space to use. Any argument that tells me that I can do without it due to more pixels is missing the point entirely.

[Benbikeman]

Originally Posted by ThunderSkunk

That may be the most shortsighted opinion I've ever read on here.

And that's in the face of some pretty stiff competition!

[HasanDaddy]

Folks - go to the REFURBISHED store on Apple.com - many 17" still available, at discount, with matte screens!

I just ordered mine earlier today

17LIVES!!!!

[chaosbunny]

Originally Posted by CylonGlitch

That space is based on the resolution of the display, not on the size of the screen. The new 15" will give MORE screen real estate than the old 17".

But not without this optional accessory: