I have a 2017 MBP and I like the butterfly keyboard, I’ve been lucky not to have any issues. The only thing I hate about it is the noise level. It’s just too loud in quite area’s. It’s my only gripe. There’s no reason a laptop should make this much click clacking when typing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
16-Inch MacBook Pro Said to Launch in September With LCD and 3072x1920 Resolution
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My guess is even Apple doesn't fully understand why there are so much keyboard issues for some people. Even technicians (like this guy on reddit) don't have a deffinitive answer. The sticky behaviour and jammed key caps is one thing, but repeating or failing keys is completely another problem. I've had several repeating keys and they work fine now - no cleaning, no repair. Some guy commenting on reddit even said that the mechanism is so sensitive that a lost of issues may simply due to the very tight tolerances those small pieces need to have. Even this new material thing they introduced this year looks like they are trying to make the dome sturdier and more reliable in time without changing the design. My guess is there is a dust issue, because a broken key doesn't get better in time. Also moving the laptop around and while pressing the key improves it, which intrigues me.
I think these new keboards are fine for most people and, just like the Air Pods, sorry if they are not a good fit for you guys that can't stand it.
I think these new keboards are fine for most people and, just like the Air Pods, sorry if they are not a good fit for you guys that can't stand it.
I just bought a 15 inch. I don’t think I’ll be too upset. I’m sure it’ll cost more than the $2800 I spent.
[doublepost=1561464637][/doublepost]
Your generation feels better, at least in my opinion, than the newer generation.
The 17" had a resolution of 1920 by 1200. I really don't see the necessity to bring back that behemoth.
I'd rather take a 17" ipad pro for graphics work where the real-estate also translates into the input medium.
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Early 2006, January) Yonah 1,1
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Mid 2006, May) Yonah 1,1 * (4 m)
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Late 2006, October) Merom 2,2 (5 m)
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Mid/Late 2007, June) Merom 3,1 ** (8 m)
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Early 2008, February) Penryn 4,1 (8 m)
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Late 2008, October) Penryn 5,1 (8 m) <------- (32 months)
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Mid 2009, June) Penryn 5,3 & 5,4 ** (8 m)
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Mid 2010, April) Arrandale 6,2 (10 m)
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Early 2011, February) Sandy Bridge 8,2 (10 m)
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Late 2011, October) Sandy Bridge 8,2 ** (8 m)
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Mid 2012, June) Ivy Bridge 9,1 (8 m)
- MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2012, June) Ivy Bridge 10,1 (12 m) <------- (45 months)
- MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Early 2013, February) Ivy Bridge 10,1 * (8 m)
- MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Late 2013, October) Haswell 11,2 (8 m)
- MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2014, July) Haswell 11,2 * (9 m)
- MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015, May) Haswell 11,4 # (10 m)
- MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Late 2016, October) Skylake 13,3 (17 m) <------- (51 months)
- MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2017, June) Kaby Lake 14,3 (8 m)
- MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2018, July) Coffee Lake 15,1 & 15,3 (13 m)
- MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Early 2019, May) Coffee Lake 15,3 ** (10 m)
*: pure processor speedbump
**: processor speedbump plus other internal upgrades (faster/more bus/graphics/cores/battery)
#: 15" only more graphics, internal PCIe, battery vs 13" additionally got Broadwell (12,1)
That's fourteen calendar years and 21 models. In the hierarchy of how important the changes were, we have:
- 4x new case designs (one w/o new processor gen)
- 8x new processor generation (in the same case)
- 5x medium speedbumps (**)
- 3x minor speed bumps (*)
- 1x parallel release of retina & non-retina
The parallel release of an updated non-retina MBP and the retina MBP in 2012 cannot really be counted as two separate refreshes. That leaves us with twelve major(ish) refreshes in fourteen years plus eight speed bumps (it could have been 13 out of 14 if Intel had shipped suitable Broadwell chips for the 15" in 2015 when only the 13" got them or even 14 out of 14 if Intel had shipped a new generation in 2014). This number of twelve is also reflected in the major model numbers Apple has given them (the last number in each line).
---
But to your original question, we had 4 and 5-month deltas in 2006. We also had quite a number of 8-month deltas over the years (9x). But in addition to speedbumps when new processor generations aren't available Apple also sometimes covers a longer stretch of new updates by the addition of a new model (the year the 5K iMac got introduced, the rest of the iMac line didn't get any updates). So a 16" MBP in the fall could very well serve as something that diverts attention from the longer period until we get new case designs next year (while at the same time possibly giving us preview of new things that might come with that new case design next year).
I hope they will add the new NAVI GPU with lots of cores to compete against the 2080ti max Q card.
Some people want desktop replacements. That is what the 17” was. The 15” retina has higher resolution but less screen realestate. If you scale the resolution to increase the realestate everything becomes very small.
I currently have a 15”, previously a 17”. I’ve always felt restricted by the available screen realestate at the resolution I need to see things clearly.
what would you do?
return 2019 top spec MBP now? ($6k here in Aus), try to use iPad Pro 12.9 for 90 days or hire until this release?
It will be hard to be without a Mac for 90 days, but can't afford to invest in product that will soon HOPEFULLY be bettered.
return 2019 top spec MBP now? ($6k here in Aus), try to use iPad Pro 12.9 for 90 days or hire until this release?
It will be hard to be without a Mac for 90 days, but can't afford to invest in product that will soon HOPEFULLY be bettered.
I would have to say that the inevitable price jump to 16" would probably kill any future Macbook Pro purchases. I bought my first "full priced" refurbed MBP 2 years ago (got discounts for my previous 2) and it was a hard hit. The Surface Pro was a real contender back then. Add another $500 on it? Aye aye aye...
Okay, I'm not claiming this is anything other than wishful thinking, but here's a theory. Quite obviously, Apple targeted production houses and high-end, corporate professionals with the new Mac Pro—the price of entry is pretty clear evidence of that. However, there is a huge population of professionals, working freelance, project-to-project, or perhaps just doing more artistically-driven work, who cannot afford those machines, in any configuration (i.e., since the base price, with even a half-decent monitor, is around $6k). But it is quite possible that this latter group of professionals don't absolutely require a desktop, and may therefore be well served by a more legitimately "pro" laptop than the current MacBook Pro. That is, something that's easy to work on (larger screen), upgradable in the basic components (RAM and SSD), is more conducive to collaboration (ports, card reader), and doesn't absolutely shatter the bank to purchase. So, maybe they're thinking that the 16" MacBook Pro could be an ideal machine for the freelance/project-based professional (and/or "prosumer") market? I, for one, stopped requiring a desktop several years ago, and have been working on MacBook Pros since that time. Because I travel quite a bit, and can't justify the cost of having/maintaining a separate machine for project work, a laptop with an external display is the perfect solution.
As I said, wishful thinking, but at least there's some marketing sense to it. I mean, even if I had $6k for a new machine, I couldn't justify buying the new Mac Pro, because I'd still need a performant laptop... Of course, this theory doesn't explain what will happen to the current MacBook Pro, but Apple must know there's a market they're currently missing (or at least not serving well). No?
[doublepost=1561470414][/doublepost]
Yeah, I agree... I don't think they'd drop the 15" though. Honestly, I could see a thicker machine, targeted at professionals/prosumers, making sense. It would differentiate itself on being slightly less portable, but offering the ports/interfaces that the current MacBook Pro people don't feel they need. It would kinda make sense... I'd say the $500-800 increase of price isn't absolutely necessary either. They could leave out the Touch Bar, which pros haven't celebrated much at all (there are some nice things you can do in Logic, but I still rarely do them!), which would shave off some cost. Longer battery life, upgradable basics, and more of the ports we still need on a regular basis... Also, keep in mind that there's a price premium on thinness. So, there's a logic to a thicker 16" (even without getting rid of the current 15").
As I said, wishful thinking, but at least there's some marketing sense to it. I mean, even if I had $6k for a new machine, I couldn't justify buying the new Mac Pro, because I'd still need a performant laptop... Of course, this theory doesn't explain what will happen to the current MacBook Pro, but Apple must know there's a market they're currently missing (or at least not serving well). No?
[doublepost=1561470414][/doublepost]
Yeah, I agree... I don't think they'd drop the 15" though. Honestly, I could see a thicker machine, targeted at professionals/prosumers, making sense. It would differentiate itself on being slightly less portable, but offering the ports/interfaces that the current MacBook Pro people don't feel they need. It would kinda make sense... I'd say the $500-800 increase of price isn't absolutely necessary either. They could leave out the Touch Bar, which pros haven't celebrated much at all (there are some nice things you can do in Logic, but I still rarely do them!), which would shave off some cost. Longer battery life, upgradable basics, and more of the ports we still need on a regular basis... Also, keep in mind that there's a price premium on thinness. So, there's a logic to a thicker 16" (even without getting rid of the current 15").
Last edited:
As a former 17"- yes, I think a 16" retina with the possibility of scaled resolution might be a reasonable compromise for 'on-the-road' use.
However, when used as a machine that mainly shuttled between desktops, the 17" screen was large enough to be useful at 'arms-length' distances as a second screen when paired with an external display. I used mine a lot on an "elevator" stand with an external keyboard and mouse.
Also, compared to its contemporaries, the 17" wasn't entirely about screen size: it kept the ExpressCard slot and offered an extra USB port. Also, like its contemporaries it had an easily & economically upgradable hard drive and the useful (if unofficial) option of replacing the optical drive with a second hard drive. While those particular features probably aren't relevant in 2019, if this is going to be a 'MacBook ReallyPro" then it could/should offer things that the 15" can't. One justification for a physically larger machine is that it should be all you need to carry - having a smaller machine at the expense of having to carry around external drives and hubs is silly.
One major pain with the current MBPs is that the only internal storage is a single, eye-wateringly fast but eye-wateringly expensive proprietary SSD. If you need to carry a TB or two of files around with you then some option for cheaper, built-in bulk storage would be good.
A couple of extra ports (look, they can be USB-C if you really insist) would help when the number of devices rather than bandwidth was an issue - avoiding the otherwise nearly compulsory hub/dock.
A slightly bigger case would improve cooling, reduce thermal throttling and possibly improve battery life (unless its been changed back in the newer models, the 2016 MBP re-design actually shrunk the battery).
What are the ports you need on a regular basis? I have 3 dongles on my 2016 and before that i had just one for my 2013 MBP. And that's just my choice, i'm sure i could get different dongles and just have 2 (one of them is ethernet which the 2013 model also didn't have). If you need a lot of ports it would make sense to have a dock, so your laptop doesn't look like an octopus. I think people forget that laptops are meant to be carried around and a lot of people use them as they are, not with 10 things plugged in. Why would a few hundred $ matter for people who do professional work with gear that costs a lot more than these laptops?
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
That's why I said "Apple rarely backpedals".
Apple has tried to "fix" the keyboard on the MBPs FOUR times, and for FOUR years.
I'm with you, I hope that they redesign the whole thing, but I just don't get my hopes up in expecting Apple to give us what we wanted.
The Mac Pro is the greatest evidence of this. The new machine is NOT (really) what Pros were asking for (instead, it is SERIOUS overkill for everyone but the highest of ends customers). It is better than the Tube, but as always, with Apple it's one step forward, three or four steps back.
The MacBook Air is another example of getting something we wanted, and losing a HELL OF A LOT that we DID NOT want to lose.
Still, my fingers and toes are crossed that Apple gets its head out of its own chute for this one.
If Apple were to produce a new generation 17" MBP, it would be substantially lighter and smaller due to the absence of a DVD player/writer, smaller battery and internal electronics that are smaller now due to tech advances.
I actually kind of feel sorry for them. A comedian had a joke about driving that went something like if someone is going 1 mph faster than you they're a dangerous maniac and if they're 1 mph slower they some old geezer holding up traffic. At least with the new Mac Pro you can't complain they don't have something "Pro" enough. Most "Pro's" just realized they weren't as "Pro" as they thought (myself included).
[doublepost=1561487175][/doublepost]I personally think Apple is big enough that they could/should probably have something for everyone. They definitely aren't doing that with monitors and although I personally don't want a 12 lb laptop with 10gb ethernet built in some people might. The problem a lot of times is people say they want this + that + the other but even if Apple made that exact thing they wouldn't buy it.
FWIW, the 3K display is already near 300 dpi. Higher resolutions just require more power and more powerful GPUs to get the same result, while Apple will "descale" the GUIs for most Apps anyway. A post I saw in this thread is the only true justification I see for 4K @ 16" - they want to watch 4K and Full-HD movies full screen without scaling artifacts. But for perspective, I'm absolutely loving my high end 32" Pro monitor and it's only 2,560 x 1,600 resolution.
[doublepost=1561490319][/doublepost]
Yes, a 20% larger area should result in at most a 20% weight gain, about 4.8 pounds max. (Less if you shrink the battery to the 15" size.) As people learn to live with less, they forget just how amazing the 17" experience was. I kept my 2010 17" alive as long as possible, and every single time I opened it, compared to my 15" it was a breath taking moment - it was hard to remember just how much better it was. It's not just relative - there's an absolute productivity edge that starts around 17" for a monitor and peaks at 20". I didn't mind at all that it weighed 6.5 pounds in my backpack for what I was getting.
It's funny that $50 billion Apple could afford to support 17" customers. $200 billion Apple can't afford it. Maybe it's due to how they define "failure"? Maybe they just need to peel off a special group like they did for the Mac Pro?
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
Funny thing is, Apple is doing what people want with the iPad. It just took 10 years.
But you are right about the Mac Pro.
It's funny to me how with the Mac Pro Apple was like: "Here you go. ****. Oh, you can't afford it? That's your problem! You WANT it though, right?"
I agree Apple is in a position to fill the gaps in their lineup. I just don't understand why they leave that market share and/or revenue on the table for others to grab. Perhaps they ran the numbers and they determined it's not worth it.
A laptop like the 2011 cMBPs or even the 2012 Retinas with updated internals would make a lot of people happy. A screen-less, modular iMac would do the same. But oh well.
I believe that's called True Tone. You can turn it off in the settings.
There's a speed bump upgrade between these:
- MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2009, March) Penryn 5,1 * (5m)