16-Inch MacBook Pro Said to Launch in September With LCD and 3072x1920 Resolution

[rogerchuji]

I do miss the old days 17" MacBook Pro...

 

[smetvid]

Lets focus on the Input side of the issue. USB-C has its place but USB-A is still needed and many hate the dongle solution when in the field. When one is home then a USB-C hub makes sense! That offers the time one is likely to need a HDMI or other external video output.

A portable system should not be encumbered with lots of loose pieces, i.e. no dongles! Apple missed it! If they had kept 2 USB-A ports things would have been different. I still would like to see both a SD slot and Ethernet.

I totally get that but the direction apple went with makes the MBP much more future proof. Eventually USB-A will get old. Maybe not tomorrow or a few years from now but eventually it will be. You also do not need a large hub.

https://www.amazon.com/nonda-Adapte...r&qid=1561656904&s=gateway&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1

These are pretty small and affordable. I bought two and they work great and take up little to no space in a bag. You can likely even leave one plugged into the MBP and still fit it in a bag. I realize people are lazy but plugging in a tiny $9 adapter as some sort of effort is a new low for humanity. I just see this as a non issue and such a 1st world problem to have that isn't even a problem. It is an annoyance for lazy people.
[doublepost=1561657342][/doublepost]

I would guess these will be Xeon Processors or starting at high end i9 series and moving truly into a Workstation class machine with HDR and screen specs to show it. I would guess the starting price at 2999-3499.

HDR would be nice and would make the system worth it over the previous 15" for those that need a true HDR display for professional color grading work. Can TFT even be HDR? I really question the TFT part of the rumor. I personally don't think TFT is a horrible choice but it isn't exactly know for color and brightness range which is needed for a true HDR display capable of grading rec2020 color.

 

[theorist9]

The 3072x1920 resolution mentioned in the article sounds a lot like a normal 15,6" retina MBP screen + a few more pixels on each side (pushing the screen more towards the borders, probably similar phyical form factor). Maybe they'll be adding rounded corners, or even a notch (I hope not). With that resolution, these things likely won't protrude into the existing 2880x1800 screen area, so they could market it as "additional space" compared to the previous model.

I could even imagine that the machine would fall back to 2880x1800 for full-screen games or boot camp, which expect the screen to be rectangular.



Meanwhile, in the real world, rarely a week goes by without someone complaining about their flakey HDMI-dongles when doing a presentation with their touchbar MBP.

I wonder what makes you say that "The rest of us (millions) really, really don’t."? How do you know? There is no "one group" of pro users. That's something Apple seems to have forgotten for a while as well, but at least they seem to slowly recognize this again, see most Mac designs that came after the touchbar MBP and the formation of the pro workflow team.

Everyone I know who uses a touchbar MBP for work would love to have an HDMI port on the thing because USB-C on projectors is not a thing in the real-world, and won't be for years to come (back when the touchbar MBP came out in 2016, it wasn't even that uncommon to only find VGA in customer's offices).

The USB-C future we were promised sadly isn't here yet. Not today, and not in the forseeable future. And while people who use something like a Macbook Air at home might not need much wired connectivity, a lot of pro users sure do. Many people still need to use ports like HDMI or USB-A devices regularly. Even an SD-Card reader can useful for more than just transfering media files (e.g. embedded systems often use SD cards as a storage medium).

I'm not saying that Apple will bring back those ports, but I think it's very clear at this point that Apple was too quick to ditch all those ports and it has resulted in a lot of user frustration over the past couple of years.


First of all: Not all retina macs have exactly 218ppi.

Also: "retina" (as defined by Apple) depends on what distance you're using your device at. That's why iPhones have had >300ppi retina screens for years, iPads are usually below 300ppi and Macs closer to 200ppi. So there's no reason why a laptop needs to have the same PPI as a 27" or even 32" display. You're usually sitting much closer to the laptop.

Back in the days before the first retina MBP, you could get an optional 1680x1050 screen on the 15" model, but when they switched to retina, they pixel-doubled the original 1440x900 resolution. You can get a "virtual" pixel-doubled 1680x1050 of course, by using a scaled mode on the Macbook Pro (which is what many people use, and to my knowledge Apple even ships as the default setting on newer models). But while these scaling modes look decent enough, there is definitely a slight loss of sharpness compared to running the "native" retina resolution.

So for me (and many others who use the 1680x1050 scaled mode), the ideal resolution for this machine would be 3360x2100.

Exactly right. HDMI is the most typical input for projectors, and it's always best (i.e., gives the most reliable operation) if you can avoid an external converter.

 

[theorist9]

250k/year suggests it will be super expensive.

Real screen size will be close to the old 17 inch, 15 inch might get slightly smaller with next update.

The target demand is listed as 250K/month => 3M/year, which is actually surprisingly large. Let's assume these go for an average of $3000. That's $9B in annual revenue, which is more than 1/3 of the current ~$25B annual revenue of the entire Mac division.

 

[DanBig]

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.

I hear you!

The new Mac Pro is for serious video/sound/engineering. There is a strong market for this level of system but its in the clouds for many.

It's way too heavy for the working photographers and even coders. While we want the CPU's we don't need the 1.5 TB of RAM! And we don't need two dual slot GPU solution. The Afterburner board might be useful with different microcode.

I'm hoping a smaller desktop version shows up in the fall. Basically, going back like the older Quadra 840AV tower and the Quadra 650 as a reference of concept.

 

[Detnator]

Yes, it is a big deal.

The alternative is a bigger deal/problem.

 

[Detnator]

I think it will be clear in a few years that the decision for Apple to drop the headphone jack on the iPhone and the majority of the ports on the MBP was simply a choice to save $ on parts where they thought they could, not for any improved benefit to the user. For all the credit they wanted to hand themselves, it is funny to see where the industry and market went. The other high end competitors dropped the headphone jack... and also saw the same plateauing of sales in subsequent high-end models. Meanwhile, many mid-tier Android phones and older iPhone models with headphone jacks continued to sell surprisingly well into 2019 (Moto line, iPhone 6 in India, and the recent quick sellout of iPhone SE models).

As for the laptops: why didn't any of the major Windows laptop manufacturers follow suit and ditch the old ports? Because they obviously sell well enough where they don't have to strip the devices in an attempt to shake more pennies into the profit column. I'm sure HP, Dell, et al would have loved to have been able to lower costs by removing ethernet, USB-A and SD card slots if they didn't think it would truly affect their appeal to users.

This makes me laugh - and not in a good way.

Apple’s decision to replace all the older ports for the bleeding edge Thunderbolt 3 has its pros and cons but anyone who really believes they did it to save money is out of touch with reality.

Thunderbolt is expensive, and not because of Apple. The extra two thunderbolt ports plus the corresponding internal I/O to support them is more expensive than the sum of all the older ports they’re replacing.

Have an opinion on how the decision impacts your own use and the merits of that, if you want, but this post about the reasons being financial is complete nonsense.

 

[theorist9]

USB-C/thunderbolt does everything HDMI does, only better.

Alas, that's not the case in practice. My 2014 MBP has both HDMI and thunderbolt ports. I sometimes use a projector when I lecture, and most offer HDMI rather than thunderbolt inputs. HDMI is certainly not perfect, but thunderbolt -> HDMI gives me connection issues much more often than HDMI->HDMI. That's not the fault of thunderbolt per se, which probably is inherently superior to HDMI; rather, the general principle is that you are safer if you can avoid a conversion step. Since many of these projectors are expensive and have long lifetimes, this will continue to be an issue.

If your computer is purely for personal use, this isn't as much of an issue, since you only need to connect with your own devices, and those you have control over. But if it's for professional use, you may need to connect to other's devices, and the devices they use are typically out of your control.

 

[Detnator]

I hear you!

The new Mac Pro is for serious video/sound/engineering. There is a strong market for this level of system but its in the clouds for many.

It's way too heavy for the working photographers and even coders. While we want the CPU's we don't need the 1.5 TB of RAM! And we don't need two dual slot GPU solution. The Afterburner board might be useful with different microcode.

I'm hoping a smaller desktop version shows up in the fall. Basically, going back like the older Quadra 840AV tower and the Quadra 650 as a reference of concept.

Except those machines nearly bankrupted Apple while Apple has gone from strength to strength financially and in market share in comparison, ever since Steve came back and pushed the all-in-one solution in that price range that has been the iMac and now iMac Pro all these years.

Everyone complains about Tim, and this Mac Pro is another reason for people to do so. But for almost all of Steve’s entire tenure it was no different. He refused to release the “headless iMac” that “everyone” was asking for - a tower in the price range the iMac sat. Since the early 2000’s it’s been the same story - (headless) Mac mini at low end, (headless) Power Mac and Mac Pro at high end. And all-in-one iMac in between.*

That was always Steve’s vision, for whatever reason. And whatever his reasons were, we really can’t argue much,because they’re part of what saved and now made Apple what it is.

Those Quadras were a favorite of mine, personally, and I do wish they’d make something similar. But after 20 years of wishing that, I’m not holding my breath. And given their success, I guess I can’t argue with the decision.


*Then there was the Cube but that’s another story - a Power Mac without the expansion but still the same price tag.

 

[theorist9]

Except those machines nearly bankrupted Apple while Apple has gone from strength to strength financially and in market share in comparison, ever since Steve came back and pushed the all-in-one solution in that price range that has been the iMac and now iMac Pro all these years.

Everyone complains about Tim, and this Mac Pro is another reason for people to do so. But for almost all of Steve’s entire tenure it was no different. He refused to release the “headless iMac” that “everyone” was asking for - a tower in the price range the iMac sat. Since the early 2000’s it’s been the same story - (headless) Mac mini at low end, (headless) Power Mac and Mac Pro at high end. And all-in-one iMac in between.*

That was always Steve’s vision, for whatever reason. And whatever his reasons were, we really can’t argue much,because they’re part of what saved and now made Apple what it is.

Those Quadras were a favorite of mine, personally, and I do wish they’d make something similar. But after 20 years of wishing that, I’m not holding my breath. And given their success, I guess I can’t argue with the decision.


*Then there was the Cube but that’s another story - a Power Mac without the expansion but still the same price tag.

This is an interesting analysis. But note that, during the 2000's (a time during which Apple prospered and grew), Apple did indeed offer an upgradeable headless Mac tower (the PowerMac G5) in roughly the same price range as the larger iMac (or, if you prefer, in the sort of price range folks are clamoring for today). For instance, take 2004. The 20" iMac G5 (with a single 1.8 GHz processor) started at $1900, and the PowerMac G5 started at $2000 (with dual 1.8 GHz processors). Granted, the PowerMac at the top end cost more. I chose that particular year as an example because I actually bought that $2000 PowerMac (I needed it for scientific work). Today the larger iMac starts at $2300, so if Apple offered the equivalent to what was available in 2004, there would be a headless, upgradeable tower that starts at ~$2400. That's what many are looking for. Apple did offer it in the 2000's, but not today.

Conversely, if Apple's product structure in 2004 were like it is now, my lab would not have been able to afford to purchase the workstation I needed from Apple. There would have been a 20" iMac for $1900, and a workstation starting at ~$5000.

I think it's great (and necessary) that they made a true high-end machine, but the pro market is not monolithic—it's not one size fits all. Vendors that specialize in providing workstations for the pro market (e.g., Boxx, and the professional divisions of Dell and HP) recognize this as obvious. They thus all offer both a high-end and a mid-range form factor. Apple's now got the former covered, but not the latter.

 

[alfiefalfie]

Hi, im a longtime macrumors reader, soon after think secret was shut down. so like, 15 years? Don't think I've posted any comments until now, but this machine I have gives me a lot to say; thanks for any insight, also love to know what you all think of the future of the MBP!

I've been watching the MBP product line for a while now, but I can't get myself to spend more than $2400 for a computer that is effectively static... I'm in analytics and visualizations, and I LOVE my Mac and iPhone, but some apps I use are windows, so I use Parallels (ps, open to recs on an alternate, its not resource savvy).My current Mac is the Late 2011 15" MBP, yes the one with the graphics issue, and apparently some overheating I'm not sure how to fix... it makes my Mac useless for data work. I also may need to replace the battery? the dude I got this dud from said it was new and the cycle count said 30-ish, but I've only been getting at most 3 hours of operation; additionally my machine keeps getting hot and shutting down and now the status updated to Service Battery... *sigh* idk if replacing it will fix any of the symptoms.

anyhow, I want to get a new, properly functioning machine to fulfill my personal and professional life, and the MacBook Pro 15 is really the best fit. Since im not about to hang out with 16gb of ram for the life of my comp, I would want to max out the specs.... but ****, $3000 for i7-6 core, 32GB Ram, 512 SSD and NO ABILITY TO UPGRADE or REPLACE? How is that a professional product? I dont need razor thin, who asked for that? I dont need the touch bar, when is that going away?! give me a slightly thicker machine with upgradable member and SSD, function keys and a NUMBER PAD and I will spend that money gladly!

In the meantime, I opted to hang onto my MBP for fun **** and get a Lenovo P1 for work; 6 cores, 16GB Ram (in one of 2 DIMMS, up to 64GB, I can get another 16 stick for $60 and have a workhorse), 512 SSD, no number pad but the whole machine was $1500! Replaceable battery, full suite of ports.. this feels pro to me. why does Cupertino keep missing the needs of pros?

maybe theres a plan for this, maybe they dont care. but I will not buy another Mac that A) lacks the ability to upgrade memory or storage and B) cannot have failed memory or storage repaired/replaced. Oh, and the delicious Mac Pro is a no.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

This makes me laugh - and not in a good way.

Apple’s decision to replace all the older ports for the bleeding edge Thunderbolt 3 has its pros and cons but anyone who really believes they did it to save money is out of touch with reality.

Thunderbolt is expensive, and not because of Apple. The extra two thunderbolt ports plus the corresponding internal I/O to support them is more expensive than the sum of all the older ports they’re replacing.

Have an opinion on how the decision impacts your own use and the merits of that, if you want, but this post about the reasons being financial is complete nonsense.

You sure about that? I would think that engineering, manufacturing, sourcing, and assembly costs all take a nosedive when you only have to deal with one type of port than the combination of each.

Still, I get the move towards simplicity, even if I think it is (or was) a bit early.

Anyone with a pre-TBMBP could possibly wait this out until the industry catches up and/or skip this gen of MacBooks altogether (like I am).

 

[DanBig]

Except those machines nearly bankrupted Apple while Apple has gone from strength to strength financially and in market share in comparison, ever since Steve came back and pushed the all-in-one solution in that price range that has been the iMac and now iMac Pro all these years.

Everyone complains about Tim, and this Mac Pro is another reason for people to do so. But for almost all of Steve’s entire tenure it was no different. He refused to release the “headless iMac” that “everyone” was asking for - a tower in the price range the iMac sat. Since the early 2000’s it’s been the same story - (headless) Mac mini at low end, (headless) Power Mac and Mac Pro at high end. And all-in-one iMac in between.*

That was always Steve’s vision, for whatever reason. And whatever his reasons were, we really can’t argue much,because they’re part of what saved and now made Apple what it is.

Those Quadras were a favorite of mine, personally, and I do wish they’d make something similar. But after 20 years of wishing that, I’m not holding my breath. And given their success, I guess I can’t argue with the decision.


*Then there was the Cube but that’s another story - a Power Mac without the expansion but still the same price tag.

If you put your self in the wayback machine you'll realize the issue was not the hardware it was the marketing and the way Apple back then sold their systems.

 

[DanBig]

You sure about that? I would think that engineering, manufacturing, sourcing, and assembly costs all take a nosedive when you only have to deal with one type of port than the combination of each.

Still, I get the move towards simplicity, even if I think it is (or was) a bit early.

Anyone with a pre-TBMBP could possibly wait this out until the industry catches up and/or skip this gen of MacBooks altogether (like I am).

Well the truth is somewhere between ... There is only one chip and a few discreet caps & resistors per each two Thunderbolt ports. Given the fact the PCH has all of the logic for USB 3.1 and Ethernet (minus the transformers) onboard. So the costs are more for the added Intel JHL7540 Thunderbolt 3 controllers (x2) which is not that much!

The reason Apple pushed this was to push Thunderbolt forward as a technology.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

Hi, im a longtime macrumors reader, soon after think secret was shut down. so like, 15 years? Don't think I've posted any comments until now, but this machine I have gives me a lot to say; thanks for any insight, also love to know what you all think of the future of the MBP!

I've been watching the MBP product line for a while now, but I can't get myself to spend more than $2400 for a computer that is effectively static... I'm in analytics and visualizations, and I LOVE my Mac and iPhone, but some apps I use are windows, so I use Parallels (ps, open to recs on an alternate, its not resource savvy).My current Mac is the Late 2011 15" MBP, yes the one with the graphics issue, and apparently some overheating I'm not sure how to fix... it makes my Mac useless for data work. I also may need to replace the battery? the dude I got this dud from said it was new and the cycle count said 30-ish, but I've only been getting at most 3 hours of operation; additionally my machine keeps getting hot and shutting down and now the status updated to Service Battery... *sigh* idk if replacing it will fix any of the symptoms.

anyhow, I want to get a new, properly functioning machine to fulfill my personal and professional life, and the MacBook Pro 15 is really the best fit. Since im not about to hang out with 16gb of ram for the life of my comp, I would want to max out the specs.... but ****, $3000 for i7-6 core, 32GB Ram, 512 SSD and NO ABILITY TO UPGRADE or REPLACE? How is that a professional product? I dont need razor thin, who asked for that? I dont need the touch bar, when is that going away?! give me a slightly thicker machine with upgradable member and SSD, function keys and a NUMBER PAD and I will spend that money gladly!

In the meantime, I opted to hang onto my MBP for fun **** and get a Lenovo P1 for work; 6 cores, 16GB Ram (in one of 2 DIMMS, up to 64GB, I can get another 16 stick for $60 and have a workhorse), 512 SSD, no number pad but the whole machine was $1500! Replaceable battery, full suite of ports.. this feels pro to me. why does Cupertino keep missing the needs of pros?

maybe theres a plan for this, maybe they dont care. but I will not buy another Mac that A) lacks the ability to upgrade memory or storage and B) cannot have failed memory or storage repaired/replaced. Oh, and the delicious Mac Pro is a no.

I hear you. I just paid $650 to repair my 2012 15" hi-res (display replacement). I also have my favorite, a 2011 17" with a bad graphics card that is unrepairable, as it is obsolete (according to Apple). I have to manually set the machine to use the integrated graphics whenever I reboot it or when it crashes due to the automatic graphics switching software. I also reattached the plastic screen cover with command strips because the three times I tried to use the correct adhesive strips it refused to stay on. But I replaced the HDDs on both with a 1TB SSD at $100 each, and boy do I need NOTHING else.

Sadly, the Apple we got is not the Apple we want.

And by 'we' I mean those of us who want to 'pop the hood', keyboards with better travel and reliability, and the ability to fly dongle-less today.

So it may be decision time for you.

The way I see it, by the time these 2 machines die Apple should have done at least one more redesign of the MBP. By that point I believe that USB-C will be ubiquitous (it almost is), cloud storage will be relatively inexpensive (right now it's $10 a month for 2TB), and 5G connectivity will mitigate the lack of (inexpensive) onboard storage.

Hell, by that time an iPad Pro may serve me better. The deal is, the Apple ecosystem is so overwhelmingly better than anything out there aside from the most die-hard do-it-yoursefer setups, that I just don't see me leaving it.

Apple would have to ROYALLY screw up, and despite everything that angers me about Apple (and it's a LOT), I just don't see that happening.

 

[SoSickSadNslOw]

Should we tell him about the keyboard issues?

I am fully aware of that and so far I haven’t seen anything out of the ordinary ‘touch wood’. Then there is the Keyboard programme which covers me for 4 years so I’m not really fussed!

 

[Apathy Overdose]

Looks incredible!

 

[smetvid]

Hi, im a longtime macrumors reader, soon after think secret was shut down. so like, 15 years? Don't think I've posted any comments until now, but this machine I have gives me a lot to say; thanks for any insight, also love to know what you all think of the future of the MBP!

I've been watching the MBP product line for a while now, but I can't get myself to spend more than $2400 for a computer that is effectively static... I'm in analytics and visualizations, and I LOVE my Mac and iPhone, but some apps I use are windows, so I use Parallels (ps, open to recs on an alternate, its not resource savvy).My current Mac is the Late 2011 15" MBP, yes the one with the graphics issue, and apparently some overheating I'm not sure how to fix... it makes my Mac useless for data work. I also may need to replace the battery? the dude I got this dud from said it was new and the cycle count said 30-ish, but I've only been getting at most 3 hours of operation; additionally my machine keeps getting hot and shutting down and now the status updated to Service Battery... *sigh* idk if replacing it will fix any of the symptoms.

anyhow, I want to get a new, properly functioning machine to fulfill my personal and professional life, and the MacBook Pro 15 is really the best fit. Since im not about to hang out with 16gb of ram for the life of my comp, I would want to max out the specs.... but ****, $3000 for i7-6 core, 32GB Ram, 512 SSD and NO ABILITY TO UPGRADE or REPLACE? How is that a professional product? I dont need razor thin, who asked for that? I dont need the touch bar, when is that going away?! give me a slightly thicker machine with upgradable member and SSD, function keys and a NUMBER PAD and I will spend that money gladly!

In the meantime, I opted to hang onto my MBP for fun **** and get a Lenovo P1 for work; 6 cores, 16GB Ram (in one of 2 DIMMS, up to 64GB, I can get another 16 stick for $60 and have a workhorse), 512 SSD, no number pad but the whole machine was $1500! Replaceable battery, full suite of ports.. this feels pro to me. why does Cupertino keep missing the needs of pros?

maybe theres a plan for this, maybe they dont care. but I will not buy another Mac that A) lacks the ability to upgrade memory or storage and B) cannot have failed memory or storage repaired/replaced. Oh, and the delicious Mac Pro is a no.

Pro for you is not pro for the next person. What exactly does pro mean? I know a ton of artists, designers, film makers and app developers that just don't want to mess with upgrading a machine.

The desire to upgrade ones own machine is actually not pro at all. A lot of corporate clients and content creators don't want to mess with upgrades or their own repairs. They want a machine that works well land doesn't get in the way of their craft. If it breaks and isn't under warranty then they move on to the next machine. The need for one to do their own upgrades is not a pro thing but a budget thing. A pro would want to move on to the latest CPU, GPU and storage technologies every couple of years. vs adding ram to a outdated and slow machine. A computer that struggles with the CPU and GPU isn't going to suddenly work better with more ram. Thats why a lot of pros would rather move on every couple of years. Statistically Apple knows in all the years when Macs could upgrade ram very few people actually did it. I'm not talking a small snapshot of forum members that like that sort of thing but a percentage of hundreds of thousands of MBPs sold. Most pros in fact just don't want to mess with that sort of thing.

We would all like a MBP with upgradable ram and storage but honestly I just don't think it would have a ton of impact on most users. I have a 2011 17" that I upgraded the ram to 16gb and the CPU and GPU and ports still suck. At work I use a 2014 MBP with 16gb of ram and develop mobile apps and rarely run out of memory. Moving to 32gb would not have a lot of impact on what I do and the CPU would still take just as long to compile a build of an app.

Storage is easy to update today thanks to thunderbolt 3 which can be adapted to just about anything.

If you actually need 32gb then get 32gb and try to cut the cost somewhere else like a lower end CPU or with only 256GB of SSD storage vs the 512GB. Also look into the refurbished to help offset the cost of the 32gb. Assuming you can find one with 32gb of ram.

 

[kp98077]

Ive heard on some of the reviews apple will release a 12" 14" and 16", wondering how much truth there is too that? guess that will make the 15 almost absolute? and 13? seems strange? So hard to know if I should return or keep this 15" now... ugh apple!

 

[theorist9]

There's an inconsistency in your post. On the one hand you make a monolithic pronouncement about pros...

The desire to upgrade ones own machine is actually not pro at all.

...and on the other you acknowledge pros are not monolithic -- that there's a range of pro users:

Pro for you is not pro for the next person.

Hence your first statement is not broadly correct. While there are pros that don't want to upgrade, there are many that need upgradability, particularly the ability to add storage, and to upgrade GPUs (which obsolete faster than CPUs). Indeed, Apple brought in a "pro workflow team", who advised them on what they wanted, and this is the result.

Note also the quotes from pro users in this article, e.g.: "I want something between the tower Mac Pros of the past and the trashcan," says Kenneth Bolido, who leads video production at Overclock Media for the popular technology-focused Austin Evans YouTube channel. "Ideally we get more modularity, being able to upgrade the CPU and GPU in addition to RAM and storage." [https://mashable.com/article/what-professionals-really-want-from-new-mac-pro/]

 

[Detnator]

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").

I’d say I agree with almost all of this, except I’d be very surprised if they bring back any of the older ports to a Mac laptop even if this thing has the space for them. Rightly or wrongly I just don’t think Apple wants to go that way. They really want to push this USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 thing. Personally, I think that’s still a good idea, even though there’s some pain along the way.

I’ve had a lot of issues with TB3 ports, but there are solutions to that I think. Those issues aside, I personally like this “one port to rule them all” concept in principle, and I’d like to see the market hurry up and properly catch up. I’m sure I’ll get flamed for this idea but perhaps Apple needs to pull all the other ports from ALL their machines (including lightning on iDevices) and go all out USB-C on everything. Over time, it would be harder for the market (including projectors, cameras, etc) to hold on to other stuff if Apple did that. Though I suspect it would still take a while. But the pain here is the disconnect between those ports and the market. The market needs to hurry up and catch up.

That aside, if they can make this machine a beast in performance (eg. iMac Pro level at least - which the maxed out 2019 i9 15” MBP isn’t far off already) in a well cooled device, at a reasonable price, it could definitely bridge that gap just below the new Mac Pro. I for one would jump on that in a heartbeat. Although admittedly, I’m probably going to jump on this in a heartbeat anyway unless there’s any of it that’s a step down from a maxed out 2019 i9 15”.

 

[Detnator]

Hi, im a longtime macrumors reader, soon after think secret was shut down. so like, 15 years? Don't think I've posted any comments until now, but this machine I have gives me a lot to say; thanks for any insight, also love to know what you all think of the future of the MBP!

I've been watching the MBP product line for a while now, but I can't get myself to spend more than $2400 for a computer that is effectively static... I'm in analytics and visualizations, and I LOVE my Mac and iPhone, but some apps I use are windows, so I use Parallels (ps, open to recs on an alternate, its not resource savvy).My current Mac is the Late 2011 15" MBP, yes the one with the graphics issue, and apparently some overheating I'm not sure how to fix... it makes my Mac useless for data work. I also may need to replace the battery? the dude I got this dud from said it was new and the cycle count said 30-ish, but I've only been getting at most 3 hours of operation; additionally my machine keeps getting hot and shutting down and now the status updated to Service Battery... *sigh* idk if replacing it will fix any of the symptoms.

anyhow, I want to get a new, properly functioning machine to fulfill my personal and professional life, and the MacBook Pro 15 is really the best fit. Since im not about to hang out with 16gb of ram for the life of my comp, I would want to max out the specs.... but ****, $3000 for i7-6 core, 32GB Ram, 512 SSD and NO ABILITY TO UPGRADE or REPLACE? How is that a professional product? I dont need razor thin, who asked for that? I dont need the touch bar, when is that going away?! give me a slightly thicker machine with upgradable member and SSD, function keys and a NUMBER PAD and I will spend that money gladly!

In the meantime, I opted to hang onto my MBP for fun **** and get a Lenovo P1 for work; 6 cores, 16GB Ram (in one of 2 DIMMS, up to 64GB, I can get another 16 stick for $60 and have a workhorse), 512 SSD, no number pad but the whole machine was $1500! Replaceable battery, full suite of ports.. this feels pro to me. why does Cupertino keep missing the needs of pros?

maybe theres a plan for this, maybe they dont care. but I will not buy another Mac that A) lacks the ability to upgrade memory or storage and B) cannot have failed memory or storage repaired/replaced. Oh, and the delicious Mac Pro is a no.

The benefits of everything soldered in are pretty substantial. Not only does it facilitate putting more power in a smaller space, there’s much less points of failure when soldered vs pushed into a slot.

Everyone complains about lack of upgrade ability but I’ve been upgrading my Macs for years at very reasonable cost.

1. Macs hold their value much better than anything else in the market.
2. The migration assistant makes transferring everything from one Mac to another very seamless.

So to upgrade your Mac you sell your old one and buy a new one (or less old one). For me, the difference in price rarely differs much if at all from the unit price of whatever extra pice of hardware (RAM stick, new SSD, whatever) I’d have bought to upgrade. And I get a new warranty every time I do that.

It’s a different mindset, but it works. This whole “can’t upgrade” thing is a non issue when you actually try it this way.

 

[smetvid]

There's an inconsistency in your post. On the one hand you make a monolithic pronouncement about pros...


...and on the other you acknowledge pros are not monolithic -- that there's a range of pro users:


Hence your first statement is not broadly correct. While there are pros that don't want to upgrade, there are many that need upgradability, particularly the ability to add storage, and to upgrade GPUs (which obsolete faster than CPUs). Indeed, Apple brought in a "pro workflow team", who advised them on what they wanted, and this is the result.

Note also the quotes from pro users in this article, e.g.: "I want something between the tower Mac Pros of the past and the trashcan," says Kenneth Bolido, who leads video production at Overclock Media for the popular technology-focused Austin Evans YouTube channel. "Ideally we get more modularity, being able to upgrade the CPU and GPU in addition to RAM and storage." [https://mashable.com/article/what-professionals-really-want-from-new-mac-pro/]

Yes there are a wide range of pros and pro needs. My statement that being able to upgrade does not make a system pro still stands. Some pros may have that requirement but upgradability on its own does not mean professional. A system can still be used by pros that have no intention of ever upgrading their systems. Film making is one small niche of pro users and only represents a small fraction of professional Mac users. There are photographers, musicians, music producers, graphic designers, UX designers, web designers, application developers, authors, illustrators, animators, desktop publishers, engineers and architects that are just some of the pro users that likely never plan on upgrading a computer.

My first post was not about pros themselves but the concept that only a system that can be upgraded is considered a pro machine. It is because pros have different needs that one cannot assume upgradability is a pro attribute. Many pros like I listed above consider a pro machine one where they just don't need to mess with anything at all. I have taught dozens of college students and worked in multiple creative industries and have had plenty of corporate clients to realize that upgrading is a niche concept mainly utilized by consumers wanting more bang for their buck. Yes there are some niche visual effects and video production markets that want that ability as well but having worked in those industries and studied VFX in college I can tell you thats not even always the case either. I know a ton of video production shops that happily buy iMacs for all of their creative teams and when they no longer fit the bill they get a new one. They either sell off the old ones to cover part of the "upgrade" cost or trickle them down to other office staff.

All Macs can upgrade storage and GPU thanks to thunberbolt 3. thunderbolt 3 is rarely considered a bottleneck for storage and many larger production companies are switching to NAS based storage with 10gbe which even the Mac Mini now has. Professional storage has long ago switched to external storage and the only reason internal storage was better in the past is because FW400, USB2 and ESATA sucked so badly.

TB3 can limit GPU performance but only by a very small amount. Maybe like 10% if done correctly. Even the MacBook Air greatly benefits from a eGPU and professional editing tasks that utilize the GPU take full advantage of the eGPU and can turn even the lowest end Mac into a productive machine.

About the only thing I can't upgrade on my new Mac Mini is the CPU. Some Macs cannot upgrade ram and that is unfortunate. I really wish Apple would rethink this as ram is one of the most common things people actually do upgrade on computers. With that said if people even remotely think they will need more ram in the future they should invest in it now. Buying a reduced amount of ram almost always comes down to budget reasons and most pros I know don't worry about that and get enough from the start. If one ram starves their "pro" machine from the start are they really a pro? Skimping on the ram to save a few hundred bucks may make sense today but years down the road it will not matter much at all and people usually regret not just getting the higher amount from the start. I bought a Mac Mini so I could add in my own 32gb right away. Decided against 64gb for now because by the time I need 64gb I will likely want a new 8 or 12 core Mac Mini.

 

[theorist9]

The benefits of everything soldered in are pretty substantial. Not only does it facilitate putting more power in a smaller space, there’s much less points of failure when soldered vs pushed into a slot.

Everyone complains about lack of upgrade ability but I’ve been upgrading my Macs for years at very reasonable cost.

1. Macs hold their value much better than anything else in the market.
2. The migration assistant makes transferring everything from one Mac to another very seamless.

So to upgrade your Mac you sell your old one and buy a new one (or less old one). For me, the difference in price rarely differs much if at all from the unit price of whatever extra pice of hardware (RAM stick, new SSD, whatever) I’d have bought to upgrade. And I get a new warranty every time I do that.

It’s a different mindset, but it works. This whole “can’t upgrade” thing is a non issue when you actually try it this way.

Interesting idea. Can you give us some actual numbers? I.e.:
Model no & specs of old Mac
Model no & specs of new Mac
Cost of new Mac
What you got for old Mac
Theoretical cost of upgrading old Mac

I think what you describe might work for some use cases, but not others (e.g., a pro user whose work was mostly GPU-limited, and thus only needed to upgrade the GPU a few times over the life of the machine).

 

[theorist9]

Okay, I'm not claiming this is anything other than wishful thinking, but here's a theory....it is quite possible that..[a certain]... 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.

I’d say I agree with almost all of this, except I’d be very surprised if they bring back any of the older ports to a Mac laptop even if this thing has the space for them. Rightly or wrongly I just don’t think Apple wants to go that way. They really want to push this USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 thing. Personally, I think that’s still a good idea, even though there’s some pain along the way.

That aside, if they can make this machine a beast in performance (eg. iMac Pro level at least - which the maxed out 2019 i9 15” MBP isn’t far off already) in a well cooled device, at a reasonable price, it could definitely bridge that gap just below the new Mac Pro. I for one would jump on that in a heartbeat. Although admittedly, I’m probably going to jump on this in a heartbeat anyway unless there’s any of it that’s a step down from a maxed out 2019 i9 15”.

One interesting thing to note is this quote from Doug Brooks, the product manager for the 2019 Mac Pro, referring to the Pro Workflow Team (PWT) Apple brought on to help them design their pro machines: “That team is really a deep investment on what we’re doing here in the pro space,” Brooks told Mac Power Users. “And it goes well beyond just Mac Pro to MacBook Pro [emphasis mine] and even iPad Pro. You’re going to see the benefits and the implications of that team across all of our Mac products and our pro products.” [https://macdailynews.com/2019/06/05...earned-will-trickle-down-to-all-pro-products/]

So, given that the PWT has input into the design of the next MacBook Pro, we could (indeed, should) see a more modular, less thermally-limited design.

And as far as the port selection on the next MBP goes, we already have a pretty good idea what kinds of ports the PWT wants: Just look at those offered on the new MacPro: 2 x 10 GB Ethernet, 2 x USB-A (w/ USB 3 capability), and 4 X USB-C (w/ TB3 capability).