I don't see the point of this as long as the 15" exists.
what amount of those where redesigns though. and how many where less than 4 months
Why would they do this without a 4k display?
Just go 4k in 16:10 alrdy Apple.
We’re not asking for 500 nits? Speak for yourself. I’ll take brighter if they make it.
And “only USB-C” is exactly what I and at least some others asked for and I’m glad they did it. So again, speak for yourself.
I only hope this one has 3 channels / 6 ports instead of the current 2 / 4.
Agreed though that it needs to be thick enough to have proper cooling. Although everyone whining about the throttling of the 2018 i9 still seems to ignore the fact that Apple fixed that with software. But some people just like whining.
It's absurdly expensive if it's not using ECC memory, mobile Xeon, and comes with a paltry 256GB soldered-in SSD (or in other words is simply a successor to the current MBP lineup). If it does debut as a mobile iMac Pro, maybe an $3K+ starting price is warranted.Not so expensive for what it is. Nowadays a new mac pro or imac pro is starting from 4999$ or 5999$
My bet is that the “new” processor is an Apple processor.
Plausible?
I agree about making the resolution up to integer scaled 1680x1050, though I would like to see the screen get a little bigger, just to see if it makes 1920x1200 scaled more usable (currently it's just a smidgen to small to be comfortable).Keep 15.6" and make it 3360x2100 and stop the uneven scaling already........dot..dotdot......dot.
And if it comes with rounded corners, you can forget it.
I don't get why Apple won't revive the 17" Macbook Pro instead. Even though this is probably their best Macbook yet, from a marketing stand point, it'll just seem too similar to the 15".
They should call it "The Macbook Pro Pro".
Finally, a professional Macbook Pro for professional professionals.
Starting price is 3,999.
Rule #1 - never buy a first gen apple product!
Why? Not everybody needs them and they take up space on the MBP. If people don't use those ports then they are a waste of space and cost.
While USB-C may be annoying to you it makes the most sense in terms of the user deciding exactly what they need to hook up to their MBP. Many of us are stuck with MBPs that have old outdated ports and can never get anything better. My 17" for example has FW800, USB2 and an express card slot. All of which are pretty much useless today and take up space. USB-C also provides the best future proof options since TB3 has enough bandwidth to expand to just about any type of device in the future. Any USB, USB3 or USB3.1 device can be adapted and there is still plenty of bandwidth left for a future version of USB.
SD card readers get faster and better and while it is very nice to have one built in I prefer to have the option to choose what card reader I use so I can use different types of memory cards as needed.
HDMI is also nice to have but I just don't see the big deal buying an adapter or two to support the video ports one needs. What if a company has a VGA projector without HDMI or IT plops a monitor on your desk with DVI? By not forcing the use of just HDMI Apple gives the user the option to use only what they need. Besides the HDMI spec is constantly changing and once a port is designed for a specific spec it can't be changed. for example some older HDMI ports only support HD resolution. The HDMI spec today only support up to 4k and they are directly tied to broadcast standards and not the fluidity of computer display standards. For example 5k displays just do not work with HDMI and they likely never will due to 5k not being a broadcast video standard. HDMI is just too limiting to make a MBP stuck with it forever.
TFT display? Has to be ips right?
Yes, why would they? If this is Apple's successor to the old 17" MacBook Pro, the display resolution would be 3840x2400 (4K), not 3072x1920. 3072x1920 is too small even for a 15" model. The notion of having to run a 16" MacBook Pro at a non-native screen resolution because the physical resolution is too small is ridiculous, hence I've been waiting for them to finally bump up the PPI to match the software resolution. If this report is true, I'm going to be disappointed.Why would they do this without a 4k display?