Game theory dictates that Apple should have kept the 17" MBP, so I don't know that there is a compelling reason. It must have been losing a lot of money for them to discontinue it.
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.
17" rMBP to appear with Haswell?
- Thread starter Pentad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Game theory dictates that Apple should have kept the 17" MBP, so I don't know that there is a compelling reason. It must have been losing a lot of money for them to discontinue it.
This is a strong assumption -- one that I do not share.
I teach game theory, so I'd love to see your game which has this result.
Small side note:
If you could read one book that explains game theory and how to apply it to the real world what would it be?
I only know of books that are either purely mathematical or which apply game theory to a specific field, usually economics. Game Theory and Law by Baird, Gertner, and Picker would be the nearest of the books I know. It doesn't get deeply into game theory because it is strictly non-mathematical, so it's all about real-world applications, but written for lawyers and law students.
Why do you think Apple killed off the 17" MBP? What is your theory? I assumed sales because why not keep a product going that already had assembly lines set up for it?
Last edited:
Why did not being able to offer a 17" retina MBP require them to stop selling the non-retina 17" MBP?
They launched the 15" retina MBP well before the 13" was ready.
In 2008 they released the 13" and 15" unibody models and kept selling the old non-unibody 17" until several months later when it got updated.
I would think it would be much more likely for them to just keep selling the non-retina 17" if they thought that was a viable market segment.
Exactly. I can see the 17" MBP being discontinued this year if a retina version was going to be too expensive. But why discontinue the 17" cMBP last year?
Maybe Apple wanted to position the 15" rMBP as their flagship Pro laptop and didn't want the 17" MBP confusing things but that seems like a weak argument if you think the 17" MPB was selling well.
It would have been a disaster from a marketing perspective. It would have signalled the market that the 17" non-Retina was the high-end model, which would have contradicted the higher prices of the Retina vs non-Retina models in 13" and 15".
That was different because:
- everyone expected a unibody 17" model to follow soon
- the unibody model was just an evolutionary improvement, not revolutionary or a step up-market
- the pre-unibody 13" and 15" models were discontinued
so there was no marketing confusion.
Perhaps making the 17" rMBP is too expensive compared to what gain Apple predict from selling them to those who wants the biggest and best. I know I´d buy one in a hart beat.
I can't believe I'm about to type this but I love my maxed out late 2011 17"MBP the way she is, but I would go for a 13" retina mbp with quad core processor ! However, if they made a really beautiful 17" retina mbp - how oh how could I resist 
I'm IN! Sell me one!
I'm IN! Sell me one!
Me too, even if it "only" had a 3360*2100 screen and not a true 4K one. (Explanation: current 13/15 Retina models have doubled the screen res of the lower-res option of both the original 13 and 15 lines, and not the higher-res ones. (2880*1800 is the Retina version of the lower-res (1440*900) original 15" model, not that of the higher-res (1680*1050) one.)
Of course, I'd also welcome a dual-spin setup with easily swappable 2.5" SATA HDD and the possibility of using disk bays for a second HDD - as has been always the case with the MBP (but, of course, not the MBA / rMBP) line.