Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Or the needs of many others.

How long can Apple sell the same crap before the fanboys finally give in and say, "Yes Apple is really lagging behind and it's pathetic and unacceptable, asinine prices aside"?
But Apple isn't selling to "fanboys" anymore, they are selling to millions and millions of average people who don't care what is inside, they want something that works well and, perhaps, looks good. Or, for some people admittedly, that looks good and perhaps works well. I don't think Apple really cares what the "fanboys" think, really
Doesn't it strike you as a little pathetic that the current high end MBP nearly matches that of the CTO MBP from October 2008?
No. I buy a new system (actually, refurbished usually) get Apple Care, and work it 'til it croaks. I've got one of the early aluminium MBPs that banged and dinged and works. It does what I need it to do. I also have a Mac Pro that I do the bulk of my professional work on (I'm a professional photographer/artist). Portables are for convenience - they allow me to light work away from the office. Real work gets done on desktop system.
...
All of the above aside, when was the last time Apple upped the resolution on 15" models? I know it's been years, but when did it go 1440x900 and what was it increased from? I'd love 1680x1050.

What would you do with more resolution on a portable. As someone mentioned, menus and dialogues get really small. Most web content is not set for much more resolution. For the majority of consumers, what advantage would more resolution give them? Assuming that you could bump the resolution without dropping the battery life. Lately Apple seems to be concentrating on battery life, and I think they may have decided that a marginal increase in screen resolution was not as beneficial (read 'marketable', perhaps) as increasing the time between charges.

IMHO, of course. :)
 
See, this is where apple is going wrong (plus other things i don't like about them as a company) is that they seem to concentrate on little sector filling "toys" like the ipad which takes engineers off their main selling items such as updating the mac pro/mac book pro lines. As another member mentioned earlier, the new intel chips are being used by other manufacturers right now, so why the wait for apple to follow suit?

And there definitely needs to be a price reduction, I've heard a number of colloegues in my line of work (television post production) who sit and spec up an mac book pro, then they look at an alienware (from dell) with the same spec, and its about $2000AU difference. And this is from real apple fanboys who would love to have a macbook pro. Apples grip on people will only stretch so far, and a difference in price of that much seems to be the breaking point!
 
...
Would you pay full price for last years model BMW (since everybody likes to use the car analogy when comparing Macs to PCs) when new models have been available at another dealership for several months? I might be loyal to one dealership because of the buying experience and service I received, but I will certainly want the BMW that's faster and has the newest technological features. Unless I am wrong, I think that's the argument most of us spoiled complainers have been referring to.

Your analogy falls apart because often the only difference between automobile model years is the chrome and the model year designation. Since Apple doesn't designate models by year, there is no parallel.

The better analogy would be two different car companies, one of which (lets call it 'P') usually has the latest technology, and changed their technology yearly. And the other company (lets call it 'A') has cars that have last year's technology (or, heaven forbid - 2 year old technology!).

Company P sells new cars for less, with the latest tech. Company A sells - arguably - news cars with slightly older tech, often for a bit more money. Or - at least they appear to since they don't sell entry level econo box cars. However, Company A has the highest rated overall customer satisfaction. And they just toasted Company P's (And D, and L, and X,Y,Z) car servicing satisfaction. When it comes time to buy a new car, Company A's vehicles give the owners the best trade-in value. And most importantly, when you are driving Company A's cars, they drive well ... the fit and the finish is uniformly good. The controls are where you expect them, and they are intuitive (so intuitive, most owner's manuals never get pulled out of the glove box).

So, yeah... Company P's cars have a GPS system that talks to you, and the engine has 14% more power... but the fit and finish is a little plasticy (unless you have opted for a premium model), the controls don't quite make sense (and sometimes you have to hit the radio on/off button and the AC control to get the back washer to work). And of course your brother in-law has his P car into the shop every year for a week just to sort out a year's worth of "issues" - and he thinks this is 'normal' for all cars. That, plus sometimes it just stops for no good reason, and if the P car starts to become sluggish your brother in-law has to spend a weekend taking everything out of the car (seats, steering wheel, floor mats, dash-board, etc) and put them all back again. And he thinks this is normal too.

So, you drive by his place with a car that doesn't have a talking GPS, and has more than enough power to get you to where you are going nearly as fast as the P car would. You stop by and keep him company as he pulls everything out and puts it back in again... and you can't really help him 'cause you can't remember the last time you had to do this. And when you did, you just popped a DVD in the drive and answered a couple of questions and drank more coffee.

That, I think, is a better analogy. :D:D
 
Seriously, what's the point of watching High-Def on a tiny laptop screen?

That "tiny" screen is very close to you - so the pixels are about
the same size as a 60" screen that's 3 metres away. The "need 50 in
to benefit from Blu-ray" is nonsense when the screen is 40cm from
your eyes.

Anyway, would you rather upscale a 300 Kpixel DVD movie to your 1 or
2 Mpixel Apple, or downscale (or show 1:1) a higher resolution
movie?
 
I think we should all just accept that Apple no longer makes laptops and desktops: they are a "mobile computing" firm now.

LOL. There is no way Apple would be the 'largest mobile" firm now if they couldn't cook the numbers with laptops. If limited to the more mainstream definition ( headsets and the like in size in weight) they'd be no wear near number 1.

The trend away from desktop towers is industry wide (not just Apple). Many people just don't want the bulk.



My MBP is over a year old and I would love to replace it, but I think I need to give up and learn to expect less from Apple.

Apple releases laptops on about a year 220-240 day cycle for a long time (throwing out a few rapid speed bumps). If don't count minor speed bumps they've almost never done it within a year. Apple doesn't appear to have overlapping design teams working on the same product.

This is a tad longer because likely because doing a substantive upgrade this time to internals.
 
I have to say that it can be a little disheartening when I see that the current base MacBook hasn't changed much from one I'm writing on now, which I bought over two years ago.

It's CPU has increased by 10%, the (integrated) GPU is better, a bit more Ram and HD space as standard, and a superdrive as standard, but firewire has been dropped, and in the UK at least these "Upgrades" make the machine cost more than mine did over two years ago.

Still, mine was, and still feels like, a good deal when I bought it, but until some upgrades of value appear I (and many others I imagine) won't be purchasing a new Apple notebook.
 
While I generally try not to compare Mac prices and PC prices this is kinda crazy...

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Sony+-+...Gray/9724544.p?id=1218159865608&skuId=9724544

I have to admit that this is a great deal. While I wouldn't buy it because I love OSX to much I can't ignore it either. Apple should be able to offer something like this at around 600 more (better cosmetics and probably less ram).

I'd like to see a bench mark on the battery life. One of the reviewers was complaining that they only got 3 hours.

Other than that (and the warping - as documented by another reviewer - at the non-magsafe power port) it's a nice machine.
 
availabilit

hey guys,

do you know how long it takes from the launch of a new mbp untill it is really available in the shop. i'm in sydney right now and it would kill me if it is released an i have to wait 4 weeks to get it. like the ipad was released over a month ago and it's still not available here.

thanks and greetz from australia

danger mouse
 
I think people around here are forgetting that computers are becoming (expensive) commodities. The majority of people, even people using computers every day to make their livings, do not care if it has the newest XYZ part. They want a working computer with decent battery life (if a portable) that looks good in their home or on there personage.

People also want their computers to just work when it comes to running the latest software, or even running several instances of the latest software at once. The idea that regular users just have e-mail, a web browser and a text pad open is absurd. Heck even web browsers these days can actually strain a C2D if enough glossy flash filled tabs are open at once. As processors get more powerful, programs use that power, and users wind up using that power.

While people here may think "ordinary" users are too stupid to realize when their computer is performing more slowly than their peers, that simply isn't the case. And if Jim goes and buys a mbpro today while Jill buys a Sony with much more powerful components from the CPU to the GPU, eventually Jim is going to wonder why Jill's computer runs faster.

Apple doesn't need to make overclocked gaming rigs to stay competitive but they DO need to update their hardware to keep competitive with the industry. If they don't their stellar image of quality will in fact erode.
 
I wish Apple would realize they'd probably sell more units if they would let the price on a specific model slowly come down with time like.. I dunno, EVERYONE ELSE does.

It's somewhat silly that you assume you know more than the Apple beancounting team. Beancounters certainly aren't infallible, but there's a lot more to corporate profits than just number of units sold.
 
People also want their computers to just work when it comes to running the latest software, or even running several instances of the latest software at once. The idea that regular users just have e-mail, a web browser and a text pad open is absurd. Heck even web browsers these days can actually strain a C2D if enough glossy flash filled tabs are open at once. As processors get more powerful, programs use that power, and users wind up using that power.

While people here may think "ordinary" users are too stupid to realize when their computer is performing more slowly than their peers, that simply isn't the case. And if Jim goes and buys a mbpro today while Jill buys a Sony with much more powerful components from the CPU to the GPU, eventually Jim is going to wonder why Jill's computer runs faster.

Apple doesn't need to make overclocked gaming rigs to stay competitive but they DO need to update their hardware to keep competitive with the industry. If they don't their stellar image of quality will in fact erode.

Just look at the "Has Apple forgotten about the pro users" thread.

Apple has such a success with its gadgets that they start to neglect the computer and software division.

Just see about the rumors of Apple discontinuing the Final Cut Studio suite (which is unlikely, but it's a typical mac user mood based rumor with an ounce of truth) and firing 30 software engineers that were working on the Final Cut Studio suite.

We don't want to see the day where you have to buy a PC for serious work because Apple Computers have become pretty gadgets that can't bring on the computing power for serious work.
 
That "tiny" screen is very close to you - so the pixels are about
the same size as a 60" screen that's 3 metres away. The "need 50 in
to benefit from Blu-ray" is nonsense when the screen is 40cm from
your eyes.

Anyway, would you rather upscale a 300 Kpixel DVD movie to your 1 or
2 Mpixel Apple, or downscale (or show 1:1) a higher resolution
movie?

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant what's the point of High-Def on a laptop screen that doesn't even reach a 1080 or higher resolution. Apple only has one laptop that does, and most other laptops (15" and under) don't support 1080 resolutions, because such a high resolution on a small screen results in small menus, text, and other eyestrain. For the ones that do, Blu-ray is more reasonable.
 
If the price goes up, I'm no longer a Mac user...

I'm 41 and have used Macs all my life, but I'm in IS and use just about every other OS known to man, and though I still personally own a MacBook Pro, I've been thinking of gong PC for some time now. Windows isn't the horror show that it used to be and it's pretty user friendly these days. It (gasp) even does some things better than Macs such as webdav and general website compatibility. My problem with Apple is all about price. You can get a comparable PC notebook for substantially less than 2/3 of what you have to pony up for a Mac, and to me, the difference in what a Mac has to offer just isn't commensurate with the difference in price anymore, and hasn't been for some time.

Hopefully the price hike is wrong. I actually had some hope that Apple got the message when I saw the surprisingly low prices for the iPad.
 
Money not the problem

Still dragging my Power PC Dual Core into 2010. Must upgrade to highest FCP C4D CPU now! Bring on the hotness!!! Jobs you tease put down the ipad and pull the trigger on Mac Pros I'll be the first to pick up the top of the line.
 
I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant what's the point of High-Def on a laptop screen that doesn't even reach a 1080 or higher resolution.

The point is that a DVD image is roughly 300 Kpixels. Even the 13"
MB/MBP/MBA have 1024 Kpixels.

Which do you think will look better on your "50 inch"* laptop screen -
300 Kpixels stretched to 1 Mpixel, or a 2 Mpixel 1080p image shrunk
to 1 Mpixel?

It's not about being perfect for 1080p, it's about being much
better than 480i.

* I say '50" laptop" because that 13" screen at your fingertips
is visually the size of a much larger screen at normal television
viewing distances.
 
No one forces you do pay anything, you choose too. What amazes me in your argument you spell out how **** windows is, yet you can't see the value in a mac. No one forces you to buy a mac, so stop whinging at the price.


You are absolutely correct..no one is forcing me, but the mac is my only real alternative for the things I need my computer to do with some degree of efficiency and reliability.

why is stating a material fact about overpricing considered to be complaining?

look on the apple website and see what they are charging for their notebook range.. or are your fanboy senses beginning to tingle that someone dare say a thing wrong about apple?
 
And that, I believe, is an extremely astute analysis. Thank You. :)

I will just add this. Apple is not just throwing money at chassis design, but also battery R&D for their portables (which you hinted at in your post.) At some point, for the majority of users, machines are as powerful as they really need to be. What will make a difference to people will be how long it can go between charges.

I agree with the person you quoted, but what every average consumer forgets is that computers aren't just things to be used by Panera Bread and Starbucks customers looking to kill time and make slideshows of their expensive European vacations. Nothing wrong with that since I am at Panera as I write this, but I am at work while I sip my $1.69 cup of coffee.

The other side of the market DOESN'T care what are machines look like since they'll be under the table, and not everyone has a hard-on for cute laptops that'll be used for single threaded apps.

When I am going to encode a piece of video for a daily, or to be uploaded to Mobile Me for a client to view that Core 2 Duo still sitting in my MBP is going to take FOREVER doing it. When my bottom line depends on the amount I am spending on gear these prices matter.

Battery life can take a hike. As Steve himself put it in a Walt Mossberg interview about the iPad, "They can just plug it in!"

The Pro market is a small one, and it's one with differing needs so I can see why Apple may want to charge us more, and may not update as quickly. Many will be happy as long as Apple gives us what we NEED and have been asking for since 2005.

Basically, read this post below:

You are absolutely correct..no one is forcing me, but the mac is my only real alternative for the things I need my computer to do with some degree of efficiency and reliability.

why is stating a material fact about overpricing considered to be complaining?

look on the apple website and see what they are charging for their notebook range.. or are your fanboy senses beginning to tingle that someone dare say a thing wrong about apple?

Exactly, it's not that we don't have other choices because everyone knows that we do. We don't have to use Final Cut and Aperture when Premier/Avid and Lightroom exist. But those that have been doing this for a while have calculated that it's a sound decision to use the Mac, and other services.

A good friend of mine that was recently let go from the Baltimore Sun has a decent article about and why it's a cost effective tool.

Long story short, we use Macs, we understand the sacrifices, but when those sacrifices become unreasonable, or the tools we use start loosing their advantages, we will comment like the shareholders who've spent 10's of 1000's of dollars as well.

And I'll even go as far as skipping the "Fanboy" term for this statement:

It's very frustrating hearing someone that's just started their journey with Apple, or barely uses their Mac for day to day, intensive tasks, having an issue with any negative comment someone may have.
 
I'm 41 and have used Macs all my life, but I'm in IS and use just about every other OS known to man, and though I still personally own a MacBook Pro, I've been thinking of gong PC for some time now. Windows isn't the horror show that it used to be and it's pretty user friendly these days. It (gasp) even does some things better than Macs such as webdav and general website compatibility. My problem with Apple is all about price. You can get a comparable PC notebook for substantially less than 2/3 of what you have to pony up for a Mac, and to me, the difference in what a Mac has to offer just isn't commensurate with the difference in price anymore, and hasn't been for some time.

Hopefully the price hike is wrong. I actually had some hope that Apple got the message when I saw the surprisingly low prices for the iPad.

Exactly. Now that the Vista bonus has expired Apple needs to give its users more competitive offers and pricing.

I really hope the 2010 Mac Pros will be absolute killers.
 
Exactly. Now that the Vista bonus has expired Apple needs to give its users more competitive offers and pricing.

I really hope the 2010 Mac Pros will be absolute killers.

We users hope for something more with every new update. Apple will give us the status quo. The sad part is that it's even more disheartening because Apple will be 6 months or more behind the curve, so when the update comes, it's usually right on par with what the market has.

Apple will be behind the curve in regards to GPUs as far as those in the know are concerned.

I'll be content with that status quo at typical Apple prices. It's when those prices go up that grinds my gears.
 
While people here may think "ordinary" users are too stupid to realize when their computer is performing more slowly than their peers, that simply isn't the case. And if Jim goes and buys a mbpro today while Jill buys a Sony with much more powerful components from the CPU to the GPU, eventually Jim is going to wonder why Jill's computer runs faster.

Yes, except that every 1-2 months Jill will have to get her computer repaired because of malware, or plain registry-caused sluggishness.
 
Yes, except that every 1-2 months Jill will have to get her computer repaired because of malware, or plain registry-caused sluggishness.

This hasn't been the case for some time. While I am still a staunch believer that Apple's don't have malware and virus issues, Windows has become more stable over the years, and Windows 7 does really level the playing field.

Now Apple's biggest advantage are the few software titles that are Mac only, especially since they are way behind in the hardware. If Apple fails to innovate there, then what's the point other than the looks?
 
I really hope the 2010 Mac Pros will be absolute killers.
Anyone think the cheapest model will cost more (this has nothing to do with performance/$) than the cheapest 2009 model because of the quad core iMac?

I know they're two different products but I wonder what Apple is going to do.

After the upcoming update it's another ~ 1 and a quarter years until the next update.
 
Anyone think the cheapest model will cost more (this has nothing to do with performance/$) than the cheapest 2009 model because of the quad core iMac?

I know they're two different products but I wonder what Apple is going to do.

After the upcoming update it's another ~ 1 and a quarter years until the next update.

I have a feeling Apple will, but in the past Apple usually had customers pay more for the desktop CPU toting all in one with the large display.

If memory serves, users paid about $1999 or more for the 20" 2.1GHz iMac G5 and around the same or less for the Power Mac G5.

The gap between the iMac and Power Mac was even larger in the past, with the Power Mac G4 starting at $1499 and the lampshade iMac going for $1699 with a 20" LCD.
 
This hasn't been the case for some time. While I am still a staunch believer that Apple's don't have malware and virus issues, Windows has become more stable over the years, and Windows 7 does really level the playing field.

The registry is still there, so the slowdown is inevitable. And with malware bypassing UAC 7 times out of ten, even using an antivirus infection will be hard to avoid for an "Average Jill" who gets easily tricked into getting infected.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.