Apple Predicted to Discontinue 17-Inch MacBook Pro

[DeepIn2U]

I'm shocked that the majority of Apple's laptop sales are from the 13" MBP. Sorry, but the Air is such a step above it. And that screen resolution is night and day!

As for the 17" leaving, that would be a downer. Admittedly, it's bigger then I need and that price is mind blowing, but for those that need that kind of screen size/resolution, I would hate to see the option go.

If Apple does drop the MBP 17" and add a 15" MBA, I hope they keep some type of large, thicker laptop that can carry nicer specs(specifically a dedicated graphic card and a HDD/SSD combo would be ideal)

What?!!! you're delusional!!

1. Try upgrading the RAM ... whoops you CANNOT!
- I now have 16GB DDR3 1600Mhz in my MBP 13" and its sings!
2. Try upgrading your SSD drive ... whoops you'll need to pay 2/3 of your MBP price or more - depending on your model for 480GB SSD.
- I'll be able to do this for $600 CAN next week.
3. oh remember #1?!
- Intel HD 3000 now gets 512MB shared memory for video; your MBA is stuck at 384MB.
4. There are still some tasks/workflows that require a DVD.
- many older generations still find it easier to pop in an authored DVD into a PS3 for DVD player to enjoy family photos or home made movies. They will not accidentally delete it like on a USB stick (most don't have more than 2). Furthermore its easier to hand you a DVD full of burned pictures off their PC/Mac for you to re-author for better slideshows or albums.


The 17" exiting the lineup is going to cost Apple some very loyal users - even if not in the higher numbers. To be honest I think the MBP 15" Hi-Res would suffice for these users for the following reasons:

Size: 15" is still 2 inches smaller (L/W/H) than the 17"
Resolution: very close if not equal.
Battery Life is currently the same.
Performance: Again same chipset, video card options, Storage/RAM upgradability is the same.

Overall the 17" MBP is a "desktop replacement" that allows it to be portable. I don't feel a lot of these die-hard 17" MBP users travelling often per week with their 17" MBP and fully content.
- the ExpressCard slot will be lost and missed gravely! Not to mention 1 less USB port, FW400 - but that's what the FW800 is for ... use a cheap adapter and your good on the 15". If you REALLY require large resolution display .... go for a desktop LCD.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I don't feel a lot of these die-hard 17" MBP users travelling often per week with their 17" MBP and fully content.

Oh you better believe I was content. During a busy season I was never at home for more than a day or two for four weeks straight. I lived outta my duffle bag and off of my 17" MBP . . . . which I could open up just fine on the tiniest of plans, trains, and automobiles.

----------

I have used my MBP from atop a sand dune in Sudan (inside the truck to keep the sand out), more than 100 miles from the nearest lightbulb. Amazingly, Sudan's mobile network allowed me to connect to the internet from there. Also used it in Iran, Albania and taking it to Mozambique next month.

Exactly my point. I wrote that comment thinking of two guys I know, one in the Army, and the other in the Navy. The Navy photog spent month on a carrier and LIVED off of his 17" MBP. The guy from the Army was a programmer and used a 17" HP Elitebook 110% of the time.

Working in film, you need screen real estate, most have at least 2 displays and an attached monitor for work; graphic designers also need high end displays such as EIZO. The 30" ACD was one of the best.

I've seen stock traders with 6-8 24" displays plugged into their towers. I always wondered why they didn't just grab a couple of 30" panels.

I figured long ago that things would go that direction if laptops were fast enough for these guys to own a single computer, but I wonder how much of the time they buy the machine for portability yet never take it off their desks. I wouldn't buy the Apple display anyway. Out of everything Apple designs, they do the worst job on displays. I mean they look pretty as a piece of furniture, but beyond that they've never been very good (or reliable).

I remember all of the analysts talking about the death of the tower/desktop in favor of the laptop and other small devices. The truth is . . . . the desktop and other large machines won't go anywhere.

When the 13" MBP can handle an 8 core chip and 32GB of RAM I am sure the iMac and MacPro and 17" MBP will still be much much faster.

 

[NewbieCanada]

I don't think the issue is whether or not some people have a real need for the 17-inch. I'm sure there are some people with a use for a 21-inch "luggable" too.

The issue is whether selling them is a worthwhile business option for Apple. It's a bit like stretch limos. Smaller companies customize standard-length cars. I imagine it would be possible to do something similar with a 15-inch MBP for people who are willing and able to pay a huge premium for one.

 

[KnightWRX]

no way you can develop using an 11" mac book especially if u need to compare coding, and if ur implementing other programs together to communicate so you don't have to manually update each program.

Stop saying that. A lot of iOS developers and Mac developers do. You don't need a big laptop to write code, even on the go.

 

[Abazigal]

What?!!! you're delusional!!

1. Try upgrading the RAM ... whoops you CANNOT!
- I now have 16GB DDR3 1600Mhz in my MBP 13" and its sings!
2. Try upgrading your SSD drive ... whoops you'll need to pay 2/3 of your MBP price or more - depending on your model for 480GB SSD.
- I'll be able to do this for $600 CAN next week.
3. oh remember #1?!
- Intel HD 3000 now gets 512MB shared memory for video; your MBA is stuck at 384MB.
4. There are still some tasks/workflows that require a DVD.
- many older generations still find it easier to pop in an authored DVD into a PS3 for DVD player to enjoy family photos or home made movies. They will not accidentally delete it like on a USB stick (most don't have more than 2). Furthermore its easier to hand you a DVD full of burned pictures off their PC/Mac for you to re-author for better slideshows or albums.

In all fairness, the majority of people I know who use 13" MBPs and the occasional 15" one don't upgrade their laptops (either because they are not tech-savvy enough to care, don't see the need, or just don't bother). It is these sort of people whom I feel would be indifferent between the MBA and MBP (spec-wise), and would be attracted to the air due to its reduced weight and footprint.

Also, I am not really seeing the relevance of comparing a fully-tricked out MBP with a baseline MBA. Of course the former is going to knock the socks off it, when you have spent a small fortune upgrading all its internals. You get what you pay for, after all. Isn't that like claiming a scooter can outrun a racecar, once you outfit a jet engine in it?

Thus, I feel a more fair comparison would be between the basic 13" MBP and 13" MBA, of which I feel the latter has the advantage thanks to its SSD and slimmer design.

 

[zap2]

What?!!! you're delusional!!
.

Wow, no need to get personal!

I was just underscoring the point that the products are very similar as is, and even the issue you pointed out are largely just a spec bump away from not existing. I meant the package product of the Air is a step above from the Pro, it being a "slicker" product.

Sounds like you're issue are 1) RAM 2) HDD 3)Video Card 4)DVDs, most of which could be changed next upgrade cycle to allow the current MacBook Pro specs in the MBA's body. The two that would be troublesome are the HDD and DVD support built in. Having the choice of 512GB SSD takes care of some of those concerns, and quite frankly HDDs are painfully slow, so I think Apple pushing it's consumers towards SSD is a positive thing. As for a DVD reader, I'm fine if the choice exists, but I'd be unhappy if I was forced to have a DVD reader on my laptop because some people use them. Sure some people use it, but given that moving a laptop while the disk inside is being read, I think an external add on is just fine. The add on is simple, pretty cheap and works just as well. Luckily, it looks like Apple is going down the road I'd rather see. If they do keep it around, I wish they let people use a BTO choice to replace it with a 2nd SSD/HDD or battery

Also I guess these upgrades would cost more money/limit what you can do on your own, which again is a bummer, but given they are laptops, not hugely shocking.


My overall point was having the MBP and Air line each have a 13" model strikes me as "unApple", so I'd expect them to get rid of this difference, more so given how close the products have become(and Ivy Bridge doesn't look to change that, from my readings, the Quad Core Mobile CPUs seem to hot to get into the 13" MBP)

 

[tigress666]

Also, I am not really seeing the relevance of comparing a fully-tricked out MBP with a baseline MBA. Of course the former is going to knock the socks off it, when you have spent a small fortune upgrading all its internals. You get what you pay for, after all. Isn't that like claiming a scooter can outrun a racecar, once you outfit a jet engine in it?

Except with the money you save from buying the MBP instead you probably haven't spent that much more than the best the MBA can offer you (and you'll have a lot more).

Already if you want more storage it's cheaper to buy the MBP stock than it is to get the MBA with the most they offer it in storage space (You get 320 GB standard with the MBP for 1200, you can only get 256 GB max with the MBA and it's 1600 dollars. With that extra 400 you can upgrade the RAM to have way more RAM than the MBA can even handle. (And yes, this is the 13". I assume those who want a 15" or 17" the MBA really isn't an option. And honestly, the list you replied to, most of his advantages apply to the 13". The only one I'm not sure of is the graphics card memory. Everything else very much applies to the 13" so you're complaint that he's arguing for the bigger laptops is not even valid!).

Or for 100 dollars less you can get 4 GB RAM (Max the MBA can even handle) and 750 GB of hard drive (and you can probably use that 100 to upgrade the RAM some more if you wish).

So yes, it is a very valid comparison. You're paying more for the MBA and getting a whole lot less. You're spending that small fortune on the MBA solely to have a smaller computer with a less powerful processor. The only other advantage you get is an SSD which many people can use the bigger storage space over the SSD.

Point being is you can trick out the MBP and still pay less to as much as you'd pay for an MBA with less storage and RAM and slower processor. So it's a very relevant comparison.

 

[Black Belt]

Crazy Talk

The 17 is substantially more useful but compared to other 17 inch laptops out there it is remarkably compact and has killer battery life. It is barely bigger than the 15inch but the screen looks much better. I absolutely want one but with the upgraded chip, wifi and screen. Most people using 17 inchers are more tech saavy I imagine so the upgrade will see a bunch of sales take place, including mine. Slow sales signals just a lack of desire for older tech.

Compared to the MBA? MBA is a big step down.

 

[loon3y]

Stop saying that. A lot of iOS developers and Mac developers do. You don't need a big laptop to write code, even on the go.

what if u needed all those windows open at once? and u had no access to an external monitor.


especially if ur traveling u can't expect where ever u go, or ur customer is going to have an extra monitor waiting for you.

 

[KnightWRX]

what if u needed all those windows open at once? and u had no access to an external monitor.


especially if ur traveling u can't expect where ever u go, or ur customer is going to have an extra monitor waiting for you.

Like all of us who do it everyday. You use CMD-TAB, tabs or other window/task switching at your disposal.

I can have up to 20-25 ssh sessions open at once. I do it fine on 1440x900 screen that is 13". I use to do it on a 1280x800 screen at the same 13".

Would a 17" screen with 1920x1200 be better ? Sure. Would a 15" screen of the same resolution be even greater ? Yep. Is it absolutely necessary ? Hell no. In fact, I could have bought a 15" or 17". I chose the 13" MBA for its portability, because frankly, the lesser weight and size are much better advantages that the lost pixels when traveling.

 

[whitedragon101]

The reason the 17" laptop sales are slow is because apple underpowered the graphics processor in the latest version. Many of us found with out the Nvidia graphics there was no compelling reason to upgrade.

Do you mean that you think the current 17" with the AMD 6770M graphics chip is less powerful than the old Nvidia 330M? Or that the current nvidia mobile offering would be faster than the AMD?

If that is what you meant then it is not the case. The AMD 6770M was the very best chip apple could have put in the 17" MBP given its current cooling system that allows for a graphics chip of 25W TDP (the amount of heat it can disperse). I was absolutely delighted when apple used it. This is because when you compare the 25W TDP offerings from AMD and Nvidia the AMD chips are faster and have been for the last 3 years. While Nvidia make very powerful chips for both PC and laptops they all kick out huge amounts of heat. When 25W is all the cooling can handle its AMD all the way (until Nvidia decide to compete on high performance low heat).

 

[294307]

Is this a rumour or is it a fact? Reason I ask is because it is a rumour, and Apple are hardly going to put our minds to rest since it concerns future products. Whatever will happen will happen, but I'm sure Apple has enough brainpower to make sure they make the right decision for their customers and for their company.

Just remember it is a rumour and Apple may not be intending to do anything, or simply replacing it with an Air-like thin-and-light 17" model. Or discontinuing it. Who knows.

 

[loon3y]

Is this a rumour or is it a fact? Reason I ask is because it is a rumour, and Apple are hardly going to put our minds to rest since it concerns future products. Whatever will happen will happen, but I'm sure Apple has enough brainpower to make sure they make the right decision for their customers and for their company.

Just remember it is a rumour and Apple may not be intending to do anything, or simply replacing it with an Air-like thin-and-light 17" model. Or discontinuing it. Who knows.

imagine a air like thing 17" model, it'll crack like a tortilla chip

 

[Eric S.]

Is this a rumour or is it a fact? Reason I ask is because it is a rumour, and Apple are hardly going to put our minds to rest since it concerns future products.

This isn't MacFacts.com. We wouldn't have much to talk about if we excluded rumors from discussion.

Whatever will happen will happen, but I'm sure Apple has enough brainpower to make sure they make the right decision for their customers and for their company.

Here, I'll fix that for you: "Apple has enough brainpower to make sure they make the right decision for their company."

 

[FluJunkie]

I can have up to 20-25 ssh sessions open at once.

The question of whether or not you can get away with a small screen depends more on how many you're using at once, not how many you've got open. After all, you could have 10,000 open at once, sitting there at the bash prompt.

 

[KnightWRX]

The question of whether or not you can get away with a small screen depends more on how many you're using at once, not how many you've got open. After all, you could have 10,000 open at once, sitting there at the bash prompt.

I can use up to 8-10 at a single time (following diverse logs, and issuing commands to different cluster nodes). Thank god for bells, screen and quick tab switching is all I say.

Same for the guy's "code" stuff really. Who cares how many files are open in your project, it's the ones you're actively working on that matter (being a hobbyist coder, I have experience with that).

Anyway, anyone who really thinks "coders" require 1920x1200 laptop screens obviously doesn't understand the difference between "want" and "need".

 

[KurtangleTN]

I love some of the drones going out to defend the Apple hive. Some of the reasonings are hilarious. Anecdotal and stupid.

"It's too heavy, it's too old, it's a relic, I don't know anyone who owns one, my best friend's brother knows someone who can code on a 11" MBA therefore you don't need a 17"

Nobody cares about your anecdotal crap and stop trying to project your opinion on others.

 

[FluJunkie]

I can use up to 8-10 at a single time (following diverse logs, and issuing commands to different cluster nodes). Thank god for bells, screen and quick tab switching is all I say.

Same for the guy's "code" stuff really. Who cares how many files are open in your project, it's the ones you're actively working on that matter (being a hobbyist coder, I have experience with that).

Anyway, anyone who really thinks "coders" require 1920x1200 laptop screens obviously doesn't understand the difference between "want" and "need".

See, you were fine up if you had stuck with "some do, some don't". Arguing that your needs and someone elses don't match is safe and predictable.

But you've just gone and done the opposite - asserting that your experience is the only one that counts, and because you need, everyone else must only want.

There are some coders whose work flow may very well involve that. And many who don't. Anyone - you or otherwise - asserting "All coders need X" or even worse, "All 'pros' need X" is wrong.

 

[AidenShaw]

Anyway, anyone who really thinks "coders" require 1920x1200 laptop screens obviously doesn't understand the difference between "want" and "need".

But you've just gone and done the opposite - asserting that your experience is the only one that counts, and because you need, everyone else must only want.

There are some coders whose work flow may very well involve that. And many who don't. Anyone - you or otherwise - asserting "All coders need X" or even worse, "All 'pros' need X" is wrong.

Personally, I use a 3840x1200 screen at home for coding, and 5760x1200 at work. I find the 1920x1200 laptop to be very cramped, and the lower resolution laptops to be very painful to use.

I suppose if "coding" means typing "vi" and "gcc" into a terminal window a low resolution laptop would be OK - but IDEs with multiple windows (source, assembly, debug, stack, variable watch,....) are much more powerful if you have lots of real estate.

 

[Burger Thing]

I sometimes have to laugh when reading through this threads here. Especailly when people start to argue about what they think other users need or want - based on their own experience.

I couldn't care less about that differentiation. Is is nonsense anyway, at the end of the day, you could could argue that nobody needs a laptop with a certain resolution, or a laptop in general, or a moile phone, or a computer. Just air to breathe or food to eat

No, it is about, what people want. And what is wrong with that? If I want a laptop with certain specs to do my tasks as comfortable as possible, then why should i compromise myself too much? For some, comfort means carrying less weight, to others it means more power or screen estate. Aiden is a good example. He feels more comfortable using a large screen and that is perfectly fine. He could probably do his coding on smaller screen, but why should he?

If Apple decide to change its lineup because they think people don't need/want the current style 17" MBP and offer something else, I will evaluate my options and then vote with my wallet. If it doesn't suit what I want, then I will shop somewhere else. No drama.

On a side note: I edited yesterday on my MBP and Premiere Pro for a few hours in a hotel room and it was nice to have a 17" screen. And 450 GByte of Source Footage on my second partition of my 1 TByte drive - without the need of having an external drive attached to my laptop.

 

[djsound]

been waiting for this thin macbook pro for 2 years....hope it comes soon..

 

[ender land]

Personally, I use a 3840x1200 screen at home for coding, and 5760x1200 at work. I find the 1920x1200 laptop to be very cramped, and the lower resolution laptops to be very painful to use.

I suppose if "coding" means typing "vi" and "gcc" into a terminal window a low resolution laptop would be OK - but IDEs with multiple windows (source, assembly, debug, stack, variable watch,....) are much more powerful if you have lots of real estate.

I use a 2500x1600 monitor at work for coding and cannot agree more with this.

My personal machine for coding is a 13" mbp (always attached to a 1920x1080 monitor though) which sometimes does feel constricted. IDE's and console outputs and app gui's really take up a lot of space to see all at once.

 

[NewbieCanada]

To Apple it's not about wants or needs. It's about sells and doesn't sell.

What they might do (if the 17" MBP doesn't sell in numbers that warrant further development) is keep it in the line-up as-is, with no further enhancements that require money to be spent on R&D.

My laptop experience says 17 is too much bulk for on the go and not enough screen for at home. The lack of choice in large laptops on the Windows side of things tells me that most of the market feels the same.

 

[chatin]

Sky high price killing biz

Price is way too high in an anemic economy. I would get one refurbished but before it gets refurbished someone has to buy it new.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Like all of us who do it everyday. You use CMD-TAB, tabs or other window/task switching at your disposal...

I think people are missing the point you are trying to make. About 9 pages back or so you simply stated that not every person in the same profession needs the same tools to do the job.

Somehow, everyone missed that along the way. I and many in my profession are 17" zealots, but that doesn't mean that everyone in our industry are the same way.

...you've just gone and done the opposite - asserting that your experience is the only one that counts, and because you need, everyone else must only want.

I don't think he did at all. Some may be reading it that way, but Knight simply said that not everyone that codes needs . . . . as in must have a large screen.

They want one to code with, but it's not necessary. My first machine to cut on was a 14.1" iBook G4. I was fine with it then, but now I want 17" /1920x1200 or larger.

I don't need a screen that size, but I sure as hell do want one that large or larger.

Personally, I use a 3840x1200 screen at home for coding, and 5760x1200 at work. I find the 1920x1200 laptop to be very cramped, and the lower resolution laptops to be very painful to use...

I had a 30" ACD at my last professional journalism job. It was a dream and has made every monitor smaller feel cramped. Now, I am working with two 23" ACDs and personally they are getting a bit on the tiny side.