I'm confident the 17" MBP and the Mac Pro are both going away in the next refresh. However, Apple will decide what we need and then offer it to us. If they decide we don't need 17" laptops anymore, they will discontinue the products. And those who want a new laptop will buy whatever Apple has determined we do need. This is all.
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.
Apple Predicted to Discontinue 17-Inch MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm confident the 17" MBP and the Mac Pro are both going away in the next refresh. However, Apple will decide what we need and then offer it to us. If they decide we don't need 17" laptops anymore, they will discontinue the products. And those who want a new laptop will buy whatever Apple has determined we do need. This is all.
A statement showing someone is not okay with 17" laptop which cost $400 than 15" variant is just as valid as yours that anyone should be fine with 17" mbp from both pricing and portability standpoint.
I certainly could afford a 17" mbp, but I dont find it a money well spent. I find hi end i7 iMac give me much more. Something wrong with that?
In the end both are just an opinion and I believe that's what most people write in a forum. In fact, if I wanted to, I could also knock down your opinion about 17" mbp because it's the least popular mbp all the times. That fact showing most people dont find the extra 2" worth $400 more. You're not most people?... Well good for you man.
True, but not too many people are making that statement.
Well . . . yes, I think you and some are missing the point that a laptop is meant to be moved easily . . . portable. Wether a 17" is portable or not is left up to the user, but comparing an iMac and a 17" is irrelevant. Most users looking at the 17" are looking for a laptop that they will take with them from time to time or often. Anyone looking at an iMac is looking for a desktop.
Now, if someone mentions the notion of buying a 17" and plugging it into a 27" ACD and never take it anywhere then they might as well buy a Mac Pro. It's all in what the user needs it for.
However, most on this thread are simply saying that there's no need a 17" if you can hook a 15" or a 13" up to a 27" ACD . . . which is just as impractical as saying, well, I'd rather have an iMac over a 17" MBP because the 17" isn't portable . . . . . . like the iMac is? Or, just as impractical as saying that you'd rather have an iMac because the 17" MBP is too expensive when the iMac is just as expensive and/or more expensive than a comparable PC.
Short story: No one is leaving it to personal preference in this thread save for those that give examples. Such as using a 17" in the field, or Knight which has been trying to get readers to understand that one doesn't NEED product X to do something.
Again, making a claim like that is moot based on the simple fact that the 13" MBP outsells the 15" ergo . . . .
ponytrekker said:
this is why I love this forum, besides getting valuable info and helping others out when need be. People like to joke and have a good time.
Please don't discontinue the MBP 17
I use mine everyday (this is my 5th 17" in 8 years).
I used my own money to buy this (and bring it into work) because we had to make a case to buy Macs at our office (when I first came onboard as a consultant).
Apple, you have great engineers. We don't see many Ferrari's on the road but it would be sad if we stopped seeing them altogether. We already pay a premium to get the 17" MacBook Pro (with a decent video card).
If you get the weight down (and take out the optical drive) then you should be able to make another hit. (remember some of us are getting older and need reading glasses so we need the bigger screens).
V
I use mine everyday (this is my 5th 17" in 8 years).
I used my own money to buy this (and bring it into work) because we had to make a case to buy Macs at our office (when I first came onboard as a consultant).
Apple, you have great engineers. We don't see many Ferrari's on the road but it would be sad if we stopped seeing them altogether. We already pay a premium to get the 17" MacBook Pro (with a decent video card).
If you get the weight down (and take out the optical drive) then you should be able to make another hit. (remember some of us are getting older and need reading glasses so we need the bigger screens).
V
If you get the weight down (and take out the optical drive) then you should be able to make another hit. (remember some of us are getting older and need reading glasses so we need the bigger screens).
V
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4526
Sorry I couldn't resist
.on more thing...
For anyone that is dissing the 17"...
Have you owned a 17" and a 15" from near the same generation?
Most people that have or moved up to a 17" like the 17" because they can have more things on the screen at the same time. There are studies (by Gartner) that show that having more screen (or dual monitors) brings greater productivity.
For those that have had a 17" and moved to a smaller screen (such as the 13").
How have you found losing the resolution (if you are comparing to an older 1440x900 or 1680x1050 17" then you probably are ok).
If you have been using 1920x1200 for a long time try going to 1280x800 and running the same apps...
Then make a statement.
in terms of weight - get the right bag.
in terms of price - how many hours/year do you use your computer? Does it help you make money? Do you get paid by the hour - or the job??
This is how I can justify buying a 17" and/or getting a 13" for my wife or kids...
V
For anyone that is dissing the 17"...
Have you owned a 17" and a 15" from near the same generation?
Most people that have or moved up to a 17" like the 17" because they can have more things on the screen at the same time. There are studies (by Gartner) that show that having more screen (or dual monitors) brings greater productivity.
For those that have had a 17" and moved to a smaller screen (such as the 13").
How have you found losing the resolution (if you are comparing to an older 1440x900 or 1680x1050 17" then you probably are ok).
If you have been using 1920x1200 for a long time try going to 1280x800 and running the same apps...
Then make a statement.
in terms of weight - get the right bag.
in terms of price - how many hours/year do you use your computer? Does it help you make money? Do you get paid by the hour - or the job??
This is how I can justify buying a 17" and/or getting a 13" for my wife or kids...
V
That is why I keep saying that if they introduce a 1920x1200 15" and discontinue the 17", they have partly addressed the problem (except for those who absolutely want the screen size itself).
I want a new 17" MBP!!!!!
I REALLY want a new 17" MBP to replace my 2009 17".
Do I need one? No, I don't need one for work, etc, but I find that my computer is significantly more useful to me with the extra screen real estate (the 17" vs 15" makes a big difference!).
I use my MBP as a desktop replacement. My lifestyle is such that a desktop is impractical, so a 17" MBP has been a perfect solution for me. It's well worth the upgrade money for me over the 15".
If
discontinues the 17", then sadly I'll have to jump ship back to PCs. I'd really hate to do that, but the screen size really is a deal-breaker for me. If thinks that they won't loose any money discontinuing the 17" because all of those users will just switch to 15" or desktops, they are just plain wrong.
I REALLY want a new 17" MBP to replace my 2009 17".
Do I need one? No, I don't need one for work, etc, but I find that my computer is significantly more useful to me with the extra screen real estate (the 17" vs 15" makes a big difference!).
I use my MBP as a desktop replacement. My lifestyle is such that a desktop is impractical, so a 17" MBP has been a perfect solution for me. It's well worth the upgrade money for me over the 15".
If
discontinues the 17", then sadly I'll have to jump ship back to PCs. I'd really hate to do that, but the screen size really is a deal-breaker for me. If thinks that they won't loose any money discontinuing the 17" because all of those users will just switch to 15" or desktops, they are just plain wrong.There is no way they would get rid of the Mac Pro too many anime developers use them IE Pixar Animations Studios Founded by Steve Jobs! They simply would not be able to develop animations on a MBP or an iMac they simply do not have enough graphical power to develop such animations I mean they might be able to but the development time would pretty much double costing Pixar even more money.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Pixar_Incorporates_Mac_OS_X_Into_Workflow/
It's not so much the Graphical power from the cards but more so the memory that is used in Nvidia's Quadro series graphics cards that they need.
Can we all just take a minute here to think logically? I mean Apple is not going to get rid of the 17" MBP or The Mac Pro it's just to impractical it brings them revenue! they are not going to cut a product that brings revenue in just because it's not having as good of sales as their other products. When they start loosing money by making MBP's and Mac Pro's then they might cut it but as long as they are still seeing the $$$$ they will not. Think of it this way, you've got a lemonade stand you offer 3 different types of lemonade, raspberry,strawberry, and regular lemonade. You make $100 in sales off the strawberry and regular lemonade. But you only bring in $45 from the raspberry are you going to cut out the raspberry in hopes that your strawberry and regular lemonade sales will go up? no! because your cutting out a possible revenue that will bring in potential customers. By the looks of some of the comments on here apple would loose a good portion of it's customers by cutting out the 17" MBP and the Mac Pro it's just not reasonable for them to do that, I have a feeling Steve Jobs would turn in his grave if Apple were to cut the 17" MBP and the Mac Pro.
Increasing resolution on smaller screens just results in smaller and harder to see stuff. Sure you can now fit more but what you fit is smaller. Not exactly an improvement overall.
Not true, they would scale the GUI to fit the resolution otherwise the new ipad GUI would be extremely tiny! it has a resolution of 2048-by-1536. Higher resolution does not mean smaller GUI it just means more PPI that's it.
Sorry, but at 150 PPI, the 15" 1920x1200 would be just fantastic. Apple has a definite problem with low PPI screens in their laptops right now. The MBA 11" is the highest PPI screen they have, at 135 PPI and that is just starting to look good.
The standard res 15" is just atrocious for its huge pixels.
----------
Scaling the UI would just remove any benefits gained from adding resolution. In a jump from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200, there is no advantage in scaling the UI, this is not like "retina" or "HiDPI" displays at all, it's simply a bump to 150 PPI, which is perfectly good for the standard UI element sizes.
I wonder what OS X and iOS themselves are developed on, if not Mac Pros? Certainly not Windows (I hope), and I doubt they would be cross-developed on another Unix-based platform either. Anyone know?
Apple has done exactly that in the past. The iPod mini was the bestselling iPod when it was EOL'ed. And there's still a loud cry to restore the midrange desktop line, which Apple is not disposed to do.
Why should a computer company be telling me what I need? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
It's give and take. They decide what products to offer and we decide whose products to buy.
A couple of years ago I wanted to buy a 17-inch 1080p Windows laptop that was decently portable. My options were VERY limited.
True. It's just that Apple doesn't always take the supply and demand route. They'll occasionally nix popular products for completely nebulous reasons, and only rarely offer a roughly equal alternative to take its place.
Yup. Once you start getting into that size, they become less laptops, more portable desktops. Most companies see it as you getting a big laptop for a reason, which means you probably want more power, which means they don't have to worry making it super thin and light because chances are good you'll be using it for heavy duty work while you're away from the office/studio/whatnot, and not for watching movies on the bus.
Because of that, a nice lightweight 17 inch can be kind of a hard thing to find.
You don't get Apple if you even have to ask that question.
Maybe I don't want to get Apple then.
Depends what part. Kernel code ? Unless you're working on Mac Pro specific extensions (fiber channel cards, GPU drivers), you can code on a Mac Mini or whatever, doesn't even have to be current gen.
Same for many of the sub systems. No need for advanced workstations to develop OSes on.
Anyway, the other poster was wrong, I think Pixar uses custom home-made software that runs on Linux to make their animations.
I wasn't even going for light - just not an Alienware gaming machine or the equivalent.
I would think that if you're building the OS (i.e., a complete system build), you would want the most powerful system available. True, just for coding or building a module or two any reasonable system would do.
How long have you been an Apple customer?