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 hope this is false...the extra screen real estate really makes the difference to me. Every laptop I've owned has been 17", downgrading to a 15" isn't going to happen.
One (or more) at home, one (or more) at work. People who actually need need need 17" on the go are obviously not much, otherwise we wouldn't be talking in this thread. An additional iPad and AirDisplay would probably be sufficient for most of them.
There's probably even a significant number of people who did buy a 17" MacBook Pro, but never take it anywhere except for different rooms and would be better off with a 21" iMac and a Apple TV.
Like David said I do not believe in it, is like a car company, you can buy a model L, or LX, or LXS, that's the thing. The 17" is bigger but still heavy, a new battery lighter and without the cd/dvd optics plus a retina display will make a great 17" MPB!
Those are some of the worst, non-relevant analogies I've ever seen on this forum. And that's saying a lot. Reading your post has made us all a bit dumber.
I agree 100% that most laptop buyers as a whole barely take their machines with them. Maybe college students are the exception. There are still those that work in the field often. Media professionals on assignment, folks that work in construction yards, etc. need to have screen real-estate on the go, with no desk, and many time with no power. They are few indeed.
I think the majority of the laptop buyers out there just want the ability take his/her machine with them, but most likely never will. Or if they "take it with them" it's usually just to the couch.
50,000 17-inch sales per quarter equals 200,000 units per year... Thats $600 million in annual revenue using $3000 as the average price, hardly a market worth abandoning.
I am on my 2nd 17 inch Mac Book Pro after owning two 15 inch models over the years. As an experienced user of both sizes, the 17 inch gives professionals the screen real estate to work whether it is in graphics, business spreadsheets or project management.
True, the 17 inch is a challenge to use sitting in coach on a plane with the person in front of you reclined back, but I have my iPad for the plane and my 17 inch is my mobile desk top that goes everywhere.
PS - I would NOT buy a 27 iMac... At home, the last thing I want is a computer sitting on a desk. The only desk top at home is a Mac Mini plugged into a 55 inch Samsung LED with the bluetooth keyboard and mighty mouse.
Last edited:
That was the point. Because they follow YOUR LOGIC.
Your logic below is that if you can't code on a tiny screen you are horrible at your job. Which is a rather pointless statement. Yes you can take an IDE with hundreds of variables down the left hand side and hundreds of files with hundreds of visual components down the right hand side and thousands of lines of code, then spend all day scrolling around a 13" screen. In this instance a 13" screen is more inconvenient and time consuming to use. Saying 'you are horrible at your job' because they consider this inconvenience to be unacceptable is to miss the point.
Each analogy I gave is someone doing their job with a tool that makes it a little bit harder, but possible. Also to provide amusement
A classic from Chris Rock:
"You can drive a car with your feet if you want to that don't make it a *****ing good idea."
That was the point. Because they follow YOUR LOGIC.
Your logic below is that if you can't code on a tiny screen you are horrible at your job. Which is a rather pointless statement. Yes you can take an IDE with hundreds of variables down the left hand side and hundreds of files with hundreds of visual components down the right hand side and thousands of lines of code, then spend all day scrolling around a 13" screen. In this instance a 13" screen is more inconvenient and time consuming to use. Saying 'you are horrible at your job' because they consider this inconvenience to be unacceptable is to miss the point.
Each analogy I gave is someone doing their job with a tool that makes it a little bit harder, but possible. Also to provide amusement
A classic from Chris Rock:
"You can drive a car with your feet if you want to that don't make it a *****ing good idea."
No. Your analogies were ridiculous and in no way related to mine. But awesome job of totally missing the point. Keep digging.
I enjoy how you read the post and forensically explained how the two trains of logic were different. The expansiveness of your argument was replete with exceptional detail.
Personally, I think Apple is making the right choice. For me, the MacBook range has always been about the portability of the product, and how it is practically bringing an iMac along with you, as all your information is on it, but only on a smaller screen.
I think that they should stick to the 13" and 15" MBPs as if people really wanted a 17" laptop, they might as well get a 21" iMac, and also get some more processing power with it. Just my two cents.
I think that they should stick to the 13" and 15" MBPs as if people really wanted a 17" laptop, they might as well get a 21" iMac, and also get some more processing power with it. Just my two cents.
You asked for it.
First off, your analogies are ridiculous fantasy exaggerations. People don't run daycare centers in minefields, run rally with Priuses (Prii?
), open cinemas with home tvs, or run petting zoos with non-domesticated albums. Developers do, however, code with 13" screens. All the time. If you can't code without a big screen, you're not a good coder.
Here are some relevant analogies, if you're interested:
Childcare - if you can't run a daycare center without the newest and greatest toys, you're awful at your job.
Cinema owner - If you can't run a cinema without a 20-auditorium multiplex, you're awful at your job.
Etc. And those, like my initial posts, are all truths.
You constructed ridiculous straw men, then proceeded to knock them down. Bravo on you, you're a master argumenter.
I have just read back on the forums and seen others have argued against your :
"if you can't code on a 13" screen you're awful at your job"
I think the problem is with the overly harsh and aggressive language used in the statement. This statement is basically the same in logic minus the attack:
"It is possible to code in any language with almost any IDE on a 13" screen."
This statement I would agree with, as yes it is possible. However, many people find it hugely impractical to do so with their set of requirements. When I say hugely impractical I don't mean oh this is a bit tricky, but more, this is so ridiculous as to be unworkable. There are many IDE work environments that are just too large to be practical for a 13" screen for day to day use.
Yes you made me smile, i do a lot of heavy lifting for my work but in the end the years catch up with you and one day your back says enough is enough.
Its like my photo gear 10 years ago i used to walk around with 2 pro slrs a host of lenses but recently i picked up my 1ds2 with 70-200 and was staggered at the weight of it all, (my backpack was nicknamed the wardrobe, bit of a joke as my main occupation then was a cabinet maker, by others who tried lifting it) now iam always looking to lighten the load!
Also,more often than not the Laptop is part of Kit and rarely carried on its own (in my situation)
Initially i was opposed to the idea of an AirPro 17" (lack of ODD or second HD less ports)but now i have a MP i quite like the idea, but the 17''screen is very useful for photo shoots and when any emergency editing is required away from a desk and a Pro Monitor.
one con, its a pain a plane
Bottom line Choice is good lets have all the sizes available.
Last edited:
But I DO hit the gym. Which means I head off to work every day with another pair of shoes, another set of clothes, lunch, assorted beverages, an iPhone and a MacBook Air. I really don't need the extra weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by righteye
I'am sure Apple let these "rumours" out so they can make sure that they get rid of as much stock as possible just before a new release.
You maybe right but there is a pattern to this as some products get near to a change someone starts a "No More" rumour no more 17" no more MP no more iPod classic and i call them them rumours thats why we are here is it not.
Apple have always got the refurb store to offload the "no mores" that may be left.
Originally Posted by righteye
I'am sure Apple let these "rumours" out so they can make sure that they get rid of as much stock as possible just before a new release.
You maybe right but there is a pattern to this as some products get near to a change someone starts a "No More" rumour no more 17" no more MP no more iPod classic and i call them them rumours thats why we are here is it not.
Apple have always got the refurb store to offload the "no mores" that may be left.
This is a rather fascinating use case. I usually think about video producers needing a large screen; I hadn't thought about translators would need a similar amount of real estate.
Have you looked at software to allow an iPad to be a secondary screen for your laptop? Also, Keith makes an intriguing statement in this writeup about the feature set for Scrivener for the iPad:
You might wind up with a use case where your Mac was a passive reference display and one (or more) iPads were where you did your editing proper.
If you haven't already found the Literature and Latte forums, I suggest looking around for others with similar use cases.
One other option is to try the new Windows version of Scrivener.
Last edited:
Yes, because 4" of screen between a 13" and 17" laptop is equivalent to sitting a room of 100 folks in front of a 40" screen vs a 40' screen.
You can program just fine on a 13", 1440x900 or 1280x800 monitor. A 17" 1920x1200 is nicer to have of course.
You can't exactly charge 10$ a head for 100 people to watch a movie on a 40" TV though...
Mobile Video Editors
Full resolution 1080p HD video has a resolution of 1920 x 1080. If you are a video editor using the Mac platform, the only way to do a full resolution preview of your master project on a portable Macintosh computer is with a 17" Macbook Pro. When Apple stopped upgrading the Mac Pro and effectively abandoned its Pro customer base, I went with a maxed out Quad i7 iMac as a replacement because I love the Mac platform and wanted to stick with it. Even though the iMac has a mobile GPU, I decided to endure slower rendering times to stay with the Mac. I edit on the road a lot, and unfortunately, I have to be able to preview my final projects at their original size. If Apple tosses the 17", and doesn't upgrade the 15" display to a 1920x1080 resolution, then I'll have no choice but to buy a PC laptop. A 1920x1080 display on a 15" will make for some very small text and icons, and probably lead to severe eye strain. But I guess I'll have to deal. I'd rather go blind than use Windows.
Full resolution 1080p HD video has a resolution of 1920 x 1080. If you are a video editor using the Mac platform, the only way to do a full resolution preview of your master project on a portable Macintosh computer is with a 17" Macbook Pro. When Apple stopped upgrading the Mac Pro and effectively abandoned its Pro customer base, I went with a maxed out Quad i7 iMac as a replacement because I love the Mac platform and wanted to stick with it. Even though the iMac has a mobile GPU, I decided to endure slower rendering times to stay with the Mac. I edit on the road a lot, and unfortunately, I have to be able to preview my final projects at their original size. If Apple tosses the 17", and doesn't upgrade the 15" display to a 1920x1080 resolution, then I'll have no choice but to buy a PC laptop. A 1920x1080 display on a 15" will make for some very small text and icons, and probably lead to severe eye strain. But I guess I'll have to deal. I'd rather go blind than use Windows.
darn, & I was considering buying stock. No 17" = not nice decision for the dedicated pro consumer... hope it is not true.
Man... What size & weight & build do you happen to have? I consider myself to be a slim built, but overall normal man at 1.74m high, 65kgs, and I really notice the difference between 4kgs and 2kgs on my back. The first one hurts after a while, the second one I can wear it all day long.
Have you ever read about James Anderson's (U of Utah) study on productivity vs. screen size? It stated that productivity increases steadily until you hit 24" diagonal, then falls down.
"Out of sight, out of mind". That also applies to screen estate, and probably also help explains why my dad can occupy the whole surface of any table and room, no matter how large it is
Sure! But there's not a laptop Apple has that weighs 4kgs! That's 8 pounds!
The 17" is only .4Kgs heavier than the 15" which is about weight of your average person's meal.
How exactly would you propose that I use a 21" iMac on a plane?
My MBP 17 has literally been around the world with me. It gets used on planes, on trains, in hotel rooms, in meetings. Even at home, it gets moved twice-daily between office and living room. Just because you don't need portability doesn't mean that the rest of us don't.