Best Buy Guesses at a March MacBook Pro Release Date as Supplies Constrain

[powerchord]

A march release would be great, but its still speculation.

I think SSDs are still too expensive for a standard option. Maybe a BTO, but not standard. I also do not want to give up the storage of a 500GB drive for a 128 to 256 SSD. There have also been some new 750GB drives released for laptops. I wouldn't mind one of those. And no I wouldn't want an SSD and an external larger drive as some have suggested, that for me defeats the whole "portability" aspect of laptops.

As far as getting rid of the optical drive, well I don't want that to happen. I still use my optical drive plenty thank you very much. Maybe in another 2-3 years it will be a different story for me, but not now.

My thoughts exactly. 128 - 256gb w/no optical drive, while it may be appealing to a few - and by that I mean the absolute "minority" of laptop users (disproportionately represented en force on this site) - is by no means a shared sentiment of the majority of laptop users nationwide (or worldwide).

Sure, they can offer those specs as a BTO, why not? This way everyone gets what they need and what they want.

 

[orthorim]

Be careful when you make comments like this, because the Macbook Pro appeals to a very wide variety of users. There are a LOT of people who need more than 300GB internally.

Entertain me - who, and why?

Musicians? That's, like, 3 customers.

Film professionals? They have the cash to upgrade to 512GB Flash. Or even 1TB. Look at what they pay for a camera! Compared to the cost of these professionals' other gear, 1TB of Flash storage would be nothing.

The average Joe makes up most of Apple's customers - the average consumer, if you will. They watch YouTube, stream Netflix maybe, do email and Facebook, listen to music, and that's about it. The average consumer doesn't even know what bittorrent is, and will buy 3 movies on iTunes before realizing that it's crazy expensive.

If there are "lots of people" needing more than 300GB - I don't see them. As a programmer, I certainly don't need more. IDEs and dev tools are getting fatter, but they still only make up a few GB.

 

[asdf542]

Yeah - unfortunately there's absolutely no way you'll get a 512GB SSD in a $2000 machine. Just doesn't add up. More like $3k, or a 256GB solid state storage - I am hoping for a MBA-like solution where it's not an actual drive... actually, in short, I am hoping for a 15" MacBook Air. I'd be all over that. How hard can it be?

Another person going by retail SSD prices.

Of course it's possible, it doesn't make business sense. Why don't you try and address the question rather than deflecting with personal attacks?

It doesn't make business sense that Apple wants all of their machines on flash storage? Sure it does. Apple buys at a discounted price and the consumer gets more bang for their buck than they did previously. Like they did with the MacBook Air that used to have a 4200-RPM HDD.

Of course they do, because SSD is Apple's vision of the future for notebooks. Most consumers want them too because they're faster, use less power and are resistant to drops.

But everyone still has to live in the real world. SSDs don't have enough storage space for a lot of consumers, and many consumers don't want to pay the huge $/GB premium that comes with them. Apple has to deal with this fact by base-lining their MBPs with a traditional HDD. This also makes them cost competitive. (which we'll get to later).

Again, you have no idea how much markup Apple puts on the MacBook Pro's. Apple actually REDUCED the price of the MacBook Airs after going with complete flash storage. Also the current largest HDD Apple ships in the MBP's is 500GB's.

Those models usually have fundamental differences such as different amounts of VRAM or an entirely different enclosure which doesn't make it a fair comparison. Basically, Apple designs a notebook to hit a certain margin and then prices BTO options to hit other margins. Whether or not these BTO upgrades reflect actual real world prices is seemingly arbitrary. If you disagree, provide a specific example.

Example: Early 2009 iMacs. You could upgrade the 2.93GHz 24" Model to everything the 3.06GHz model had. When you added on the same HDD, the same processor, the same GPU it all came out to the same price as the price of the 3.06 GHz model.

Is more than enough? OK, provide me some numbers from a random study with a sample size of at least 1000 showing that the vast majority would be fine being limited to 256 GB of hard drive space. Otherwise, you're spouting baseless opinion. My argument is also helped by the fact that no one else in this thread agrees with you.

Apple is about lowering costs because over the past few years, the cost of the MBP has gone down to appeal to a wider market.

Who the hell said they were limited to 256GB of storage? The 512GB option they COULD put on is 12 more GB's than the best HDD they currently sell. Again, Apple LOWERED the price of the MBA when they went to flash storage. They have huge markup on the MBP and they have the room to stretch. No one else in this thread agrees with me? Because no one understands what bulk purchasing is and just looks at the retail price of a 512GB SSD, nor do they know how much markup is on the MBP's.

If you're specifically splicing words out of my statement, it doesn't look good for your argument. I clearly stated that flash storage as a baseline for MBPs is a pipe dream in the near future. The same for optical drives. I gave logical reasons for each of these citing consumer needs and cost. If you can't digest that logic, I can't help you.

How about you give me some statistics about what consumers want in their products? You are claiming they NEED an optical drive to meet their needs. You are claiming they NEED to have more space.

Nope, made no such claim.

"You're living in a dream if you think SSD's are going to be baseline."

To make room for more profitable merchandise. No comment was made on how they'd accommodate the software that has yet to be released in the Mac App Store, with no guarantee of this happening. If apple removed the optical drive from all of their notebooks, hordes of fanatics would be breathing hellfire about how they have to pay for an external drive that is inconvenient and bulky. Apple could do a fork off to a MBP with no optical drive, but there is going to be a MBP with an optical drive for a good while.

Again, you are speaking as if you can see the future. I find this amusing. I'm sure you're one of those guys that really wanted the floppy drive to stick around for a lot longer too, right? Apple is eliminating retail software for a reason, or at the very least clearing it out for something other than disks.

 

[dime21]

Ok but still. How much does it cost to make a 512 GB SSD? If a 500GB HDD cost 100 bucks it cost WD whatever % of that to make it and then Apple buys in bulk.

Theres still a huge difference between what a 512 GB SSD would cost Apple vs a 500 GB HDD

none of this is relevant. it doesn't matter what apple paid for the commodity components. they are going to sell them to you at a substantial mark-up. ssd's are commodity products that apple buys in bulk, just like memory, cpu's, gpu's, and hard drives. look at the bto options - does apple give you a "discounted" price because they good a good price buying a bulk? no! of course not! they charge you even more than the retail price from newegg or wherever. this is not anything new, you just don't understand how it works.

Compared to it's predecessor the Core i7-640M currently used in the top end MacBooks Pros http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/26...vs_Intel_Core_i7_Mobile_i7-640M_(PGA988).html the Core i7-2620M is not better but worse: The clockrate is lower when everything else reamained the same. Presumably they had to lower the clock rate because of the larger power consumption of the integrated GPU: The processor remains stagnant, even regresses, only the ****** Intel-GPU that nobody really wants "improves" a little bit. What a ****. @Intel: when will you finally come out with some decent mobile quad cores (ones that consume less power than 45 Watts) so I can have them in my Mac Book Pro? I am totally mad!

i don't see how the clock speed is relevant. peecee laptops have been in the 2.x gigahertz range since what, 2004? and apple, once they switched to intel, were in the 2.x gigahertz from 2006. It's 2011 now. yes, the clock speed of current chips is about the same as 5 years ago, but they offer substantially better performance..

additionally, raw cpu speed is not the only factor to system performance. the other major consideration is memory bandwidth. each generation of mbp has had higher memory bandwidth than the previous model, using a faster speed of memory. the current models use ddr3 1066. we know the next model will use ddr3 1333. the previous model used 800 mhz memory, and 667 mhz in the model before that. the reason the new intel models in 2006 were so much faster than the outgoing ppc g4 models was not just the cpu - 1.67 ghz g4 vs. 1.83 ghz core duo - the real difference was in memory bandwidth. the g4 had single-channel ddr while the mbp had faster clocked dual-channel ddr - which provided more than double the memory bandwidth - a massive improvement!

 

[orthorim]

My thoughts exactly. 128 - 256gb w/no optical drive, while it may be appealing to a few - and by that I mean the absolute "minority" of laptop users (disproportionately represented en force on this site) - is by no means a shared sentiment of the majority of laptop users nationwide (or worldwide).

Sure, they can offer those specs as a BTO, why not? This way everyone gets what they need and what they want.

Because Apple may move to Flash storage as opposed to SSDs. If they just put a SSD in, it would be a conservative move - people could still BTO a HD. But if they move to Flash, as per the MacBook Air, they'd have additional weight and cost savings. It would be pretty radical for a pro device, I admit - but Apple is known for making radical changes at times... I'd say it's 50/50 between SSD / "Flash with no option to go to a HD".

 

[dime21]

Because Apple may move to Flash storage as opposed to SSDs. If they just put a SSD in, it would be a conservative move - people could still BTO a HD. But if they move to Flash, as per the MacBook Air, they'd have additional weight and cost savings. It would be pretty radical for a pro device, I admit - but Apple is known for making radical changes at times... I'd say it's 50/50 between SSD / "Flash with no option to go to a HD".

lmao, no way. next mbp will be traditional platter hard drive. end of story. osx does not even have trim support to properly use an ssd today. plus they would not be foolish enough to put flash memory system drive in the mbp. i don't want a 15" or 17" macbook air - which is what you are proposing - and neither does anyone else.

 

[orthorim]

Another person going by retail SSD prices.

It doesn't make business sense that Apple wants all of their machines on flash storage? Sure it does. Apple buys at a discounted price and the consumer gets more bang for their buck than they did previously. Like they did with the MacBook Air that used to have a 4200-RPM HDD.

Where did I suggest that I am going by retail prices? I am going by MacBook Air prices if anything - look at those, and figure out how much a 512GB flash based solution will be.

I do share your sentiment in that I think Apple will make the radical move away from HDs, and even SSDs, towards Flash storage. They'll provide some way to upgrade, e.g. publish a spec for board containing the Flash, similar to a DIMM.

It's just that I think Flash memory, even at quantity and without the HD enclosure bits and pieces, is more expensive than you think. So I think it will be 256GB for a $2k machine, and $3k for 512.

Look at the MacBook Air - it's $300 for 128GB of Flash. Extend that you get $600 for 256, $1,200 for $512GB. While Flash may get cheaper, it's not going to get that much cheaper. If Apple buys up all the supplies world-wide because they stock all their machines with it it's not going to make prices go down either - there will be supply constraints.

 

[haruhiko]

My thoughts exactly. 128 - 256gb w/no optical drive, while it may be appealing to a few - and by that I mean the absolute "minority" of laptop users (disproportionately represented en force on this site) - is by no means a shared sentiment of the majority of laptop users nationwide (or worldwide).

Sure, they can offer those specs as a BTO, why not? This way everyone gets what they need and what they want.

I agree.

Apple is famous for dropping "fading out" peripherals like the floppy drive, which many people here used as an example to show that Apple will drop optical drive in the next MBPs. However, Apple is also famous for adding components only when they are ready for prime time and fits in their margins without significantly changing the price.

That's why they are offering SSD as a BTO option which does not increase their base price.

 

[orthorim]

lmao, no way. next mbp will be traditional platter hard drive. end of story. osx does not even have trim support to properly use an ssd today. plus they would not be foolish enough to put flash memory system drive in the mbp. i don't want a 15" or 17" macbook air - which is what you are proposing - and neither does anyone else.

Let's see who is right at the end of the day. I think I've made my case already, see above - I don't hear any counter arguments here. "No way" is not an argument, by the way.

"Lots of people need more" isn't either - what people, and why do they need more, more importantly, why do they need a HD? Nobody's answered yet.

You are ill informed on TRIM - it's not needed. It's what wannabe geeks talk about IMO. Sounds great. But it's a dead end technologically. Managing flash storage must be the duty of the controller, not the OS. OT here but SSD controllers already do, using a variety of approaches.

 

[iKrl]

I need a laptop for college and will not buy the MacBook that hasn't been redesigned for almost three years(in the summer)! I really hope that apple does refresh them before September so I can take advantage of the free iPod touch they give to students!

 

[bilg]

Those of you who think Apple can't drop DVD and HDs at the same time - you haven't been around long, have you? Apple has a long history of being the first to drop obsolete tech.

I'll make the case here:

1 - DVD/CD - this is a given. It's so trivial hardly worth spelling out here. DVDs and CDs are not needed in 2011 - the Mac App store removes the last reason to have them, installing software. A DVD will not be built into the next MBP - end of story. I personally can't believe they've waited so long - I haven't used my DVD drive in 2 years, and have actually replaced mine with an optibay SSD. Those who still use them for whatever reason - get an external drive.

+1, and Apple is rumored to rid the retail box section in their stores
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/07/apple-to-eliminate-retail-box-software-inventory/
yet ANOTHER clue that feed the drop-odd speculation

 

[got2go]

If anyone thinks that Apple will be delayed by the Intel Sandy Bridge debacle take a look at the specifics of what was wrong with the faulty chipset. The two highspeed 6Gbps SATA were not effected (channel 0 and 1) only the slower 3Gbps SATA portion was affected. Since Apple only uses 2 SATA connections (the HDD and superdrive) they dont need the others to work, thus no reason to delay the product as the consumer will never know the difference.

 

[asdf542]

Where did I suggest that I am going by retail prices? I am going by MacBook Air prices if anything - look at those, and figure out how much a 512GB flash based solution will be.

I do share your sentiment in that I think Apple will make the radical move away from HDs, and even SSDs, towards Flash storage. They'll provide some way to upgrade, e.g. publish a spec for board containing the Flash, similar to a DIMM.

It's just that I think Flash memory, even at quantity and without the HD enclosure bits and pieces, is more expensive than you think. So I think it will be 256GB for a $2k machine, and $3k for 512.

Look at the MacBook Air - it's $300 for 128GB of Flash. Extend that you get $600 for 256, $1,200 for $512GB. While Flash may get cheaper, it's not going to get that much cheaper. If Apple buys up all the supplies world-wide because they stock all their machines with it it's not going to make prices go down either - there will be supply constraints.

11" MacBook Air - 64GB to 128GB - $200
13" MacBook Air - 128GB to 256GB - $300

I'd love to know where you are getting your information from. The machine does NOT have to be 3K for it to have a 512GB SSD. The current MBP's have enough markup so that Apple can squeeze it in and keep the prices the same. Once again they buy in bulk.

 

[gregoryalee]

I have a 2007 MBP with 2 gig of ram and a 2.33 Ghz processor. I am hoping that Apple releases a 15" quad core. I have been holding out for a while but my machine is starting to look and act it's age.

 

[mdgm]

I have a 2007 MBP with 2 gig of ram and a 2.33 Ghz processor. I am hoping that Apple releases a 15" quad core. I have been holding out for a while but my machine is starting to look and act it's age.

I'm in a similar boat.

I have a 2007 MacBook, 2.16Ghz with CTO 2GB RAM. I'm hoping for a 15" quad core, USB3 and perhaps faster firewire. That would be pretty tempting to upgrade to. If there's no quad-core then I'm more likely to hold off and wait longer. My machine does feel a bit old as well.

 

[nyctravis]

I think there's a case to be made where 256GB is "enough"

I think it's interesting to see all the comments on SSD's. I have to admit that it is tempting, but I also think that many people are forgetting the "Pro" really necessitates much more storage for many people, and not just for toting around pirated movies. I have a bunch of photoshop files and graphic files that I use and they take up a lot of space. Add to that complete websites that I have for web development work, and that 256gb goes quick. I, and I suspect many more, legitimately need much more storage than that-and wouldn't spend the astronomical $$ to go up in SSD storage space. I love the idea, but I think it's probably not in this update simply due to cost.

 

[orthorim]

11" MacBook Air - 64GB to 128GB - $200
13" MacBook Air - 128GB to 256GB - $300

I'd love to know where you are getting your information from. The machine does NOT have to be 3K for it to have a 512GB SSD. The current MBP's have enough markup so that Apple can squeeze it in and keep the prices the same. Once again they buy in bulk.

I got this "information" from the Apple store. 128GB Flash is $300. So 512 are 4x that, or $1200. Say they can make this cheaper (but, like I said, I don't think there's all that much room for bulk pricing due to supply constraints) and get it for $1000. Let's further simplify things and consider that a HD costs nothing, and the current MBP 15" costs $2000. Add $1000 for 512GB Flash and you get to $3,000 roughly.

It's just my estimate - maybe they chop off some of their profit margins but I doubt that. Maybe they get an incredible deal on Flash but there's only so much that can do - they're already the world's biggest Flash consumer and they already get these incredible deals today on the MacBook Air/iPod/iPad/iPhones. I am hoping for a 512GB $2000 machine - I just don't think it's possible.

 

[orthorim]

If anyone thinks that Apple will be delayed by the Intel Sandy Bridge debacle take a look at the specifics of what was wrong with the faulty chipset. The two highspeed 6Gbps SATA were not effected (channel 0 and 1) only the slower 3Gbps SATA portion was affected. Since Apple only uses 2 SATA connections (the HDD and superdrive) they dont need the others to work, thus no reason to delay the product as the consumer will never know the difference.

^^ interesting, thanks! I am hoping for new MBPs soon, I've got a few ks burning a hole in my pocket. Well not really but I am ready for a smaller, lighter machine, love the 17" screen space but that thing is a monster.

 

[asdf542]

I told you from the Apple store. You said yourself that $300 - which is already the bulk price Apple gets, once passed on to customers - is for 128GB.

First of all, going from 64GB to 128GB is $200, and second of all that isn't the price Apple pays its the price Apple chooses for you to pay. Just like their RAM upgrades that are 4x what you can get from some other seller.

So 512 are 4x that, or $1200. Say they can make this cheaper (but, like I said, I don't think there's all that much room for bulk pricing due to supply constraints) and get it for $1000. Let's further simplify things and consider that a HD costs nothing, and the current MBP 15" costs $2000. Add $1000 for 512GB Flash and you get to $3,000 roughly.

The 15" MBP most definitely does not cost Apple $2000 to make. Even if you price out the parts individually it comes out to being way lower than what Apple makes it cost (especially since they get ALL of their parts in bulk). A 2.8 GHz upgrade option on the current MBP is $200 from Apple. The difference from Intel? $14. The concept of putting a 512GB SSD in a MBP is not as farfetched as you are trying to make it out to be. The fact is it does not cost Apple as much as you think it does to make a MBP and you can't go by the retail price of $1000 for a 512GB SSD.

It's just my estimate - maybe they chop off some of their profit margins but I doubt that. Maybe they get an incredible deal on Flash but there's only so much that can do - they're already the world's biggest Flash consumer and they already get these incredible deals today on the MacBook Air/iPod/iPad/iPhones. I am hoping for a 512GB $2000 machine - I just don't think it's possible.

Only so much they can do? The fact that they are one of the biggest supporters of flash memory should tell why there is a lot they can do because they can get it at much lower price than any individual can. You are doubting they'd chop their profit margins but they did exactly that on the last MacBook Air refresh. They lowered the price and gave the entire lineup flash storage.

 

[Cheerwino]

Those of you who think Apple can't drop DVD and HDs at the same time - you haven't been around long, have you? Apple has a long history of being the first to drop obsolete tech.

I'll make the case here:

1 - DVD/CD - this is a given. It's so trivial hardly worth spelling out here. DVDs and CDs are not needed in 2011 - the Mac App store removes the last reason to have them, installing software. A DVD will not be built into the next MBP - end of story. I personally can't believe they've waited so long - I haven't used my DVD drive in 2 years, and have actually replaced mine with an optibay SSD. Those who still use them for whatever reason - get an external drive.

2 - SSDs. I think there's a case to be made where 256GB is "enough". Sure you can use more if you are working in some fringe area of computing - but then you can probably shell out for a 512GB or even larger SSD too as you are a professional and use the computer for work.
The only other reason to use more is gigantic music collections or wanting to carry your 4TB of pirated movies around everywhere you go. Apple figures people don't generally want to do that, and I tend to agree. I watch movies once, then move them to external storage - but I realize I might as well delete them as I never watch them again for the most part.
If you give up on carrying large movie collections around, 256GB is enough in the same way 16GB is simply enough for an iPod. Apple knows this full well as their smaller capacity iPods vastly outsell the 160GB HD based model - nobody needs to carry around 3 months of continuous music, even if they have that much. A few days worth is plenty - and even the smallest capacity Flash based iPod can do that.

It's the same for computers. I think 128GB is a bit tight, from personal experience - my music, images, and maybe a few movies and apps easily exceed that. But 256GB would be enough. That would leave me with all my music, all my pictures (which I must say is a bit pointless to carry around - how often do I look at 10 year old pictures? never!), and the odd movie / series I want to still watch.

My estimate is based on practical experience with my 80GB SSD - it's tighter than I thought, just work, apps, and documents, email etc, take up around 70GB on my system. I have all my media on the 500GB HD, pictures, movies, music. I like to keep all pictures and music with me, not because I constantly use them but because it's easier to manage this way. But video, I really don't need to carry that, and I wonder if I even need to store it anywhere - I like to collect, but let's face it, anything I have I could always re-download. It's all stored in the collective that is the internet already.

I hope you're right. The new App Store, dropping packaged software in the Apple Store, and there's that big data center coming online in NC with a suspected push towards Cloud... hmmm?

If someone asked me, I'd tell them I need huge storage. I gotz mad skilz and crazy storage needs! Dang, it I'm a Pro! Use my iMac for work, full of photos, files and crap from the early 90s, old systems, music stored at audiophile sizes. Then I check out my hard drive and I've got 85 gig left out of 250. So much for big needz!

Fact is, many people's computers are like the tech version of some crazy hoarder's home with stacks of McDonald's wrappers, Costco boxes and 35-year old Reader's Digests and newspapers floor to ceiling. Then they want to enclosed the garage and porch so they can have more room for crap they don't need. This seems to be the Microsoft method of programming. It's not the Apple way. I think they have something else in mind and I can't wait to see.

 

[ciTiger]

Hate to be a party crasher and all but the "ending Boxed software" is being discussed in two threads... Maybe we could focus just on onde?

 

[chrmjenkins]

It doesn't make business sense that Apple wants all of their machines on flash storage? Sure it does. Apple buys at a discounted price and the consumer gets more bang for their buck than they did previously. Like they did with the MacBook Air that used to have a 4200-RPM HDD.

Apple buys everything at a discounted price, that's irrelevant. The simple fact is that they can't offer a MBP or MB with a comparable storage level at the same price as a traditional SSD. They can offer at as an option, but not standard. No computer maker out there that offers 13, 15 and 17 inch models that doesn't also offer versions of these with HDDs and optical drives.

Again, you have no idea how much markup Apple puts on the MacBook Pro's. Apple actually REDUCED the price of the MacBook Airs after going with complete flash storage. Also the current largest HDD Apple ships in the MBP's is 500GB's.

Which extends into my earlier point, they've been lowering prices across the board instead of offering 1k 512GB SSDs.

Example: Early 2009 iMacs. You could upgrade the 2.93GHz 24" Model to everything the 3.06GHz model had. When you added on the same HDD, the same processor, the same GPU it all came out to the same price as the price of the 3.06 GHz model.

Do you have a current example? (one that can actually be verified?) If you look at their top end BTO CPU options, it's usually a $200 flat upgrade regardless of actual price.

Who the hell said they were limited to 256GB of storage? The 512GB option they COULD put on is 12 more GB's than the best HDD they currently sell. Again, Apple LOWERED the price of the MBA when they went to flash storage. They have huge markup on the MBP and they have the room to stretch. No one else in this thread agrees with me? Because no one understands what bulk purchasing is and just looks at the retail price of a 512GB SSD, nor do they know how much markup is on the MBP's.

Ok, then tell us the numbers and we will all learn from you.

How about you give me some statistics about what consumers want in their products? You are claiming they NEED an optical drive to meet their needs. You are claiming they NEED to have more space.

No, I'm claiming enough consumers want the feature to warrant keeping it. Like I said, no other computer manufacturer out there doesn't have a laptop with both HDDs and optical drives.

"You're living in a dream if you think SSD's are going to be baseline."

Now look at the thread title. Context is magical, huh?

Again, you are speaking as if you can see the future. I find this amusing. I'm sure you're one of those guys that really wanted the floppy drive to stick around for a lot longer too, right? Apple is eliminating retail software for a reason, or at the very least clearing it out for something other than disks.

No, I just have enough sense to knowbehat the future doesn't contain.

 

[MacBOS]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

My 17" 2.16 MacBook pro is holding it's last breath (just a little longer baby)

 

[asdf542]

Oh boy, this is gonna be fun.

Apple buys everything at a discounted price, that's irrelevant. The simple fact is that they can't offer a MBP or MB with a comparable storage level at the same price as a traditional SSD. They can offer at as an option, but not standard. No computer maker out there that offers 13, 15 and 17 inch models that doesn't also offer versions of these with HDDs and optical drives.

This is wrong on so many levels. They can offer the SSD as a standard on the 13" and 11" Air so they can offer them on on their other notebooks. We aren't talking about other computer manufacturers, everyone knows Apple doesn't follow the status quo for better or for worse. You keep saying they can't after I'm proving you an example of the MBA then you write it off as "HURR DURR ULTRA PORTABLE NOT PRO"

Which extends into my earlier point, they've been lowering prices across the board instead of offering 1k 512GB SSDs.

They've been offering flash storage while lowering the prices which means their margins were so high that they could do both. This isn't rocket science and the same will be able to happen to the MBP.

Do you have a current example? (one that can actually be verified?) If you look at their top end BTO CPU options, it's usually a $200 flat upgrade regardless of actual price.

LOL, because you don't believe me? Heaven forbid you're actually wrong on something. But fine, you asked for a current example and I'll give you one. Go to the current 8-core Mac Pro > Select "Two 2.66GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” (12 cores)" > Compare price with the default 12 core Mac Pro. If you want I can find you a video of the early 2009 iMac upgrade options for insult to injury.

Ok, then tell us the numbers and we will all learn from you.

Riddle me this: Why do people buy a 12 pack box of cereals instead of buying all 12 individually?

No, I'm claiming enough consumers want the feature to warrant keeping it. Like I said, no other computer manufacturer out there doesn't have a laptop with both HDDs and optical drives.

So you are claiming you know what consumers want. Where's the survey?

"no other computer manufacturer out there doesn't have a laptop with both HDDs and optical drives."
What?

Now look at the thread title. Context is magical, huh?

Sorry, this doesn't work. You simply claimed it was a dream and provided no evidence to back up your claim while I offered the MBA as the counter argument.

No, I just have enough sense to knowbehat the future doesn't contain.

That's funny, especially considering the MacBook Air is already present. Optical media is dead to Apple and they're pushing flash storage on everything possible. This is only the beginning of the transition which is why you can't see the whole picture yet, but I assure you it's coming and it's coming sooner than you think.

 

[MacBOS]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

OMG these post are making my thumb ache