Born again 17" 5k Laptop coming...?

[jlc1978]

Anyone over 40 I know who buys laptops buys 17inch. All.
there is a market.

Hardly. The trend is to small and thinner in laptops. 17 inch machines are niche machines and there simply is not enough of a market to support the development of a new 17 inch MBP. One of my clients uses 15" HPs in a docking station as the standard desktop config but issues smaller, lighter travel laptops if you request one instead of the bigger HP. Those who want more screen space get a larger external monitor.

I WANT one.

You may, but not enough people do to make a worthwhile market for Apple.

 

[newellj]

Anyone over 40 I know who buys laptops buys 17inch. All.
there is a market.

You need to enlarge your social circle. I am over 40. I work with hundreds of people who use laptops every day who are over 40. I have lots of friends and acquaintances who are over 40. I have *never* seen any of them using a 17" laptop, and I have *never* heard any of them wishing they could find a 17" laptop of any brand, especially a Mac.

 

[gelatin]

i would prefer a large laptop cos even though i mainly use it at home, i use it in bed or on the sofa so i would never buy a desktop mac

 

[0x100]

For all the people saying there is no market for this kind of computer… Let's go see what's happening in the PC world with lenovo.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2960...inkpad-p50-and-p70-graphics-workstations.html

"How next-gen? Think up to 64GB of DDR4 RAM, true PCIe SSD performance, Thunderbolt 3 and true USB 3.1 too. There’s even a new Nvidia GPU."

• 17" display at 1080p with a 4k option available
  
• Intel Xeon E3-1500M v5
  
• DDR4 ECC memory support up to 64 GB
• 1 TB PCI-e storage
• 2 TB regular HDD storage
• Nvidia Quadro GPU
• Full sized pad for fingerprint reading
• Gigabit ethernet
• 3,4 kg
• USB type C port with support for Thunderbolt 3 40 Gb/s.
• Color calibration

What I found most interesting is that Lenovo is coming with Thunderbolt 3 in the USB type C connector before apple!

There's also a smaller 15" version with some of the features cut, but these two laptops are pretty ****ing sexy.

Why can't Apple do this? There is a market for it.

 

[zhenya]

There is a (small) market for those kind of machines, but that market is almost entirely confined to the Windows world. There just aren't that many users in the Mac world that would have use for a laptop with that kind of power. Most of the users who do are running programs that are Windows only.

Companies like Lenovo thrive by exploiting every possible market niche, and their product lines are confused as a result. Sometimes that means you can find just the right thing, but often it means that no one product they make is perfectly optimized as their resources are spread so thin. Apple is fundamentally different in that they purposefully keep their product lines relatively straight-forward and easy to understand.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

I love these threads they pop up every few months and provide me with endless entertainment while you all fantasise about an entirely impractical product that'll never be made.

 

[venom600]

I love these threads they pop up every few months and provide me with endless entertainment while you all fantasise about an entirely impractical product that'll never be made.

Only it has been made. It's just a Thinkpad (which, if you recall, was Steve Jobs computer of choice for years). The truth is that if the size is that important to you, it's your only option. Windows 10 is fantastic, and if your primary concern is getting work done, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you can't get it done just as easily on that monster Thinkpad.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Only it has been made. It's just a Thinkpad (which, if you recall, was Steve Jobs computer of choice for years). The truth is that if the size is that important to you, it's your only option. Windows 10 is fantastic, and if your primary concern is getting work done, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you can't get it done just as easily on that monster Thinkpad.

No they are fantasising about a monster apple product, it will never be made.

They all know they can go and buy a monster PC if they want (and there are more than thinkpads out there) they don't....

 

[Fishrrman]

With Apple's never-ending trend towards "smaller" and "thinner", I'm wondering how much longer we'll continue to see them offer a 15" screen.

17" ??
Forgeddaboutit!

 

[eyoungren]

There is a (small) market for those kind of machines, but that market is almost entirely confined to the Windows world. There just aren't that many users in the Mac world that would have use for a laptop with that kind of power. Most of the users who do are running programs that are Windows only.

On the whole I have to agree with this. I think what hasn't been said here among those who believe there is no market for a 17" Mac laptop is that there is no market for it among Apple users. Not that there is no market. You've now made that statement.

Apple is fundamentally different in that they purposefully keep their product lines relatively straight-forward and easy to understand.

Here though I have to disagree.

If we were talking pre-2006 I would agree with you. iBook, PowerBook, iMac PowerMac and you had speed bumps each year.

Since 2006 we've have the Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, MacBook, MacBook Air and some specialty Macs like the black MacBook. Each model gets offered in multiple GHZ speeds with different GPUs. The whole shebang has even further been stratified by referring to the models as early 2011, or late 2014 or what have you because Apple releases more than one model variant every year. Then Apple adds in the retina Macs - which are supposed to be better than the earlier models.

If you are a current Apple user this may make sense to you and it may be "relatively straight-forward and easy to understand," but I assure you that as a user coming from the PowerMac era or as a new customer it is not easy to understand. Perhaps it may be if you stick to one specific year when looking to buy, but overall - no. It's a confusing mess. And a lot of the problem is that the models all look the same.

Tell me what the physical difference between two aluminum MBPs are where one is Core 2 Duo and the other is Core Duo? You can't. You have to look at the model number.

I like Apple, but I'm sorry, their model offerings just got very large and confusing post 2006.

 

[eyoungren]

No they are fantasising about a monster apple product, it will never be made.

They all know they can go and buy a monster PC if they want (and there are more than thinkpads out there) they don't....

Or you can just go back and buy a 17" MBP from the time frame that Apple made them in. Or is that not an option just because Apple no longer makes a 17" Mac?

 

[zhenya]

If we were talking pre-2006 I would agree with you. iBook, PowerBook, iMac PowerMac and you had speed bumps each year.

Since 2006 we've have the Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, MacBook, MacBook Air and some specialty Macs like the black MacBook. Each model gets offered in multiple GHZ speeds with different GPUs. The whole shebang has even further been stratified by referring to the models as early 2011, or late 2014 or what have you because Apple releases more than one model variant every year. Then Apple adds in the retina Macs - which are supposed to be better than the earlier models.

If you are a current Apple user this may make sense to you and it may be "relatively straight-forward and easy to understand," but I assure you that as a user coming from the PowerMac era or as a new customer it is not easy to understand. Perhaps it may be if you stick to one specific year when looking to buy, but overall - no. It's a confusing mess. And a lot of the problem is that the models all look the same.

Tell me what the physical difference between two aluminum MBPs are where one is Core 2 Duo and the other is Core Duo? You can't. You have to look at the model number.

I like Apple, but I'm sorry, their model offerings just got very large and confusing post 2006.

In their laptop line, you have the MacBook, MacBook Air in two sizes, the 13" Pro, and the 15" Pro. Yes, each has multiple possible configurations, but so does every laptop made. It's really only 4 different laptops from Apple. Take a look at the offerings from Lenovo and Dell, which span dozens of models, many of them extremely similar, and tell me that Apple's lineup is not a lot more straightforward!

 

[eyoungren]

In their laptop line, you have the MacBook, MacBook Air in two sizes, the 13" Pro, and the 15" Pro. Yes, each has multiple possible configurations, but so does every laptop made. It's really only 4 different laptops from Apple. Take a look at the offerings from Lenovo and Dell, which span dozens of models, many of them extremely similar, and tell me that Apple's lineup is not a lot more straightforward!

In comparison. OK. I'll give you that. Perhaps Apple has made recent moves to simplify things but it's still confusing to me. Maybe if I limited myself only to the 2015 offerings it might be easier.

 

[dumastudetto]

If there was a large demand, the model would have remained. It didn't.

Yep. There was never going to be sufficient demand to retain the product once Apple moved away from caring much about meeting the needs of prosumers. It's the same reason why the servers were killed. And why software like Aperture was abandoned, Final Cut retuned, etc. They are not going to reverse course now.

 

[venom600]

Or you can just go back and buy a 17" MBP from the time frame that Apple made them in. Or is that not an option just because Apple no longer makes a 17" Mac?

You can't because the last year they made them (2011), all of them have graphics issues that will cause catastrophic failure. Look up radeongate on this forum for more info. I'd still have my 17" if it weren't for that because when upgraded all the way it was the match of any current Macbook Pro in performance. Anything older than 2011 and you are giving up too much performance and features (no thunderbolt, ancient graphics, etc).

I still contend that if you are a real "pro" in the classic sense of Apple's use of the word, you'll buy the Thinkpad because these days the differences between OS X and Windows are so small when you live inside of Illustrator or Photoshop.

 

[cube]

I think the new mobile Xeons are still only quad core. Disappointed, but not surprised.

 

[eyoungren]

You can't because the last year they made them (2011), all of them have graphics issues that will cause catastrophic failure. Look up radeongate on this forum for more info. I'd still have my 17" if it weren't for that because when upgraded all the way it was the match of any current Macbook Pro in performance. Anything older than 2011 and you are giving up too much performance and features (no thunderbolt, ancient graphics, etc).

I still contend that if you are a real "pro" in the classic sense of Apple's use of the word, you'll buy the Thinkpad because these days the differences between OS X and Windows are so small when you live inside of Illustrator or Photoshop.

Interesting. Of course I only have my own experience to go by, but someone had a 17" Unibody MBP in my son's Sunday School class last Sunday and I've done some layout work for a guy a couple of years ago on his 17" Unibody MBP. I am aware of several late model 17" MBPs that are still being used out there in the places I go.

I think though we have to redefine a real "pro". You are saying, the classic sense which to me means either video editing or CGI. But there are other "pros" that don't necessarily need Thunderbolt or those things but who do appreciate a larger screen size. I'm a graphic designer for a newspaper and I very much appreciate my 17" Macs.

But working for a newspaper does not involve the same kind of resources as say, working for Dreamworks.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Yep. There was never going to be sufficient demand to retain the product once Apple moved away from caring much about meeting the needs of prosumers. It's the same reason why the servers were killed. And why software like Aperture was abandoned, Final Cut retuned, etc. They are not going to reverse course now.

The servers were killed because Apple didnt sell enough to make them worth maintaining. The software went because Apple is a hardware company that uses flashy new software to sell hardware.

 

[cube]

Hardly. The trend is to small and thinner in laptops. 17 inch machines are niche machines and there simply is not enough of a market to support the development of a new 17 inch MBP. One of my clients uses 15" HPs in a docking station as the standard desktop config but issues smaller, lighter travel laptops if you request one instead of the bigger HP. Those who want more screen space get a larger external monitor.



You may, but not enough people do to make a worthwhile market for Apple.

Mobile workstations is the only PC segment that keeps growing since years ago.

 

[mikecalderone]

I am a Software Development Manager and prefer 17" Macbook Pro. As stated earlier, there is an Apple need for Software designers and Magazine editors. Just not big enough for Apple to bring it back. I am still using my Late 2011 17 Macbook Pro. For the people ho say I should try the 15" Retina, I have bought one, have one, and I still go back to 17" Macbook Pro.It is not a Windows world Laptop requirement.

 

[nStyle]

Why is the 15" worse than the 17" in your opinion? The 15" has more power, a better screen, and is more portable. It's only a two inch difference...Also, if you need more space, why not just get an external monitor? Wouldn't you rather have 15" vs 17" for porting around?

I just think for most people the 15" does everything and more that the 17" could/would do, hence no reason for Apple to bring it back. Power is a non-issue since PC components by this point are very mature all around. If you more power than the high end 15", you need to be looking at a proper desktop anyway.

I am a Software Development Manager and prefer 17" Macbook Pro. As stated earlier, there is an Apple need for Software designers and Magazine editors. Just not big enough for Apple to bring it back. I am still using my Late 2011 17 Macbook Pro. For the people ho say I should try the 15" Retina, I have bought one, have one, and I still go back to 17" Macbook Pro.It is not a Window Laptop requirement

 

[mikecalderone]

Why is the 15" worse than the 17" in your opinion? The 15" has more power, a better screen, and is more portable. It's only a two inch difference...Also, if you need more space, why not just get an external monitor? Wouldn't you rather have 15" vs 17" for porting around?

I just think for most people the 15" does everything and more that the 17" could/would do, hence no reason for Apple to bring it back. Power is a non-issue since PC components by this point are very mature all around. If you more power than the high end 15", you need to be looking at a proper desktop anyway.

Not enough space for comparing code on two split screens on the 15 inch screen. The 17 is perfect.
Sure, the 17 inch is slower then the 15 inch retina. I also have an Apple 27 inch thunderbolt display.
This display is outdated, overheats and is heavy. Why? I still believe there is a need for an updated Apple
Macbook Pro 17. But as stated, I know Apple is not interested in supporting the professionals, only home use, and that is a shame.

 

[austinpike]

I don't understand the 17" size. By today's standards, it's too big/awkward to carry around everywhere.

You don't carry it around everywhere. If I want to get work done on the road, I'm taking it to a hotel where it sits on the desk for a few days, I'm not hauling it along to every restaurant and coffee shop. And I want the biggest screen possible for that.

The 17" was more svelte than most 15" windows laptops in the day. I carried it in a sleeve "designed" for 15" machines. I wouldn't even say it is big by today's standards, there are plenty of windows portables that dwarf it. There is almost enough room in the ridiculous bezel of the current 15" model to fit a 17" screen.

I'm tired of "poor sales" being repeated ad infinitum when there has never been any such indication from Apple. They have made many bizzare product choices and shown themselves to be willing/able to continue producing other "poor selling" products. Every designer I knew had a 17". Look at the market prices for used 17" models, they are ridiculous even with the looming spectre of radeongate.

I think it just comes down to the fact that there were no new 17" panels at the time, and forcing develoment of a new 17" panel alongside the 15" admittedly didn't make much sense. And they offered the 1920 option on the retina as a replacement. For some it is sufficient, for many it just isn't the same. I would bet most of those in the "15" is fine" camp are perfectly happy running at native retina 1440 resolution, while most of those running 1920 would rather be working on a 17".

 

[zhenya]

No enough space for comparing code on two split screens on the 15 inch screen. The 17 is perfect.
Sure, the 17 inch is slower then the 15 inch retina. I also have an Apple 27 inch thunderbolt display.
This display is outdated, overheats and is heavy. Why? I still believe there is a need for an updated Apple
Macbook Pro 17. But as stated, I know Apple is not interested in supporting the professionals, only home use, and that is a shame.

Run the 15" model at 1920x1200 and you have *exactly* the same amount of space on both screens. Not quite large enough you say? Retina screens in my experience make text content so much sharper that you can move down about 2" in screen size while retaining the same legibility. (I have personally moved from laptops with 14" screens for mobility to ones with 12" screens). THAT is why Apple is not building a 17" model anymore. Because they have been able to build a much better laptop in a 15" form factor.

Apple's laptops are better suited to professionals than the vast majority of PC laptops on the market today. Both the 13" and 15" models pack in considerably more processing power per square inch than perhaps any other laptop on the market. In the case of the 15", in order to get those processors and video cards in a PC generally requires a mobile workstation weighing in at about 7lbs not including the power brick that weighs another pound or more itself.

 

[newellj]

No enough space for comparing code on two split screens on the 15 inch screen. The 17 is perfect.
Sure, the 17 inch is slower then the 15 inch retina. I also have an Apple 27 inch thunderbolt display.
This display is outdated, overheats and is heavy. Why? I still believe there is a need for an updated Apple
Macbook Pro 17. But as stated, I know Apple is not interested in supporting the professionals, only home use, and that is a shame.

Look at it from Apple's perspective. They spent a lot developing the 17" machine and bringing it to market. The professionals didn't support the machine - the sales just weren't there. Pursuing a machine that a tiny number of people will buy is irresponsible. It's a business, not a charity.