Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How likely will Apple relase something larger than the 15" rMBP?

NewbieCanada said:
Literally 99% of Mac buyers did not share your problem.
Click to expand...

You know this.... intimately do you?

It doesn't matter to the big red crispy fruit company, what does is they are filthy rich and profitable, the important stat here people, please, is that the entire MacBook line does stupendously well. They have more money than you will ever, ever comprehend, so don't tell me that they decided not to continue the 17"MBP when you haven't the slightest idea how to run a giant company and what non sense you're all spouting here. You will never know if they will or they wont bring the 17" MBP back, it isn't the POINT, the point is that we hope it will and wish it will. This is better than telling ourselves we KNOW they wont because we read a few articles that the company didn't officially make a statement specifically about the 17"MBP line.

So please. We don't know what is going to happen, we just WANT a HUGE notebook computer with enormous power! But make it paper thin too.
 
mcarling said:
The reason Apple stopped making 17" MBPs is that, a year ago, yields on 17" Retina displays were so low that the prices would have been prohibitive.
Click to expand...
No, that has nothing to do with it. Apple intentionally discontinued the 17" model instead of just continuing to sell it as it did with the 13" and 15" ones.

They did it because it wasn't worth it to them to keep it around. What you wrote is one of several reasons they didn't introduce a 17" retina version, but not a reason for abandoning the size altogether.
Bobby Corwen said:
First of all to start off, the sales argument is misleading because people imply that the 17 sold low (and since they personally didnt have it) they figure nobody else wanted it.
Click to expand...
It was beyond a doubt Apple's worst-selling notebook. Part of that was the high price, but most of it is that 17" laptops just don't sell well in general anymore. Apple was the first major manufacturer to offer it and it surprisingly held on to it well after several other manufacturers abandoned them.
There were many more people who wanted it than people who actually had it.

It was over 2500 dollars! Of course it wasnt accessible to sell massively like a 999$ laptop in a 700$ laptop world...
Click to expand...
True, but that's just another reason it's not coming back.
vpro said:
You will never know if they will or they wont bring the 17" MBP back, it isn't the POINT, the point is that we hope it will and wish it will.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is exactly the point. The question is "How likely will Apple release something larger than the 15" MBP?" and the answer is "almost definitely not."
DHagan4755 said:
You're assuming because you saw no one with them that's why it was discontinued?
Click to expand...
Not because s/he saw no one with them individually, but because almost no one bought them worldwide. I happen to know lots of people who own or owned one, but that doesn't make me think they were actually selling well.

They were less than 2% of Apple notebook sales. That's not worth the stock space or logistics when Macs are now less than one-third of Apple's sales, making it Apple's worst-selling product with the possible exception of the Mac Pro.
 
If Apple "cares enough" about the professional market to remove the dedicated GPU in the 15" rMBP come the Haswell refresh, then I bet they also care just as much about releasing a 17" rMBP.

Yeah, us professionals work best with an ultra high resolution display on... integrated graphics, right!?
 
lianlua said:
They were less than 2% of Apple notebook sales.
Click to expand...
You're quoting an article from a rumor site who's quoting an analyst. Geesh. It could be right, but again, it's not official. Apple doesn't break down the different products by sales. And everything I brought up could be legit as to why Apple didn't offer 17 retina...c'mon...
 
DHagan4755 said:
You're quoting an article from a rumor site who's quoting an analyst. Geesh. It could be right, but again, it's not official.
Click to expand...
No, it's not official, but sales channel estimates of past sales are not rocket science. Retailers other than Apple can and do disclose more detailed sales information, Apple serial numbers conform to a fairly consistent pattern, and other methods used to gather this information like spot-checking stores for who's buying what all tell a consistent story.

Can you be confident that the 1.7% figure is absolutely accurate? Of course not. But it's in the ballpark. Even if sales were three times more, which is nearly impossible, it'd still be the worst-selling laptop by a mile.

And it's not just Apple. All the major manufacturers are abandoning 17" models because of poor sales.
And everything I brought up could be legit as to why Apple didn't offer 17 retina...c'mon...
Click to expand...
"Forced obsolescence" isn't one of them, even though what you seem to mean by that is that they wanted to push people onto the 15" models ("cannibalism"). That argument doesn't make any sense, because if they offered a 17" version, it would be more profitable. They'd want to push people the other way, to the upsell, just as they do with the rest of their product lines.

There are plenty of reasons there's no 17" retina, but only one fundamental reason there's no 17" cMBP: there weren't enough people left to buy one to make it worth keeping around.
 
Mr. Retrofire said:
The Ivy Bridge/Haswell IGP has no problem with high resolution displays. The Apple drivers are substandard.
Click to expand...

They have no problem until you run something like Maya.

I have yet to see any indication of Iris Pro even standing up to last generation's dGPU in terms of performance at Retina resolution.

And if I can't run Maya at the native resolution of the screen, what's the point?
 
Bigger Screen, or Better Eyes..

Well, I surely cannot say, but DO have a good friend who had previously used a 2011 17" MBP (1920 by 1200 native resolution) and used it and LOVED it for the 'screen real estate'.. That being said, he has replaced it with a 2012 Top of the Line 15" rMBP (I think they are a 2880 by 1800 resolution) and Loves it at least as much.. He does a LOT of Programming and Audio-Video work as well, and will have a TON of windows open and being swapped between at any given time.. and he will connect it to 2x 32"+ Displays in his Office, I believe..

So, I cannot say, as I have never seen the need for one, but is the problem a Bigger Screen, or not having Better Eyesight..?? I have a 2011 15" MBP i7 with a 'hi-res antiglare' 1680x1050 display, and know MANY people who cannot read it without glasses, including my friend mentioned above.. I am 50 years old, do not wear glasses (yet) and suspect that Just Maybe the Screen Size issue is more Personal and Physical in nature than Technical, but am willing to be told otherwise by someone who uses/ wants one.. 5 Million++ is a LOT of "specs of light" to look at, and almost 3x what mine is now!!

** I surely DO NOT want to have to carry a bigger machine to do anything mine will do, especially if it is a 15" and has 2880 x 1800 pixels on it, I cannot see wanting/needing a 17" screen.. but as always is the case in the marketplace, IF there is Enough of a Need, there Will be a Solution.. Methinks!! :cool:
 
Last edited:
lianlua said:
No, that has nothing to do with it. Apple intentionally discontinued the 17" model instead of just continuing to sell it as it did with the 13" and 15" ones.

They did it because it wasn't worth it to them to keep it around. What you wrote is one of several reasons they didn't introduce a 17" retina version, but not a reason for abandoning the size altogether.
Click to expand...

Your suggestion that Apple could have retained the 17" cMBP without introducing a 17" rMBP makes no sense from a marketing perspective. It would have been a negative signal about the 13" and 15" rMBP. I'm sure no one at Apple seriously considered retaining the 17" cMBP without introducing a 17" rMBP.
 
Near-sighted vision.

Near-sighted people have no problem with resolution as long as it isn't the inferior resolution of the airs and low res glossy 15inchers. The 13" and 17" MBPs I find to be really great for my eyes. The retina 13" is actually really delish too! Just too bad it isn't powerful enough and bezel isn't thinner.
 
lianlua said:
And it's not just Apple. All the major manufacturers are abandoning 17" models because of poor sales.
Click to expand...
Really? Citation?

I Google'd for this & could only come up with links to Apple's decision to ax the 17".

Also this is a good read:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/why-apple-dumped-the-17-inch-macbook-pro/20761

One thing that blows a hole in this weak sales theory is Apple's continued commitment to the Mac Pro. While we're not offered any figures by Apple, I'm certain that the company sold more 17-inch MacBook Pros over the last year than it has Mac Pro systems. I certainly come across more 17-inch MacBook Pro systems than I do Mac Pros. While I'm sure that while sales played a part in Apple's decision to drop the larger of the MacBook Pro systems, I'm also certain that it wasn't the only reason for their demise.
Click to expand...
 
mcarling said:
The reason Apple stopped making 17" MBPs is that, a year ago, yields on 17" Retina displays were so low that the prices would have been prohibitive. Prices have since fallen and continue to fall, as yields improve. Apple could now offer a 17" rMBP for about $1000 less than they could have a year ago.
Click to expand...

interesting theory - i had the last gen 17" cMBP and really loved it. However, as my needs have changed, i am looking to purchase a 13"rmbp and the refreshed has well iMacs
 
GeneKerbin said:
So you know that nobody was buying it? Where did you get your sales figures from? Are you psychic too?
Click to expand...

Dude, don't kill the messenger. If the MBP17 were selling in the numbers Apple needed then it would still be around, yes? And no, I'm not psychic. Nobody really knows Apple's unit movement but there are hints as to why it was dumped:

According to Kuo's estimates for the first calendar quarter of 2012, Apple sold roughly 3.1 million notebooks, with nearly half of them being the 13-inch MacBook Pro, far and away the company's best-selling Mac product. But while Kuo predicts sales of nearly 1.5 million units of the 13-inch MacBook Pro, he sees much lower sales of roughly 500,000 15-inch models and only 50,000 17-inch models.
Click to expand...

Source.

Again, "wishing" they still made it won't make it so. The demand just wasn't there because the niche market was/is too small.
 
Mr. Retrofire said:
If you use Maya on a mobile computer you have probably “other” problems. ;)
Click to expand...

So I can't just open a scene and quickly edit something, I have to wait until I take that plane back to my workstation a week later and then make that change that the client requested?

Sounds like a great way to do business. ;)
 
Krazy Bill said:
Dude, don't kill the messenger. If the MBP17 were selling in the numbers Apple needed then it would still be around, yes? And no, I'm not psychic. Nobody really knows Apple's unit movement but there are hints as to why it was dumped:



Source.

Again, "wishing" they still made it won't make it so. The demand just wasn't there because the niche market was/is too small.
Click to expand...

So why are they releasing a new Mac Pro?
 
hajime said:
Apple killed the 17" MBP. Do you think it will make something bigger than the 15" rMBP in a year or so?
Click to expand...

Doubtful.

1. It never sold well
KGI analyst in 2012 "Kuo said sales of the 17-inch MacBook Pro amounted to about 50,000 units during the first quarter of 2012, compared to 1.5 million of the 13-inch models and 500,000 for the 15-inch models. Kuo also estimated first-quarter MacBook Air sales at 1.1 million units". He has/had better access to sales numbers than I do. Anecdotally, in my whole life I have probably met 5-8 people who own a 17inch MBP. It just doesn't sell, and isn't envied the way other halo products are. Everyone always wanted a 15 MBP, not a 17 inch (anecdotally). Meanwhile, many imac owners would take a MacPro upgrade in a heartbeat.

2. Its not portable, no matter what everyone says
Most people who want a laptop want something portable to take around. The push these days at Apple is small, light, powerful and mobile. 15 inch-13 inch laptops seems to be what people like. For the people who need bigger screens, higher resolution can satisfy many of them. As computing power improves, there is less and less need for the chassis space a 17inch provides, as smaller laptops can hit the sweet spot. The MBA is a hit with the power of a MBP just 2 years ago. ipads are a hit. Big computers? Not so much. I don't see why a bigger laptop be the right move/a seller from Apples point of view.

3. It ruins the lineup
Apple is very organized. Pros may want a mobile desktop, but that is an oxymoron for Apple. Apple products fit in a defined space. The Air is a small, light laptop. The 13 rmbp is supposed to be a full featured laptop. The 15 rMBP is full featured, powerful laptop. Also note the sizes: 11, 13, 15 just like small, medium, large. Just like the ipod nano, mini, and touch. Of course there are exception..the ipod classic is kept because it is a classic and has history, and likely super cheap to make. The ipads only come in 2 sizes due to the tablet form only really supporting 2 sizes; and even then, the iphone or ipod touch can be seen as an ipad nano. A "portable desktop" or "very powerful, large laptop", which the 17inch would be would be, is a 4th category that doesn't fit in the mobile line up.

4. GPU
Mobile GPUs are being pushed to integrated; equivalent processing, less power use, Apple will likely soon be all portable iGPUs, completing the simplification of their lineup to what I see is their ideal 1 board per line (no HDDs, drives, etc). A 17inch laptop would either tax an iGPU and not work or need a dGPU...necessitating a lot of extra logistics and going against their vision. Not to mention, even if it had a dGPU, it wouldn't be that great; Apple never puts cutting edege graphics cards in their mobile devices, choosing battery life over power.

5. No halo
While a 17mbp could be a halo product, sold in low numbers and made for prestige, it isn't. The 15inch took that spot long ago. It is their crown jewel laptop being a big seller and a halo. The issue is that a laptop needs be small and relatively light to be considered a "useful or real" laptop. In the publics and tech reviwers eyes, the 17 inch never was small or light compared to the 15 and it had nearly equivalent processing power and was just an impressive. So the 15 inch got the spotlight and the prestige. Like I alluded to earlier,I think desktop owners usually envy the MacPro, and would take one if cost was not a factor. The only downside of the MP is price. For laptops, I think most people would upgrade their 15, not get a 17. The downside of a 17 is that it is bigger, which many people don't want in their "dream" laptop

6. Nowhere to go
What would be the point, the killer app, the big seller for a 17inch rmbp? Desktop processors is out, the 15 has it. Dual chips would be too hot. More battery is not needed with Haswell and broadwell coming, as well as iris, since everything should be hitting 12 hrs. There would be little point of more in the larger 17, if it could even do it (since the screen and GPU would need so much power). No one needs 18 hr battery life in a portable desktop...its going to a desk. A dGPU opposes Apples direction. More storage, or an optical drive are being depriortized, removed, or replaced by wireless and the cloud. A 4k screen would be meaningless as the 13 and 15 already have retina and I don't think consumers would be able to tell the difference, and it would also be confusing eg "what makes 4k better than retina?". Most people can get all their mobile work done on a 15 inch screen that can be uprezzed to 17 pixel size.

So, while I personally harbor no ill will towards the 17, I just don't really see it coming back. It lost its spot. A great computer, but it was from back when laptops were 13, 15, 17, back when you needed space inside a chassis for large parts, back when you couldn't make higher res panels so you had to make them bigger.
 
GeneKerbin said:
So why are they releasing a new Mac Pro?
Click to expand...
My guess? The Apple uber-pro market is so small they can't make multiple devices that cater to that market. May as well produce just one thing that shares the other peripherals already available. For those that need some power along with mobility - there's the 15" MBP. Apple's challenge now is to convince everyone they won't abandon this one like they did the last. (There's some trust issues here).

I also think putting a retina display in the 17" was too cost prohibitive. (It was already pricey enough).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back