Of course it's a rendering. The question is whose.
My guess is that they'd have graphic design firms internal. Both companies are sufficiently large.
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.
Intel Ad Sparks Speculation of Next-Generation MacBook Pro Leak
- Thread starter mabaker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course it's a rendering. The question is whose.
My guess is that they'd have graphic design firms internal. Both companies are sufficiently large.
Your example was a joke. Let me recap this for you:
Someone posted supposed liquidmetal bars
I responded with that's not what liquidmetal looks like using multiple examples that look alike including their own damn alloy image
Someone else responds with a low quality image stating that they match the edited alloy bar photo
I respond asking for an image that matches that with some decent lighting
You respond with anodization talk and post an image that you have no idea if it's anodized or not
I didn't follow up with similar products I followed up with products in the exact same god damn line as the one you posted. Your one and only example is falling apart at the seams as you have no concrete evidence to back it up. You are simply guessing.
Once again, if anyone thought that I wanted to start comparing something like anodized aluminum that is green to anodized liquidmetal that is brown then you are out of your mind. Anodization was not in play here. You didn't even know if your example is anodized or not. That should speak enough for your argument.
Also if liquidmetal is as unpredictable as you think it is then why wouldn't there be about twenty different random variations of these products?
Actually, your original post claimed absolute knowledge about liquid metal's appearance, raw or processed. You explicitly stated "liquid metal doesn't look like that." You followed this up with several images, in various states of production, of liquid metal that all have very similar appearance.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/11803837/
To provide exception to your assertion, I showed a picture of a liquid metal product that had a distinctively darker color to it. You helped my case by posting further liquid metal products in yet more varying hues of the metal.
So, unequivocally, liquid metal looks like whatever it is engineered to look like. Whether this process is anodization, metal impurities, or plain old paint, it occurs.
Indeed you did, further illustrating my point. Thank you.
Once again, if anyone thought that I wanted to start comparing something like anodized aluminum that is green to anodized liquidmetal that is brown then you are out of your mind. Anodization was not in play here. You didn't even know if your example is anodized or not. That should speak enough for your argument.
Also if liquidmetal is as unpredictable as you think it is then why wouldn't there be about twenty different random variations of these products?
I in no way stated that it was unpredictable, just that it was unique in its lack of a strict crystalline structure. Even in its uniqueness, material scientists have no doubt found very repeatable methods with which to treat and process it. What I still fail to understand is why the process of anodization is a problem for you, and moreover, why it is unclear if that is the process in use is a problem. You originally stated that the metal only looked a certain way. When pressed, you asserted that anodization was not relevant even though you failed to specify any bounding conditions as to liquid metal's finished appearance.
Introducing the all new MacBook Pro, it's even thinner than the MacBook Air Apple released 5 months ago!
Corrected.
I'm sorry, you're reason and logic just isn't going to fly here. When you have a user named "CrystalPepsi" declaring This is the real deal, folks., it's like Jobs himself declared it so.
Sorry, when someone posts an unidentified image of alloy BARS that are untouched and provide nothing but edited images to compare I responded with images that actually did match and prove that if they all looked the same. The chances of all of these looking the same while all being anodized are slim to none. You showed ONE picture that could've been anodized and have nothing else that matches it which just proves the point that you are wrong.
Illustrating your point that you have no idea whether your example was anodized or not? Oh boy this is too funny. I showed you a product in the same line that is ORANGE and you are playing it off as inconsistencies in liquid metal just to try and prove your point.
And yet somehow every single sim ejector tool looks the same.
Why the process of anodization is a problem for me? LOL. Well ****, let's see. I was comparing the color of one thing to another that were both supposedly raw. One being the supposed bars and the other being some random image. The images I posted all matched. Coincidence? I think not. You have so far posted one image with nothing that matches it. Bravo.
You didn't correct anything. You changed "we" to "Apple" when the post was in the shoes of someone speaking from Apple. Great job missing the joke.Corrected.
@asdf542 and @chrmjenkins, who cares? Can't we all just get along?
No, this guy feels the need to be up my ass in nearly every thread possible.
Why, is the process of anodization not extremely repeatable? Do models of the same thumb drive not look identical that use liquid metal? Do anodized macbooks not look identical? Where does the slim to none creep in?
What inconsistencies? The product demonstrated that liquid metal can have distinctive appearances from the ones you have shown. You did not dispute that it looked different, nor did you dispute that it was liquid metal. The quirks of the material have nothing do with if the material can look different. They may have everything to do with how it looks different.
Of course, manufacturing processes are repeatable, as mentioned above.
Every other product produced of the same model matches it. Besides, the original intent was to show products that did not match the ones you provided.
You quoted the wrong post. We'll see what the score is 3/1. I'll meet you back here then.
EDIT: BTW, what kind of name is "mouthster"? That's not much better than mine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Um, he was being sarcastic, saying that a logicial argument is likely to be ignored by many of the posters here (with you as an example).
-Captain Obvious
Last edited by a moderator:
Hold on... so you're telling me that Apple uses anodization on the sim ejector tool? And they happen to use the same anodization used in a limited time watch? And those also happen to be the same color as the alloy image? LOL
The product demonstrated the likelihood of your example being anodized therefore taking it out of the subject.
And yet you have still yet to show an image that you can actually prove isn't anodized that actually matches something other than itself.
You had no original intent. Your original intent was to bring up anodization in relation to an image that you didn't even know if it was anodized or not. I was responding to an image that had raw bars with a watch that looked exactly like the alloy image they post on their site and a sim ejector tool that looks exactly like the alloy image they post on their site. The chances of those both being anodized and looking the same are slim to none. You on the other hand have posted ONE example and ONE product that has multiple color configurations leading to a very strong chance that it is anodized and therefore no longer relevant.
With what look like a ridge across the top of the screen and no iSight I find it unlikely that it is the new MBP.
No such statement or implied statement was ever made. The core subject has always been 'can the material look different?', not how or why. One would think that the smooth appearance of the images you posted does not look like anodization, yet the watch does have a slightly anodized or brushed look to it.
Which in no way disables it from addressing the initial question, 'Can it look different.' You imposed no disqualifying criteria to start with, yet you now somehow insist on it.
There is no need for me to do either. The original purpose was to show that it is different, not the same.
My, you do change your mind fast, don't you? The intent was to show that the material's appearance can differ. I could have left anodization out of it and the point would remain.
What characteristic about anodization precludes them from looking similar? Perhaps you have a journal article? Why do they need to be anodized to be relevant to the ones that do appear anodized? After all, the original question was can they look different, not how.
Why does potential anodization disqualify it as being irrelevant? I am still puzzled on that point.
You didn't correct anything. You changed "we" to "Apple" when the post was in the shoes of someone speaking from Apple. Great job missing the joke.
So if we -----> Apple is not a correction... Oh wow, gradz on the Apple board
@asdf542 and @chrmjenkins, who cares? Can't we all just get along?
I agree. You two are arguing over a point that no gives a **** about. In fact, you two probably don't care about it either.
As for the original picture, It looks like a generic laptop to me. I don't see any hidden messages.
Haha, So i literally whipped this up in like two minutes flat in photoshop.
Whatever this may imply, these things are looking more and more similar, far too much so to be coincidental.
But maybe that's just blinding hope.
(Open both in tabs and switch back and forth to see just how relative they are to each other.)
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Turn it upside down and look at in a mirror. Now overlay the dollar bill with it. There it is, the secrets of our founding fathers.
I think the general consensus is that it looks like an apple product and if it isn't, it should be.
The problem is that the MBP is very iconic and many may use it as a reference machine for graphic mockups.
I sure hope you're not drinking what your cat was drinking because there's no unicorn.