Its clever marketing, I asked myself each of those questions before buying my MBP this morning.
One thing I never asked though was whether to get a HDD upgrade, those prices are crazy
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.
Isn't the resolution on the 15" low?
- Thread starter tofagerl
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Its clever marketing, I asked myself each of those questions before buying my MBP this morning.
One thing I never asked though was whether to get a HDD upgrade, those prices are crazy
1) Huge number?
Do you know how many MILLIONS of Macs Apple sells every quarter? Forum reality is always a small slice of "REAL" reality...2) So, imagine how many MORE threads would pop-up if MORE dilemmas were introduced. It's about keeping dilemmas at the minimum possible level. No OS version dilemma, no screen resolution dilemma, etc.
The market evolves, new needs, new trends, new GPUs, etc, this kind of comparisons "first .... , then ...." are always flawed by this evolution.
Until perfect and unfailing resolution independence, I think it is.
I'm not saying 1680x1050 would be a disaster, I'm saying that if ONE has to be chosen, it is wise for apple to choose 1400x900.
17" is aimed mostly at PROs, and today even more than yesterday. (introduction of 13" MBP, good LCDs on 13" and 15", Express Card only on 17")
So you cannot just say "consumers decided for 1920x1200", it is more complex because you must consider the target, you must consider that AT LEAST one laptop of the line had to be 1080p-capable for PROs who need that, etc...
In that case they should just scrap the MBP 13", the MB 13" and the MBP 17". No more dilemmas, one size fits all!
It's not about eliminating dilemmas, it's about an obsession with cutting production costs on premium hardware, which I find odd. Normally the customization matrix grows with the price. If you buy a VW Polo you can choose between a total of one (1) complete interiors. If you buy a VW Phaeton limo you can choose between six different types of wood for the dashboard inlays alone.
In Apple's bizarro world, the flagship MBP has less options than an entry-level consumer Dell Inspiron. PC manufacturers often have completely different sets of parts for different models. Apple has a single keyboard type that goes into all the laptops as well as the wireless and compact wired keyboards. Normally this kind of blatant cost cutting ends with the slogan "because we pass the savings on to YOU!", but here the savings are passed on to... err... Steve.
Come on, it wouldn't kill them to offer two different resolution alternatives for the 13" and the 15". They'd still have the most devoid-of-options lineup by miles.
Non-sense.
Not comparable kind of simplification.
And you're using a fallacy (slippery slope) as an argument.
It's ALSO about that.
And it's ALSO about dilemmas.
And it's ALSO about creating a coherent, plain, standard (also good "tech assistance"-wise), few-variables (also good OS-wise) ECOSYSTEM.
And it's ALSO about RETAIL STORES stocks.
It's about many things.
And sacrificing these things is simply not worth, if it is just to satisfy a bunch of geek customers with more customization needs. (who can anyway, since they are geeks, use their knowledge to find the best product for their needs)
Yeah, Asus with 50 confusing and redundant laptops a year is better....
It's not a bizzarro world, it is a PRECISE POLICY.
You cannot say this.
Remember MATERIALS, R&D, etc
Remember pricy Sony ATOM Vaios and Dells and crappy all-in-ones. (= remember what happens to the price when someone try to "be like Apple" regarding MATERIALS, DESIGN, BUILD QUALITY, etc)
Remember the price of Snow Leopard, iLife and iWork.
You should reconsider your feelings about the "Apple tax" or "Apple premium price", I repeat look what happens to the price when someone try to "be like apple".
I think somehow the savings ARE passed on to us.
So in this case the policy is 'Let's profile the 17" as a pro machine (hence the higher PPI) and the 13" and 15" as mainstream consumer machines, and just to make the distinction crystal clear, we name the whole bunch of them Pro, including the 13" model'...?
Look... now that they've added a matte option for the 15", they've already introduced the element of screen options with all it comes with in terms of BTO handling of screens. Some warehouse in China would have four piles of 15" MBP screens instead of two. They're building them to order anyway.
- It would make no difference to retail stock since the Apple Stores would only carry the standard config anyway, like they do now.
- The OS doesn't give jack if you have 1440x900 or 1680x1050.
- A higher res screen isn't a 'geek' item, it's beneficial to anyone except the visually impaired.
Does the current policy help or hurt sales? I don't know, but personally I wasn't interested in Mac laptops at all until the 17" was equipped with a 1920x1200 screen. I wanted to get a PowerBook/MacBook for ages, ever since the Titanium PB, but the dealbreaker was that the screens always had jumbo resolution (much worse than now).
In 2001 I had a Dell 15" (4:3) w/ 1600x1200 res. The contemporary PB had 1152x768.
In 2003 I looked at 15" PowerBooks again. Now they were up to a 'whopping' 1280x854. Dealbreaker. I bought a Dell 15.4" w/ 1680x1050.
In 2005 I looked at PowerBooks again. Still at 1280x854, but now they had a 17" model. With... drumroll... 1440x900. Whaaaaaaaat? Are they for real? Dealbreaker, bought another Dell 15.4", this time with 1920x1200.
In 2006, at long last, they added a 1920x1200 option for the 17". It wasn't ideal (I would've preferred a 15"), but at least they had *one* laptop in their lineup that didn't have pixels the size of Oreo's, and from then on portable Macs have been on my wanted list. I got my first one in June this year. They could've sold me 3-4 PB/MBP since 2001 if they would've offered workable screens, do you think I'm the only one?
Well, in my case I guess it helps sales since I have to get a 17" instead of a 15", but I can imagine a lot of people look at the 15" and get a 13" instead. And if you're getting a 13", why not look at the Macbook?
Or then of course you could get a Lenovo or Dell and decide your own specifications. Which I would love to do on my MBP
Or then of course you could get a Lenovo or Dell and decide your own specifications. Which I would love to do on my MBP
Heh. You just explained why I have never owned an Apple product. They cater to the other 99% out there, the people who don't want to think about that who want a product they will find awesome.
I'm in the 1% that really wants what he wants, the way he wants it. It seems you are too.
I don't get why you have a mac then.
1) Huge number?
Yet every time I walk into an Apple store I see a ton of people hemming and hawing about what kind of mac they need to buy too. You're right about the forums being a small slice but it may be a bit more representative than you think.
Again this argument falls apart because you can customize your Mac. Where's the simplicity in that? Multiple CPU/GPU configs, multiple HD options, RAM... all of which are probably harder to decide for the typical customer than the screen resolution. They just need to look at it and say "yep I like the higher real estate" or "nope that's too small for me!" To keep options down to the minimum possible level there would only be one variant of each size, and probably not even multiple sizes.
And what I'm saying is that the market seems to have evolved about 5 years ago for higher res screens.
But the whole MBP line is supposed to be able to deliver to Pros, not just the 17". If you are not a "Pro" user than why didn't you buy a macbook? They can keep the low res screen on that and even use it as a point of differentiation between that and the 13" MBP. Probably would sell more 13" MBP that way as people opt to get the premium model for the higher res.
Exactly. Some of the customization options they do offer are very difficult for non-geeks to evaluate... even for some geeks actually.
"Should I take 5400 RPM or 7200 RPM?"
"Well... on one hand the 7200 consumes more power which eats battery but on the other hand it reads faster, but only under certain circumstances like when you're reading and saving very large files, and some 7200 drives such as the Seagate 7200.4 (which may or may not be the one that Apple currently offers) have proven slower on average in tests than certain 5400 drives which may or may not be the ones that Apple currently offer... on the third hand, ordering it with the 7200 drive will add another 5-7 days before you can get the machine because they have to fiddle with it in China rather than send a ready-made one straight from one of their depots..."
"OK, now I'm even more confused. So should I take the 2.8 GHz or go for the 3.06 GHz, is it worth it?"
"Well... umm... I suppose if you're into gaming or you're doing lots of video rendering overnight you may find under certain circumstances that the 3.06 saves you anywhere from 5 milliseconds to 5 minutes, so if you're a freelancer who charges $70/hour and saves 5 minutes a day you'll make back the extra cost in... uhh... you have a calculator?"
Screen res, on the other hand, is something that makes such a crystal clear, visible and easily understood difference that my grandmother can make that call in 10 seconds. It makes ten times more sense (and difference) than the damn 7200 RPM drives.
Its so simple a caveman could figure this one out... just offer normal options for the average folks, and customization for those that want to customize it.
You go buy a car, they have normal stuffs sitting on the lot with the popular options most people want. If you want some different options, then the dealer places an order and you have to wait a bit longer for your customized car to arrive.
What's so hard about that?
I never said it's hard. Apparently you read my post out of context. It was part of an argument for more options, not less...Its so simple a caveman could figure this one out... just offer normal options for the average folks, and customization for those that want to customize it.
You go buy a car, they have normal stuffs sitting on the lot with the popular options most people want. If you want some different options, then the dealer places an order and you have to wait a bit longer for your customized car to arrive.
What's so hard about that?
Ouch, you're right, I sure did.
I just don't understand the simplification argument others are making. Average non-geek will just go to Apple store, talk to a genius, get recommended something and buy that.
Person with specific needs will then go customize and order a special version that meets their needs.
Seems like a big win to cater for all the customers out there to me. And you're totally right - some of the customization options such as SSD, graphics chip configurations are all more confusing than picking a screen resolution.
Especially in a retail location, where you can simply see the resolutions next to each other and decide. On the web-store it might be just as confusing as the other choices, but if the higher resolution option was (say) $50 more, most customers would probably just skip through the list picking the std. options, and us who want/need higher res could switch it and pay the extra money. Which I am more than willing to do, just like many want to pay $50 for antiglare.
Maybe you should stop comparing $2000 mac's to $400 PC's, and instead compare the screen to a $1500 machine.
I was hoping that Snow Leopard would have resolution independence, that would have let Apple use higher resolution screens. The thing is, sizes are still hard coded, where as Windows has the ability to scale the UI elements, so Windows OEM's can use the higher-quality screens while Apple suffers with the lower-res stuff.
It's too simple to say that expensive PCs have good displays. I've seen far too many expensive PCs with **** screens, and even mid-range PCs with great screens. It depends on how it was designed.
But look at Lenovos high-range laptops, some of Dells and even some HP machines, and you will find display that stand right next to the MBP with no shame. Of course, you'd have to run windows.
But look at Lenovos high-range laptops, some of Dells and even some HP machines, and you will find display that stand right next to the MBP with no shame. Of course, you'd have to run windows.
I got the high end 15" and now I'm getting a Samsung 24" Monitor/HDTV. It's 300 bucks and does 1920x1200 so there we go.
Every time a customer over 50 wants a 24" iMac, the first thing I have to explain to them is that screen size doesn't equate to bigger text that's easier to read. I'm not joking either. I had to go into screen resolutions 3 times last week, and countless other times before that.
In my experience of computer sales for 5 years, it's far easier to say. "With the 7200 RPM drive it is a bit faster at the cost of some battery life, but isn't necessary unless you are playing games or using your computer for design work", than, "Well, the larger the resolution is the smaller everything actually appears because more pixels are..." blah blah blah, and then I have to show them what happens when you lower the resolution and how you can get that same appearance with a smaller monitor/iMac that costs less.
Of course, few of them understand it or care because they're grandkids incorrectly told them to get the 24" because the screen is bigger and would make it easier to read. That and they aren't going to take their money with them to the grave, so I end up having to sell someone something they in no way need.
Maybe to you screen resolution is easy to understand, but I'll bet you $100 that both of your grandparents don't or can't understand it.
Apple knows those options would confuse the hell out of many of their customers, and is why they recently (in relation to PCs) moved to a two button mouse, and is exactly why the mouse retains one physical button still.
So you're saying Apple should only build computers that cater to grandparents basically?
Dumbest thing I've heard so far on this topic.
Options are options - you don't have to sell an option, unless someone asks you for it.
I hope not. As a developer who works with text editors a lot, I really don't want a shorter screen.
Maybe it's hard to explain the difference in words, but what I meant was that if they see two 15" MBPs side by side in the store and these have different resolution, they can't not see the difference. One glance and they've got it. Whereas with a 7200 vs a 5400 drive, well, good luck demonstrating the difference in a hands-on shootout that makes any sense to average customers (let alone grandparents).