MacBook Pro Supplies Tightening Ahead of Potential Refresh

[Jdstew1234]

my guess is that apple is up to something when they underwent the maintenance couple days ago , more than just a revamped looks .
i believe they have a reason for that

but 2 february ?

To coincide with macworld and the release of the new iPad news app

 

[Yebubbleman]

Wow, the back and forth between fpnc and Yebubbleman is interesting.

Annoying more like it, I'm completely down to just say that we have a difference in opinion and move on. But now I'm obligated to match my "ego" against his...? I mean really, I don't care if I'm right or wrong. I have my reasons for predicting what I'm predicting and I admit that I could very well be wrong. None of us work for Apple beyond the retail level so none of us know for sure.

Frankly, there should be enough room within the 13" form factor and enough price flexibility between the $999 white MacBook and 11" MacBook Air and the low-end(?) $1799 15" MacBook Pro to offer a 13" MacBook Pro model with the Sandy Bridge CPU. Up until now the only reason (I believe) that this gap has existed is that Intel's IGP in Arrandale was just too weak to displace NVIDIAs chipset.

The IGP in Sandy Bridge is bearly at the point where it too is too weak to displace the 320M.

Finally somebody who shows some arguments of why Yebubbleman will be wrong, because in several threads I have read, the only thing Yebubbleman is stating in his posts is the fact that the Macbook Pro 13" will be discontinued, with no convincing arguments at all... The fact that you repeat something over and over again in numerous threads, doesn't mean you are right.
Mr Know It All is shown his place and immediately he goes in defence with ad hominem arguments because somebody touches his ego.

Therefore I agree with fpnc and think the 13" MBP will definitely stay, hopefuly with the best upgrade possible, not just some minor changes.

You know what's worse than someone with an ego problem? Someone who passively aggressively goes out of their way to insult someone else. Of course, it's the Internet and I don't really care a whole lot, I'm just sayin'. As for the arguments that I've (and you are right about this) stated over and over is that:

(a) Apple is faced once again with the choice of inferior graphics and better processor or inferior processor and better graphics. It's a lose-lose situation.

(b) They aren't nixing the optical drive in it as there really are enough people who still rely on it who'd rather not deal with the inconvenience of the external SuperDrive. They aren't nixing the 2.5" Bay, because the blade SSDs are still pricy and not terribly capacious.

(c) The problem noted in (a) isn't anywhere near as big of an issue with white MacBook, the MacBook Air, or the Mac mini; those customers would be fine with a GPU downgrade, or another round of Core 2 Duo as (a vast majority of) those customers don't know or even care about what those features even are. Though it is for the 13" Pro, which for half of its customer base, is used professionally to do things that are also done on higher-end machines like the 15" Pro.

(d) There are too many 13" computers in Apple's line-up. The 13" MacBook serves the education market and is the cheapest full-featured portable Mac. The 13" Air is their only full-sized ultraportable. The 13" Pro doesn't have anything to its name other than it's the only 13" laptop with FireWire port. Most consumers don't even know what that is!

(e) Before someone gives the "but it's their best selling model!" argument, which holds as much weight as you say my argument does, know that before the 13" Pro, that was the white MacBook, and before that it was the 17" Pro. It's not like those customers are going to go anywhere. They're still, more likely than not, to buy one of the other Macs.

(f) Given (a), (b), and (c), Apple is going to have a harder time selling the 13" Pro to the half of its customer base that didn't buy it because it looked prettiest, than it would if it simply kept the same machine but dropped the Pro branding or merged its featureset with the white MacBook to brand "The new MacBook".

Now, I have no insider information. I've followed Apple on this site for over seven years, but I claim to no nothing other than what they've done in the past. It's purely speculation; I could very well be wrong. I won't shoot down opposing ideas unless they themselves don't supply the logic to back it up and have that make sense given Apple's stances on technology and current decisions. I'm sorry you don't agree.

 

[fpnc]

last year's i Core had a separate IGP. the new models it's all integrated on the same CPU die. shouldn't be an issue going forward

I'm not certain what you mean with that comment. The Arrandale processor has the CPU and GPU in a single package so for all intents and purposes the IGP isn't "separate" as far as the motherboard design. The change you speak of ("integrated in the CPU die") is true for Sandy Bridge, but that doesn't make much difference as far as the external component count or board space needed in the design, both the Arradale and Sandy Bridge are considered to be "two chip" solutions (i.e. 1-CPU/GPU and 2-external Intel system chip for i/o and some other functions).

Given the above, there is a further clarification that probably should be made on the redesign cycle that I proposed for the unibody MacBooks. The current 15" and 17" MacBooks have already made the "jump" to Intel's CPU/GPU and system chip architecture (via Arrandale), however, the 13" MacBook Pro has not (it's still using NVIDIA's system chip paired with the now fairly ancient Core 2 Duo). This means that any change to Sandy Bridge will represent a larger architecture change for the 13" than it will for the current 15"/17" MacBooks (which have been Arrandale-base since spring of last year). Thus, the only way that the 15"/17" MacBooks could get a major redesign that would fit the product cycles that I proposed would be if there was a significant change in the industrial design (or form factor) on those products. Of course, that may not happen this spring (as I suggested in my last post).

In a sense, the change to Sandy Bridge is a relatively easy thing for the 15"/17" MacBooks, that's not true for the 13" MacBook Pro which would have to undergo a complete motherboard redesign to use Sandy Bridge. I'm just hoping that Apple has used the last two years to redesign the 13" MacBook Pro architecture and it would also be kind of nice if they did the same to the now two-year-old unibody form factor. If this happens, it will mean a totally new 13" MacBook Pro while the 15"/17" might just get a change in the industrial design (along with the upgraded Sandy Bridge CPU, which isn't a minor or insignificant thing in itself as features go).

 

[Yebubbleman]

I'm not certain what you mean with that comment. The Arrandale processor has the CPU and GPU in a single package so for all intents and purposes the IGP isn't "separate" as far as the motherboard design. The change you speak of ("integrated in the CPU die") is true for Sandy Bridge, but that doesn't make much difference as far as the external component count or board space needed in the design, both the Arradale and Sandy Bridge are considered to be "two chip" solutions (i.e. 1-CPU/GPU and 2-external Intel system chip for i/o and some other functions).

Given the above, there is a further clarification that probably should be made on the redesign cycle that I proposed for the unibody MacBooks. The current 15" and 17" MacBooks have already made the "jump" to Intel's CPU/GPU and system chip architecture (via Arrandale), however, the 13" MacBook Pro has not (it's still using NVIDIA's system chip paired with the now fairly ancient Core 2 Duo). This means that any change to Sandy Bridge will represent a larger architecture change for the 13" than it will for the current 15"/17" MacBooks (which have been Arrandale-base since spring of last year). Thus, the only way that the 15"/17" MacBooks could get a major redesign that would fit the product cycles that I proposed would be if there was a significant change in the industrial design (or form factor) on those products. Of course, that may not happen this spring (as I suggested in my last post).

In a sense, the change to Sandy Bridge is a relatively easy thing for the 15"/17" MacBooks, that's not true for the 13" MacBook Pro which would have to undergo a complete motherboard redesign to use Sandy Bridge. I'm just hoping that Apple has used the last two years to redesign the 13" MacBook Pro architecture and it would also be kind of nice if they did the same to the now two-year-old unibody form factor. If this happens, it will mean a totally new 13" MacBook Pro while the 15"/17" might just get a change in the industrial design (along with the upgraded Sandy Bridge CPU, which isn't a minor or insignificant thing in itself).

Arrandale had two dies on the CPU, one for CPU, the other for GPU. He's saying that with Sandy Bridge, it'll all be on the same die.

 

[eddyd2210]

13" macbook 'pro'

I totally agree that the 13" 'pro' core 2 duo doesn't really justify it as a pro. having the same insides as the entry level white macbook is a little bit of an isult to the pro line IMO. apple has gotten away with it last refresh (2010) but i don't they can play the 'we had no option, we decided to go with better graphics' card again.

I am new to this so please tell me if i am doing anything wrong or out of line...

 

[alent1234]

Arrandale had two dies on the CPU, one for CPU, the other for GPU. He's saying that with Sandy Bridge, it'll all be on the same die.

yes, it's now one physical piece of silicon instead of just two chips in the same piece of plastic

next year this chip is going to be introduced in a 22nm transistor chip. and 2013 is another new architecture

 

[Yebubbleman]

I totally agree that the 13" 'pro' core 2 duo doesn't really justify it as a pro. having the same insides as the entry level white macbook is a little bit of an isult to the pro line IMO. apple has gotten away with it last refresh (2010) but i don't they can play the 'we had no option, we decided to go with better graphics' card again.

I am new to this so please tell me if i am doing anything wrong or out of line...

You don't seem to be out of line. And for what it's worth, I agree.

yes, it's now one physical piece of silicon instead of just two chips in the same piece of plastic

next year this chip is going to be introduced in a 22nm transistor chip. and 2013 is another new architecture

And so it goes...

 

[dennisuello]

definitely good news. i just sold my late 2007 C2D 15" MBP, and was going to wait till April, but sooner the better.

 

[Funkymonk]

anyone know how many c2d chips apple bought from intel so we know how long the plan to keep c2d in their machines? Air and the white macbook still use it but for how long. What if they upgrade absolutely everything to sandy bridge. That would be awesome!

 

[fpnc]

yes, it's now one physical piece of silicon instead of just two chips in the same piece of plastic...

The issue I was trying to address is that from a motherboard design point of view there is no practical difference between the Sandy Bridge and Arrandale parts. It's not really correct to contrast the Arrandale as having a "separate IGP" in comparison to Sandy Bridge because from a high-level design or external point of view they are nearly the same (other than the internal improvements, part of which includes the fact that in Sandy Bridge the CPU and IGP/GPU happen to now be on the same physical die and both are now manufactured with the same 32nm process). The response you originally gave was to a post from JonLa that seemed to suggest that in order to make the 13" MacBook Pro competitive it still needed another chip -- a discrete GPU -- which some would agree with and which was the point that s/he (JonLa) seemed to be making. However, you responded with:

last year's i Core had a separate IGP. the new models it's all integrated on the same CPU die. shouldn't be an issue going forward

My confusion (and possibly to others including JonLa) is what do you mean by "shouldn't be an issue going forward"? JonLa was completely correct in everything s/he said, so what issue does Sandy Bridge solve for JonLa that wasn't present with Arrandale (other than the fact that Sandy Bridge has better performance). It's certainly not simply the fact that the Sandy Bridge package now has one die (internally) instead of the two that were mounted together in the Arrandale package. What I mean is, Arrandale one CPU/IGP package, Sandy Bridge one CPU/IGP package, so where is the difference that would make it easier to redesign the 13" MacBook Pro? If only performance, then that's already been detailed in many other posts, and you didn't seem to be directly suggesting that in your original response to JonLa.

In any case, yes, my original response clearly noted that Sandy Bridge's CPU/IGP were now on a single die and that's different than with Arrandale (so now, you, I, and Yebubbleman have said the exact same thing about the internal structure within the Sandy Bridge package).

 

[fpnc]

anyone know how many c2d chips apple bought from intel so we know how long the plan to keep c2d in their machines? Air and the white macbook still use it but for how long. What if they upgrade absolutely everything to sandy bridge. That would be awesome!

The MacBook Airs will eventually be redesigned to get a faster chip, but the Airs just recently had a major redesign that is still using the Core 2 Duo and NVIDIA's system/IGP chip. I don't think Apple would have gone to the effort to redesign the MacBook Airs only to do a completely different motherboard and chip set only a few months later. So no, the Airs won't get Sandy Bridge at the same time as the MacBook Pros.

 

[Funkymonk]

The MacBook Airs will eventually be redesigned to get a faster chip, but the Airs just recently had a major redesign that is still using the Core 2 Duo and NVIDIA's system/IGP chip. I don't think Apple would have gone to the effort to redesign the MacBook Airs only to do a completely different motherboard and chip set only a few months later. So no, the Airs won't get Sandy Bridge at the same time as the MacBook Pros.

I'm with you with the airs but just how long can apple last on c2d if they aren't in production anymore?

 

[Yebubbleman]

I'm with you with the airs but just how long can apple last on c2d if they aren't in production anymore?

If my understanding is correct, then Apple can use Core 2 Duos until roughly around the time that Ivy Bridge is out. Convenient, if you think about it.

 

[murdercitydevil]

The 13" MB and Pro should be merged IMO. Bring back the unibody MB and just give it sliiiightly better hardware, and there you go. Of all the people I know who have 13" MBPs say they got it because there was a deal at school and they liked the unibody design better. They are essentially the same price but there's no reason not to get the MBP with the current lineup.

 

[Yebubbleman]

The 13" MB and Pro should be merged IMO. Bring back the unibody MB and just give it sliiiightly better hardware, and there you go. Of all the people I know who have 13" MBPs say they got it because there was a deal at school and they liked the unibody design better. They are essentially the same price but there's no reason not to get the MBP with the current lineup.

...if you have as good of a deal at your school, that is. If the 13" Pro were the same price as the white MacBook, then the only reason to get the white MacBook would be for the increased durability.

 

[ciTiger]

...if you have as good of a deal at your school, that is. If the 13" Pro were the same price as the white MacBook, then the only reason to get the white MacBook would be for the increased durability.

I'd like to start by saying I totally respect your arguments but I don't think Apple will drop the 13 at this point.

However you refer that the white Macbook is more durable than the 13 Pro?
I can't agree... I had a white Macbook (granted it was 2008 version) and it wasn't as durable as my current MBP 13.

What facts are there that the white is more durable?

 

[Yebubbleman]

I'd like to start by saying I totally respect your arguments but I don't think Apple will drop the 13 at this point.

Hold on a second, forget differences of both opinion and prediction, I have to commend you on your politeness in announcing your disagreement. I'm not at all being sarcastic. Too many people on here act like their stance and their defense of it is reflecting on them personally and take offense at disagreement, it seems. Kudos to you. Seriously. And thanks.

However you refer that the white Macbook is more durable than the 13 Pro?
I can't agree... I had a white Macbook (granted it was 2008 version) and it wasn't as durable as my current MBP 13.

What facts are there that the white is more durable?

The pre-Unibody white MacBook is pretty flimsy, my argument could only really be applied to the bottom case of that (generation of) MacBook, but not to the rest of it. I more speak for the materials themselves; put a current generation MacBook and a current generation 13" MacBook Pro through the same catastrophic accident in which physical damage to the exterior is incurred; the Aluminum on the 13" MacBook Pro (or any of the other MacBook Pros for that matter) will dent and bend and the plastic will scratch and take dings. The ugly dirt collecting rubber foot also helps, despite the fact that it is protecting a bottom case no less made of aluminum than that of its 13" Pro counterpart.

 

[Filipek]

Annoying more like it, I'm completely down to just say that we have a difference in opinion and move on. But now I'm obligated to match my "ego" against his...? I mean really, I don't care if I'm right or wrong. I have my reasons for predicting what I'm predicting and I admit that I could very well be wrong. None of us work for Apple beyond the retail level so none of us know for sure.



The IGP in Sandy Bridge is bearly at the point where it too is too weak to displace the 320M.



You know what's worse than someone with an ego problem? Someone who passively aggressively goes out of their way to insult someone else. Of course, it's the Internet and I don't really care a whole lot, I'm just sayin'. As for the arguments that I've (and you are right about this) stated over and over is that:

(a) Apple is faced once again with the choice of inferior graphics and better processor or inferior processor and better graphics. It's a lose-lose situation.

(b) They aren't nixing the optical drive in it as there really are enough people who still rely on it who'd rather not deal with the inconvenience of the external SuperDrive. They aren't nixing the 2.5" Bay, because the blade SSDs are still pricy and not terribly capacious.

(c) The problem noted in (a) isn't anywhere near as big of an issue with white MacBook, the MacBook Air, or the Mac mini; those customers would be fine with a GPU downgrade, or another round of Core 2 Duo as (a vast majority of) those customers don't know or even care about what those features even are. Though it is for the 13" Pro, which for half of its customer base, is used professionally to do things that are also done on higher-end machines like the 15" Pro.

(d) There are too many 13" computers in Apple's line-up. The 13" MacBook serves the education market and is the cheapest full-featured portable Mac. The 13" Air is their only full-sized ultraportable. The 13" Pro doesn't have anything to its name other than it's the only 13" laptop with FireWire port. Most consumers don't even know what that is!

(e) Before someone gives the "but it's their best selling model!" argument, which holds as much weight as you say my argument does, know that before the 13" Pro, that was the white MacBook, and before that it was the 17" Pro. It's not like those customers are going to go anywhere. They're still, more likely than not, to buy one of the other Macs.

(f) Given (a), (b), and (c), Apple is going to have a harder time selling the 13" Pro to the half of its customer base that didn't buy it because it looked prettiest, than it would if it simply kept the same machine but dropped the Pro branding or merged its featureset with the white MacBook to brand "The new MacBook".

Now, I have no insider information. I've followed Apple on this site for over seven years, but I claim to no nothing other than what they've done in the past. It's purely speculation; I could very well be wrong. I won't shoot down opposing ideas unless they themselves don't supply the logic to back it up and have that make sense given Apple's stances on technology and current decisions. I'm sorry you don't agree.

It's OK when you think of something happening, but it is annoying when you are so convinced in numerous threads that it's the only thing pointing out. And the fact you are so convinced of the arguments you made, but don't have a clue at all and it's only based on speculations and your own reasoning, where you make conclusions on things that sound like they have causal causes, where they actually don't have them at all.

a) I don't know what your solid arguments for this statement are, but how do you possibly could know what kind of choices they will make considering their graphics and CPU? Why not a better CPU AND better graphics? How do you know how much investment and research costs it is for Apple? How can you possibly know how their profits are affected by this?

b) Again, how do you know this? "Enough people" as in "enough" in your environment? This is called a confirmation bias. Give me hard numbers and we can argue. Considering the SSD you might be right about that, yes the prices are indeed relatively high, that's a fact. (but then again, who knows the original cost price Apple is paying for them?)

c) What more do I need to say? Give me hard numbers please, you make assumptions based on what?? Your friends?? Customers you are speaking with? How many percent is that of the total population using Macbook Pro's? Is it significant? I doubt that

d) And why are you the one deciding for Apple they have too many 13" laptops? Are they making losses because they have this "too many" 13" models? What are your solid arguments to confirm this statement?

e) I am not giving you that argument, but I am again asking for hard numbers, which you can not give me obviously. My thought is that a lot of potential new Apple users are being scared away when the MBP 13" will be discontinued, but I don't have any solid numbers for this either. Considering the existing Apple customers I indeed don't think it will bother, cause they will probably just switch to another model.

f) It would be far more logical to say they drop the 13" MB instead of the 13" MBP looking indeed at the selling numbers, but if I understand you correctly than we are saying the same, but with different model names?


Once again, it's not the fact that I don't agree, it's the fact that besides this comment, you sounded so damn sure of your case and were repeating it over and over again, it honestly started annoying me.
No hard feelings though.

 

[cool11]

I wish this conversation was about 15' model, which I think is the mainstream.
So many people talk about 13'.

 

[ECUpirate44]

I wish this conversation was about 15' model, which I think is the mainstream.
So many people talk about 13'.

The 13" MBP is clearly more main stream than the 15." Just walk on any college campus.

 

[cool11]

The 13" MBP is clearly more main stream than the 15." Just walk on any college campus.

I remember the days that we had 13' laptops and we were jealous of those ones who afforded to buy a 15' model.
So now you tell me, the smaller is once again the mainstream?
It seems obvious to me.

 

[rjbruce]

The sooner it comes the better!

Maybe it's even possible another refresh before the year ends AH!

Oh NO!!! You don't think... Maybe I should wait for THAT refresh. I'm so confused!!

</sarcasm>

 

[mmoy]

I'd love to see an upgrade - the uptake on notebooks with Sandy Bridge has been pretty slow. I have an early 2008 17 inch MBP and can't justify an upgrade at this time. Performance for me is fine, especially after adding an ExpressCard SSD. The only things that could move me to upgrade are better battery life and lower weight. Otherwise my current notebook could easily be good for another five years.

My ideal notebook would be a 15 inch notebook with 1920x1200 resolution, about 4 pounds, no DVD, no HDD, Ivy Bridge, Integrated Graphics (I don't do anything which requires discrete graphics). The nVidia 8600 on my current system probably accounts for the current 2 hour battery life. I generally have power plugs wherever I am (don't carry one with me) but that limits me when I am mobile. I like the design of the Sony Vaio Z - a friend has one that probably cost him $4K and he lives off of it. I like my son's 15 inch MBP with the high-res option. I still prefer 1920x1200 though.

I know that Apple can do all of this stuff right now. They are in a fortunate position of having a ton of options available. It would be nice to see new stuff coming out soon.

I was hoping for an iMac refresh but didn't want to wait so I built my own Sandy Bridge system. I'm looking forward to playing around with AVX on it.

 

[ciTiger]

Hold on a second, forget differences of both opinion and prediction, I have to commend you on your politeness in announcing your disagreement. I'm not at all being sarcastic. Too many people on here act like their stance and their defense of it is reflecting on them personally and take offense at disagreement, it seems. Kudos to you. Seriously. And thanks.



The pre-Unibody white MacBook is pretty flimsy, my argument could only really be applied to the bottom case of that (generation of) MacBook, but not to the rest of it. I more speak for the materials themselves; put a current generation MacBook and a current generation 13" MacBook Pro through the same catastrophic accident in which physical damage to the exterior is incurred; the Aluminum on the 13" MacBook Pro (or any of the other MacBook Pros for that matter) will dent and bend and the plastic will scratch and take dings. The ugly dirt collecting rubber foot also helps, despite the fact that it is protecting a bottom case no less made of aluminum than that of its 13" Pro counterpart.

Thanks But hey Although I don't agree with you there you seem to have patience enough to respond to everyone so Kudos to your for that.


As for the durability issue I guess you do have a point.
However I always take very good care of my laptops (they are expensive) and overall the MBP 13 has maintained its "stylish" design longer than the White which gets dirty. Come to think of it do you think people and those students know the white is more durable?


About the "getting dirty" the MBP doesn't even seems to get dirty, is it just me?

 

[Yebubbleman]

It's OK when you think of something happening, but it is annoying when you are so convinced in numerous threads that it's the only thing pointing out.

I apologize for that, but I do have an explanation. After I post my explanation, someone says something like "why the hell would ::insert your point here:: be possible?" So I repeat it again and again and again. I'm as sick of typing it all out as you are of reading it, but dudes on the Internet asked why it was and how it could be, so I, over and over again, gave them the answer I had. Really, I don't claim to be smart or have anything save for the fact that I have closely followed Apple news and rumors for the past seven years and am knowledgable of the trends and decisions that they've set in that time. I'm sure most people on this forum are, although it really doesn't seem it at times. And I love a good debate as much as the next guy.

And the fact you are so convinced of the arguments you made, but don't have a clue at all and it's only based on speculations and your own reasoning, where you make conclusions on things that sound like they have causal causes, where they actually don't have them at all..

I'm not 100% convinced. I'm pretty sure. I'd bet money on it. Not a lot of money, though. I don't think anyone on here has any claim that they're sure of that's based on anything more than speculation. It is MacRumors after all.

a) I don't know what your solid arguments for this statement are, but how do you possibly could know what kind of choices they will make considering their graphics and CPU? Why not a better CPU AND better graphics? How do you know how much investment and research costs it is for Apple? How can you possibly know how their profits are affected by this?.

Without making the logic board larger, there is physically no room for (a) the processor, (b) the chipset, and (c) a discrete GPU on the 13" MacBook Pro. For this I cite the dozen or so Logic Board transplants I've done on that exact machine. I know what it looks like naked and it doesn't have the goods.

b) Again, how do you know this? "Enough people" as in "enough" in your environment? This is called a confirmation bias. Give me hard numbers and we can argue. Considering the SSD you might be right about that, yes the prices are indeed relatively high, that's a fact. (but then again, who knows the original cost price Apple is paying for them?

I know about 1000 people all told and only three of them wouldn't appreciate the lack of an internal optical drive for it being an unnecessary lack of functionality. These people aren't techies, they are average joes who just want a full-featured computer. Is my sampling complete? Obviously not, but it's large enough to have me convinced that people on these forums are full of **** when they say that everyone wants the optical drive gone.

c) What more do I need to say? Give me hard numbers please, you make assumptions based on what?? Your friends?? Customers you are speaking with? How many percent is that of the total population using Macbook Pro's? Is it significant? I doubt that.

For this I cite the hundreds of people I see walk in to my workplace having bought those machines versus the other zillion of so I see walk into my workplace with the 13" Pro. Not a good enough sampling for you?

d) And why are you the one deciding for Apple they have too many 13" laptops? Are they making losses because they have this "too many" 13" models? What are your solid arguments to confirm this statement? .

They're not losing customers, but they're one for simplicity and if they can't make the 13" Pro substantially better, then why have two laptops that, save for the enclosure and a couple of ports, are essentially the same computer under the hood?

e) I am not giving you that argument, but I am again asking for hard numbers, which you can not give me obviously. My thought is that a lot of potential new Apple users are being scared away when the MBP 13" will be discontinued, but I don't have any solid numbers for this either. Considering the existing Apple customers I indeed don't think it will bother, cause they will probably just switch to another model..

I am still waiting for numbers on the notion that it STILL is their best selling model. As for your notion that users will be scared off, there has always been a #1 selling model. Before the 13" Pro it was the white MacBook, before that, it was the 12' PowerBook G4. Is that not good enough of a citation for you?

f) It would be far more logical to say they drop the 13" MB instead of the 13" MBP looking indeed at the selling numbers, but if I understand you correctly than we are saying the same, but with different model names?.

We are, but only because the education market covets the white MB. As for data, I'll cite the schools that have come into my workplace with multiple white MacBooks to be repaired, and the one only piece of insider info I know as to the reason why they're still even selling a white model. Were it not for that, I'd be in complete agreement with you.

Once again, it's not the fact that I don't agree, it's the fact that besides this comment, you sounded so damn sure of your case and were repeating it over and over again, it honestly started annoying me.
No hard feelings though.

It's okay, I got tired of repeating it to people who'd ask right below me giving them their answer as though they never read it.