Agreed! Many in the Apple community have been saying that since 2005.
I always hated pandering. Look we stuck the word pro in the name. You should totally buy this!
A 17" retina MBP would push pricing to $4000-$5000 stratospheric levels.
Apple doesn't really care to sell to a handful of 17" retina users. Maybe until retina laptops become common and current retina MBPs drop to ~$2000 due to competition in a couple of years, coupled with lower production costs they might introduce a $3-4k MBP 17" air-like retina model.
Great marketing and revenue optimization strategies.
We can all come up with these far out numbers, but none of us know the real cost here. It becomes increasingly expensive as you go up in size, but if product yields are low overall, the idea that you won't be able to sell enough of them becomes less of an issue as long as margins are there. It's more of an issue when you have a lot of unused manufacturing capacity.
Hi All,
I know many are upset at the demise of the 17" UMBP - I am too but in all honesty, how much would it have likely cost with a RD, more ports, bigger RAM & HD etc? $3500-$4500 depending on spec? How many would have actually bought it then?
If the 17" only accounted for 1.7% of sales as has been reported, then it stands to reason that this figure would be even lower!
Bazzy!
Reported is a strong word there. A couple analysts threw numbers out there. They took the number of Macs sold and tried to come up with a likely distribution curve based on whatever data was available (although none of them really posted their reference data for further examination).
After seeing the RMBP Apple may back track and offer some old-school features like a matte display and upgradeable RAM, but I see them stretching that design through the rest of the lineup, even the iMac. The MacPro is too upgradeable, so that will be axed.
The mini may be spared.
Nice machine that RMBP . . . . but a 17" replacement it is not.
I like the display as I've wanted to see an IPS display option with lower glare for some time (I don't care if it's matte, I just dislike noticeable reflections). Overall I'm not that interested. It's a first generation product and a notebook, meaning I'd definitely need Applecare (risk of failure is too high especially without user serviceable components). I'd absolutely need the 16GB ram option. The problem here is that 16GB feels a little light to me today with bigger projects or too many things running, and even with an SSD when you get to a point where you can't hold everything in ram, you take a big hit right there in responsiveness or on heavy calculations. 32GB sounds like a lot, but if 16 seems kind of on the edge, that's the next step up. I hate being locked out of the ability to upgrade that myself if ram prices are favorable a year from now. If 16 was perfect I wouldn't care as much.
The proprietary ssd is annoying because all drives die eventually. I use many of Adobe's applications and they recommend 1GB of vram or more for their mercury engine. This machine is right on the edge, and the 650m + AMD equivalents are available with 2GB on cheaper computers. I have an issue with this as the longevity may not be there as much I'd like for a computer purchase that would total roughly $3k after upgrades, applecare, and tax.
I do like the display, 2x thunderbolt ports so that I'm not forced to daisy chain, and usb3. I'm just not convinced the trade-offs made to cut a little thickness are worthwhile. The reduction of shell material probably accounted for around half of that weight difference with the drive accounting for some of it. A typical 2.5" hdd is around 3-4 ounces. The ODD is probably around the same.
