Agreed. Sounds like complete nonsense. I have a couple dozen technology manufacturing clients, many of whom buy LCD screens from multiple manufacturers and all of whom buy at least some common parts from multiple manufacturers (none wants to be reliant on a single vendor for a critical part). All subject these critical parts from different vendors to one form of sampling or another, which samples are subjected to tests to ensure that they don't vary from spec tolerances. When they do, they typically boot the manufacturer. Apple has a reputation for being more hard-ass than most when it comes to this.
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.
Three Out of Six MacBook Pros In the Apple Store Have Horrible Screens
- Thread starter MICHAELSD
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed. Sounds like complete nonsense. I have a couple dozen technology manufacturing clients, many of whom buy LCD screens from multiple manufacturers and all of whom buy at least some common parts from multiple manufacturers (none wants to be reliant on a single vendor for a critical part). All subject these critical parts from different vendors to one form of sampling or another, which samples are subjected to tests to ensure that they don't vary from spec tolerances. When they do, they typically boot the manufacturer. Apple has a reputation for being more hard-ass than most when it comes to this.
If your statement was correct then they would buy 100% of their stuff from the cheapest options....which they don't so you're wrong.
Even if that was true w/ screens then why mix & match and not just buy all the cheapest possible? Doesn't make sense at all, ridiculous.
It is because they buy from multiple vendors of which they all try to underbid the price to Apple based on their own stock quantities and such. So one batch Vendor A may cost more than Vendor B but the following batch it may be the other way around where Vendor B panel is cheaper at that time. It is truly all about the lowest cost. Especially with the new MBP design you can see where they cut costs in alot of areas. The unibody design was fantastic in itself but then they cut costs in many other areas of the machine. I would have loved to see the new unibody with the quality of the previous generation. Wow what a machine that would be. Keep in mind though even the previous generation machines had multiple display panel vendors and it was luck of the draw as to just what panel you might get in your machine. Sad but virtually all laptop makers are doing this same thing. Sony may be the only one who doesn't.
Could you elaborate on the cost-cutting in "many other areas" of the new MBP? I suppose the glass screen must be one of them. They dropped one port. Is the new proprietary video port another one? Anything else?
Apple's notebooks are a high margin item, and they're not going to resort to "luck of the draw" when it comes to critical components.
They've got qualified vendors that ship parts against a specification, which are then sampled and inspected before they hit the factory floor.
Sure, here you go
http://www.damado.com/mac/
There's the 1.8 that looks too blue to me and the 2.2 which looks more correct, but still a bit warm...then again I've been playing around so much that I think I've lost the ability to tell correct color now. But anyway those are the ones done by Colorvision's Spyder 2 Pro.
Oh and when I did the calibration, I had the backlight with the last 2 dots off.
I always send back a steak when I discover that it's cow. Can't tell the difference? Cows have teats.
But
Fat chance of SJ actually reading a given email? Fat chance of anyone actually reading the crucial posts on a given thread.
That makes sense. It makes me wonder though how the Nvidia fiasco happened with the faulty 8600 gpus?
Sure, yes the screen is one and some of the other obvious ones are the lack of a real lid latching mechanism, no manual click button for the trackpad, cheap plastic keyboards, cheaper lower capacity 50 w-hr battery over previous 60 w-hr, removal of firewire 400, some others you already mentioned. I also believe and not sure about this but they may have reduced cost using cheaper brands in some of the internal chips like firewire, bluetooth, etc as well. In any event there are alot of obvious ones for a supposed "PRO" model to be missing.
I see where you're coming from, but until Apple releases actual cost of their manufacturing process this is pure speculation.
For instance:
-Apple's cost converting to the use of magnets as a latching system may be negligible compared to the mechanisms used in previous models.
-What they save in production costs of a trackpad button may be offset by the manufacturing process of the glass trackpad itself, as well as the components therein.
-Extra time and money used in R&D of the MB Air keyboard, and additionally the MB and Pro models, may defer the initial profit gained from the current design.
-The saved cost of a lower capacity battery may have been their compromise for developing and manufacturing a computer which, as an entire package, runs at a more efficient rate than its predecessor.
Notice I state no definitive conclusions here, merely a few observations: Unless real world figures are introduced there can be no finite resolution to this topic.
Cheers,
You have it completely backwards. Nearly every one of the changes you mentioned costs Apple more money.
First, I don't think the magnetic latch is significantly cheaper than the mechanical one. Plus, it's a better design - the mechanical latch sucked. So, latch is a non-issue.
No Apple laptop has ever had a metal keyboard. Pop the keys off your old MacBook Pro - they're plastic. Also, watch the video on the Apple website, and note how much time it takes to machine the holes for the new keyboard - one for each individual key. That takes a lot longer than just cutting a big rectangle for the whole keyboard. The new keyboard costs Apple more money.
The 50 watt-hour battery is lighter and takes up less space. There isn't room for a bigger battery, and the laptop is already .1 pounds heavier as it is because of the (expensive!) glass screen. Battery is a non-issue.
The trackpad does have a "manual", actual button - it's just that the whole trackpad moves now, not just a button at the bottom. Plus, it's a bigger trackpad (more expensive!), with a glass cover. Trackpad is a non-issue. The larger, glass-cover and the new button design cost them more money - they could have just gone with the old design.
Not sure how the glass screen is a cost-cutting measure. The glossy screen on my new MBP is loads better than the matte screen on my one-year-old one in terms of brightness, backlight evenness, clarity, contrast, etc. And glass is a lot more expensive than plastic, not to mention better - it doesn't scratch, doesn't discolor, etc. The screen costs Apple more money. I suppose they save some money in their manufacturing process by standardizing on a screen design, but that's hardly a quality issue.
The proprietary mini-DisplayPort connector also cost them more money. They had to design it from scratch, and designing a new connector is not as simple as you might think, especially when you're talking about multi-gigahertz signals like DisplayPort. It would have been cheaper for them to slap a cheap, generic, been-around-for-years DVI plug on there and call it a day. Hell, they could've used mini-DVI like on the existing MacBooks and MBA, but instead, they decided to spend the extra money and go with the next-generation standard.
As for the missing Firewire port, if you look inside the computer, there is physically nowhere they could put another port (that's another reason for the mini-Displayport connector - a big honking DVI port wouldn't fit either).
As for the Firewire chip - yeah, apparently Apple did go with a lower-cost Firewire chip. Big freaking deal. It's digital and Firewire is a standard - the whole point of standards is that it doesn't matter who makes the devices. Out of every design change in the new MBP, this is the only one that you can argue was a cost-cutting measure.
Frankly, I'm amazed that they managed to keep the prices unchanged, given all the expensive changes that have gone into the new model. If I was Steve Jobs and someone accused me off cost-cutting, I'd be pissed - if anything, their margins have gone down on this model.
So, moral of the story - quit whining. As I said, out of the entire list of changes in the new MBP (except for the Firewire chip, which is irrelevant as I discussed), I cannot think of a single one that's an obvious cost-cutting measure, and can think of several that cost them more money.
It's a well reported fact that glossy panels are less expensive.
Nonetheless, ditching a port does save them some money.
You yourself mentioned the cheaper Firewire chip.
Apple put an investment into the new design that will take a while to pay for itself, but afterward, they'll have a nice big margin on these new machines. The robots have to cut lots of little holes into the unibody, yes, but they do it much more rapidly and cheaply than anyone could assemble the 30+ parts that used to make up the inner armature of the previous generation.
Actually the true moral of the story is that whether anyone likes to hear it or not, you can't judge the new MacBook Pro by its Cover and the new design is truly less for more. Less features, less components contained within it, lessor quality chips for firewire, bluetooth, etc., less battery capacity and time, less attention to esthetics, etc. About the only thing I can say that is more with this new design is the weight and what appears to be the amount of unhappy macbook pro users of any previous release design. Aside from that there is no whining only stating the obvious.
All of what I stated can easily be found around these forums and around the net. I personally have no discontent towards anyone who is happy to buy one of these frankensteins and if their happy with it, thats great. But I certainly won't call something an upgrade or improvement when it is clearly a lessor machine. I truly like Apple alot and their practices here are no different than any other computer maker out there, the issue I have on this particular release is their trying to sell us a hamburger and advertising a steak.
You guys are right, a firewire 400 port is so much more expensive than a SECOND Nvidia chip.
And they also cheaped out by using faster L2 cache, system bus and DDR3 RAM.Whatever, you guys make up your own minds w/o owning one and are clearly biased (esp Ed's "frankenstein" and the delusional "less attention to esthetics" remark). There's pros & cons to both machines for sure. I've used both models now and made the tough decision to go with the new MBP because I really feel its a step up from the last one and, although far from perfect, I'll be happier on it long term. I still think the classic one is a great machine but its not w/o its MAJOR faults as well.
Anyone with a 2.4ghz MBP (9C85) screen and a color calibrator willing to share their color profile? Just curious because after the initial positive impression of my screen I hooked up my external 24" Dell and noticed where exactly the MBP seemed deficient Of course it looks good by itself but now that I've seen the differences, a voice at the back of my mind is nagging me that I could have better image quality.
Gonna go back to the Apple store later with some more test images and do a better comparison of mine versus the LG panels (9C84).
Of course it looks good by itself but now that I've seen the differences, a voice at the back of my mind is nagging me that I could have better image quality.Gonna go back to the Apple store later with some more test images and do a better comparison of mine versus the LG panels (9C84).
Anyone with a 2.4ghz MBP (9C85) screen and a color calibrator willing to share their color profile? Just curious because after the initial positive impression of my screen I hooked up my external 24" Dell and noticed where exactly the MBP seemed deficient
Gonna go back to the Apple store later with some more test images and do a better comparison of mine versus the LG panels (9C84).
Actually I was at at he Apple store again and took some closer looks at the different machines on display and checked each one out for what panel was in them. The sales guy at the store did not even know how to do this which surprised me. I asked him if they had any complaints from customers so far on getting various panel brands. He said no and the only thing they have seen in reference to screen complaints was vertical lines on some. Anyway I could easily see the difference between them and noticed out of all the units on display, the only two brand of panels were the mei chei and LG. I asked about samsung but he didn't know. Anyway, what I found looking at the ones there and this is my opinion and for the most part the sales guy too, The G panels (9C84) had a nice and more consistent overall look. There were some that looked quite lesser in image quality but most of the LGs looked damned nice. Now the (9C85) to me looked pretty good but varied greatly between units. Overall I thought the (9C85) ones that were made good, looked a hair sharper than the LG with a brighter contrast. Almost as if it was too much contrast. Anyway in the end I personally thought they both looked good to me and would give the slightest edge to the LG IMO.
Ahem; there is a bit of the logic board that looks like it has been cut off. If you look at the ifixit photos, there is nothing much that goes in that space. (next to the ram slots, by the battery, on the bottom right of the logic board in the photos.)
This has been discussed in the firewire thread, and there is speculation that there is room to put in a 4-pin firewire port, but Apple decided to cut that part of the logic board off. It's also known that Apple manufacturing diagnostics use the firewire port, so it might have been there at the prototyping stage.
Sorry to threadhijack. Back to screens now.
I ended up comparing mine to most of the MBPs at the Apple store last night and I concluded that even though my 9C85 was somewhat bluish and "cool", all of the LG panels had a stronger bluish tint to them, even when sitting next to mine. And yes, images on mine looked a little sharper and the contrast seemed a bit better, with slightly more vivid colors.
The one other laptop with the 9C85 panel had comparable image quality to mine. In the end I wasn't too impressed with the LG panels, and there was no significant difference to merit the hassle of exchanging mine. Pretty much all the panels had uneven backlight (in various ways) so I decided to stay with mine, for fear of getting bigger problems in a replacement laptop.