My thoughts exactly. I feel like too many come to this forum just to be Debbie downers. The new MBP is a great looking machine.
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.
Underwhelmed by the new MBP 16"
- Thread starter Strangedream
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My thoughts exactly. I feel like too many come to this forum just to be Debbie downers. The new MBP is a great looking machine.
Yep. I believe the original posting was only in reference to the display. The use of the same technology in the previous line is not disappointing but it's not impressive or anything that makes this model different from the previous. Most people don't take advantage or know of these slight increase in spec bumps. It's the user experience. So, with the 16" notebook, Apple should have bumped the display but it would have cost more. Probably another $3k+ if they were to include similar higher-end notebook display offerings. The keyboard is a nice addition but it's downplaying the reason for this post.
Of course they should have done it years ago. Mind you, over the years I've learnt to never be surprised by Apple's inability to want to do even the minimum for their long suffering professional users. So I'm still pleasantly surprised by the machine. However, I agree that one swallow does not a summer make, but it's still an encouraging sign. I shall be buying one having held off for at least a couple of years and it should suit me well.
Funnily enough I was expecting this to be about the graphics as even if they're now miles better than they were the day before yesterday, they're still miles behind what a $2,400 Windows computer offers. I don't see that the display is a major downside? OLED, even if colour calibrated looks different to LCDs so for colour sensitive work it's probably not the best option. The resolution is fine as I'm expecting the 1920x1200 resolution to still be uncomfortably small for prolonged use on this machine. 3360x2100 would have been good, but ultimately a minor quibble on a great upgrade.
I welcome critiques. But, I get that there are some ridiculous fanboys on here who'll try to justify everything positively for this company. They are just a company who sells consumer products. They're not some personal attack on you. However, if you take it that way, then you've either have vested interests in not wanting negativity about Apple or have personal issues which requires therapy.
Well you do get a somewhat stable OS and better customer support for that premium. The premium would have to be higher than that for me to seriously consider going back to Windows and I'm not enough of a geek/coder/scientist to try Linux.I think it looks like a great laptop. It should be released without the Apple $1000 extra premium added on as other equivalent or better laptops are that much cheaper...
R
The 1000nit option is only available on the 1080p panel. The only display I am aware of that is really better than Apple's is HP DreamColor panels — but this laptops are also more expensive.
DCI-P3 is not "Apple's implementation", it is the standard color profile in digital film. Other high-end laptops often choose to implement Adobe RGB, which was developed for color printing. They also do not cover the same exact color range. I'd assume that Apple sticks to DCI-P3 because many of its customers are in the movie editing business. All that "xxx% of sRGB" is rather meaningless. What we have here are pragmatic choices so that content creators can see their products exactly how they will appear to their customers.
Not that know? Can you name a few? I am only aware of Razor Blade 4K panel, but it trades color quality to achieve high refresh point.
You are right, I was expecting too much from this display and I somewhat disregarded the other great improvements this new 16" MBP brings to the table. At one point Apple was much more innovative in the display department though (first color computer (Apple I), first 17" laptop (PowerBook G4), one of the first "Retina" display).
you know this how? This is a new keyboard and design. In lots of ways its a first generation design even though it looks very similar to the 15" Reliability issues id put the 2019 15" higher than this model just based on that. Its still like buying a gen one product. Why do you think its more reliable than a 2019 15" that had years of ironing out the flaws?
I've not researched the variety of displays with over 500 nit but this one came to mind whenever I was looking for a MBP replacement. Plus, I was referencing the maximum one available at 1000 nit. Which was why I said the 500 nit is not terrible and above average. But the HP Elitebook and Lenovo Yoga offer higher nit if you're wanting to be nit picky.
Thanks for the correction. I only associated the DCI-P3 gamut with Apple displays. However, the % over sRGB is a valid indicator of color profile coverage. With Adobe RGB having the greatest, thus far. The color profile is only specific to some groups. But, it's worth noting as a feature that hasn't changed from previous retina displays.
Yes, here are a lot of notebooks that offer greater than 60 Hz just from one site's page.
Ultraportables with 120/144/240 Hz
The resolution was only increased because of the slight increase in viewable area.
So, my opinion to help support OP is that there's not been an improvement to the display. It wasn't a negative critique in terms of difference from previous generations of MBP. However, it's not impressive with any expectation that there's been added features. There haven't been and it's the same display from a user viewing POV as the 15.4". Most likely, part of the reason Apple was able to offer this 16" without a sudden price increase from the previous '16-19 line.
The >60HZ screens typically aren't that bright if I recall (<400 nits, if not <300 nits).
It now doesn't have a broken keyboard! So you get a working keyboard and some nice tweaks and less money for add-ons.
If I was buying new I would almost be excited. Depends on the weather and time of week. Maybe on a Monday?
If I was buying new I would almost be excited. Depends on the weather and time of week. Maybe on a Monday?
Last edited:
Always, trade-offs. It's possible to offer this display with a range of refresh rates greater than 60 Hz and still reduce nits. Requires more resources and cost to implement but that's why the notebooks which do offer certain features will change another feature to complement it.
But you said
"There are many other higher-end displays which satisfy the color range, brightness, and resolution at 120 Hz refresh."
and
"HP released the Elite Dragonfly which has 1000 nits and higher resolution display."
Both of these turned out to be false... What we instead got was a 1080p 1000 nit display and 120hz+ laptops sometimes barely reaching 300 nits at 1080p.
But, you assumed the nits are reduced. I just took your word on it. Do you have any proof that nits were reduced or just looking for something to counter?
Here you go, I changed it to satisfy your Apple trolling feeling personally attacked nature.
"There are many other higher-end displays which satisfy the color range, brightness, or resolution at 120 Hz."
That's not xor.
[automerge]1573739159[/automerge]
If you were actually concerned with facts, then you would have added and/or stated that I don't believe each of those features are available combined and used at the same time. Either way, there are displays that have all of those features in stand alone monitors. Maybe not in notebooks. But, the argument was that Apple is using the same display technology which has been implemented since their use of retina.
Waiting for the 2021 MBP.
Now that didn't take long, did it? I think OP might still be hanging on to their PowerBook G4.
Now that didn't take long, did it? I think OP might still be hanging on to their PowerBook G4.
I think people need to consider the battery size limit of 100Wh and what all that needs to power. More pixels, OLED, etc eat that up. If you want great battery life with great performance there are going to be puts and takes when you can't increase the battery size.
Maybe when the Axx chips are offered, which should help power draw, they can implement a more power hungry screen.
Maybe when the Axx chips are offered, which should help power draw, they can implement a more power hungry screen.
The 16” appears to be a good step forward. Better graphics, configurability, etc.
I’ve ordered a 2.3/16/1 TB/8 GB VRAM model; will post impressions on receipt.
I’ve ordered a 2.3/16/1 TB/8 GB VRAM model; will post impressions on receipt.
As someone coming from a 2012 13" MBP, the 16" is a huge upgrade in all aspects.
I was expecting higher prices than the 15". Real nice that base storage has finally been doubled. That was long overdue. Still wish Apple would put higher-end GPUs in their Pro notebooks, but the new Radeons are a big step forward compared to the previous ones.
I was expecting higher prices than the 15". Real nice that base storage has finally been doubled. That was long overdue. Still wish Apple would put higher-end GPUs in their Pro notebooks, but the new Radeons are a big step forward compared to the previous ones.
Well, least the display continues to match what people are use to for consistency. Higher refresh would of been nice, but not if it compromises something else.
No where near as underwhelming as Wacom’s late 3 year refresh of the Mobilestudio Pro 16 where the display lost nits and Adobe RGB in the name of uniformity (already not bright before), and only finally got a quad core and updated GPU (again after about 3 years), all for the price to go up $500. Only surprising move was they added a back panel to replace the ram and storage.
No where near as underwhelming as Wacom’s late 3 year refresh of the Mobilestudio Pro 16 where the display lost nits and Adobe RGB in the name of uniformity (already not bright before), and only finally got a quad core and updated GPU (again after about 3 years), all for the price to go up $500. Only surprising move was they added a back panel to replace the ram and storage.
I agree. I prefer battery capacity and use more important in portables than a slight bump or added feature which would noticeably offset it. However, I've not been overly impressed with MBP battery life for my '17. It's not on par with advertised but has enough life for 1-2 full length movies at HD. Start compiling and building in Xcode or another IDE and you better be ready to connect the charger within the next 1-2 hours from full charge.
Yes, it passes Apple "diagnostics" and has less than 100 cycles. The OS isn't as efficient as it could be with power management and the thermals in the '16-19 when CPU ramps up to sustaining greater than 50% for say 10 minutes+ aren't phenomenal either. The MBP is fine for activity that has short bursts to spike the CPU to max and back down to less than 50%, though.
Yes, its underwhelming. I don't think it's meant to be "whelming" - its meant to fix the keyboard, the cooling, the battery life and the price (although the price points look the same, you're getting usefully more for those prices in terms of GPU and storage) that they have finally realised that they stuffed up in 2016.
So it's really good news that these have been addressed - but, yeah, golf clap to Apple for fixing avoidable problems that they created. Hope that they've learned the lesson and won't test future products in an echo chamber - they clearly didn't show the 2016 design to anybody who might dare to criticise it.
Expandability, bigger screens, more configurations that you can change down the road.