Waiting for Skylake MBP thread

[doctorwhofan98]

Eh, not really.

To a certain extent, Macs are lagging behind now. The Mac Pro hasn't been updated in years, and the Mac Mini is similarly out of date. iMacs still ship with HDDs by default.

Even if you ignore the state of the MacBook Air (presumably a dead line), their laptop range isn't really in a better state; MacBook Pros lack Skylake (the 15 inch model is running processors that are around 2 years old at the moment!) and USB-C, and the competition has both, while companies like Dell are innovating by reducing bezel size. Even the Retina MacBook lacks Thunderbolt 3, which comparable laptops have.

The Macs aren't in a bad state, but compared to Windows machines at the same price point, the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro in particular aren't particularly great. Apple needs to update them ASAP or risk losing sales, particularly as the back-to-school market is beginning now.

 

[cambookpro]

When was this? As far as I can remember, Apple didn't change up their hardware every year.

It's hard to argue against the fact that updates are coming less frequently. Just look at the frequency of updates for early models of MacBook Pro: Early 2006, Late 2006, Mid 2007, Late 2007, Early 2008, Late 2008 (17"), Late 2008 (15" unibody), Early 2009, Mid 2009, Mid 2010, Early 2011, Late 2011, Mid 2012 (13", 15" unibody), Mid 2012 (15" retina), Late 2012 (13" retina), Early 2013, Late 2013, Mid 2014. That's a pretty consistent schedule of being updated at least once a year, and often twice a year.

If it's not launched until October, both the 13" and 15" will have gone over a year and a half without an update, and the 15" will have gone without a change in CPU architecture for three whole years.

A similar pattern emerges looking at other Mac models too.

 

[maclaw21]

Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't see how we don't get a new MBP at WWDC. Despite the lack of rumors, the stars really are aligning:

• Every computer is outdated except for the new MB.
• 10th anniversary of the MBP (Apple loves anniversaries)
• Back to school
• It's WWDC for crying out loud
• No economic reason to wait until the last calendar quarter of the year

I realize there has been a lot of hand wringing given the lack of update, but I just don't see how, given the above, Apple does not update the MBP at WWDC. The real question for me is whether it will be a spec bump to Skylake, without a redesign, or a complete redesign with the OLED bar, etc.

 

[vatter69]

Sales are already down by half a million units

Apple needs to update them ASAP or risk losing sales, particularly as the back-to-school market is beginning now.

 

[Woochoo]

Haven't seen this posted yet, despite being commented before:

http://9to5mac.com/2016/06/02/apple-wwdc-no-external-display-software/

Does it mean neither new Macbooks in this WWDC, only software? If Apple waits to September to unveil new Macs, skipping the back to school, they'll have lost the north.

 

[Jj237]

Off topic but it made laugh, yesterday on french tv a woman has been asked by the tv host what she did for a living and she said :"i work for a PHONE compagny"
He answered :"which one?"
She replied : "apple" lol

 

[knassar]

Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't see how we don't get a new MBP at WWDC. Despite the lack of rumors, the stars really are aligning:

• Every computer is outdated except for the new MB.
• 10th anniversary of the MBP (Apple loves anniversaries)
• Back to school
• It's WWDC for crying out loud
• No economic reason to wait until the last calendar quarter of the year

I realize there has been a lot of hand wringing given the lack of update, but I just don't see how, given the above, Apple does not update the MBP at WWDC. The real question for me is whether it will be a spec bump to Skylake, without a redesign, or a complete redesign with the OLED bar, etc.

There's no scenario where the new rMBPs are just a spec bump.

 

[cmChimera]

The MacBook Pro certainly is. Is the 15 inch even running Broadwell?

Who cares? The cpu isn't the only component of a computer.

The Mac Pro hasn't been updated in years

I agree on this point and the Mac Mini

iMacs still ship with HDDs by default.

Just don't buy an Hdd. You're still not going to find anything close to the 5k retina iMac elsewhere.

MacBook Pros lack Skylake

Because Intel delayed the chips Apple uses. Meanwhile Apple is giving laptops insane SSD speeds, making new keyboards, and improving battery life.

Even the Retina MacBook lacks Thunderbolt 3, which comparable laptops have.

And the competition had to make compromises to do so (1080p screens, short battery life, etc.)


It's really easy to cherry pick features from one or two other laptops and say Apple is lagging behind but it's not really all that true. Apple is leading in some respects and following in others. For me, I'd rather have a 5k iMac than a 2k or 1080p all in one that has a USB-C port, but I guess to each their own.

It's hard to argue against the fact that updates are coming less frequently. Just look at the frequency of updates for early models of MacBook Pro: Early 2006, Late 2006, Mid 2007, Late 2007, Early 2008, Late 2008 (17"), Late 2008 (15" unibody), Early 2009, Mid 2009, Mid 2010, Early 2011, Late 2011, Mid 2012 (13", 15" unibody), Mid 2012 (15" retina), Late 2012 (13" retina), Early 2013, Late 2013, Mid 2014. That's a pretty consistent schedule of being updated at least once a year, and often twice a year.

If it's not launched until October, both the 13" and 15" will have gone over a year and a half without an update, and the 15" will have gone without a change in CPU architecture for three whole years.

A similar pattern emerges looking at other Mac models too.

For the MacBook Pro, the only delay seems to be based on Intel though. They updated the MacBook Pro last year as well, so I'm not sure how they're breaking their pattern

 

[doctorwhofan98]

Who cares? The cpu isn't the only component of a computer.

I agree on this point and the Mac Mini

Just don't buy an Hdd. You're still not going to find anything close to the 5k retina iMac elsewhere.

Because Intel delayed the chips Apple uses. Meanwhile Apple is giving laptops insane SSD speeds, making new keyboards, and improving battery life.

And the competition had to make compromises to do so (1080p screens, short battery life, etc.)


It's really easy to cherry pick features from one or two other laptops and say Apple is lagging behind but it's not really all that true. Apple is leading in some respects and following in others. For me, I'd rather have a 5k iMac than a 2k or 1080p all in one that has a USB-C port, but I guess to each their own.

Fair points, but still - this is only ok if new MBPs are announced at WWDC. If they're not, and Apple waits until Q4, then that's no longer Intel's fault - that's Apple choosing not to make them available for some reason. Faster SSDs etc. are nice, but features like more battery life generally come from new and better processors, and, regardless of timing, it's still beyond ridiculous that the 15 inch MBP has old processors; Apple could've launched it slightly later in 2015. Ultimately, the delays so far are acceptable, but delaying the launch until Q4 really isn't unless they're waiting for Intel to launch Kaby Lake - but we know that isn't what's happening, as KL chips won't be available until 2017. Skylake is ready but for some reason Apple isn't.

 

[vatter69]

I guess most people wouldn't be upset if Apple just dropped the price of all these 'do not buy' models by a fair amount to reflect the outdated hardware.

 

[WRONG]

It's impressive that it's lasted 6 years though! Hopefully you won't have to live with it until October. Just out of interest - how has it aged, aside from the GPU issues? Does it still perform well/how has the battery coped? I'm interested as I'll need my 2016 MBP to last as long as possible.

I can answer you, too.
I'm still using and working on my late 2009 MBP.
I've upgraded the RAM to 16 GB and the hard disk to 7200 rpm.
My battery is f*cked and the GPU also is quite... weary.
Except for that, I have to admit that it still works pretty well, for being a 6 and more years old computer with an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU.

Not a chance the Mac is a priority for Apple over the iPhone.

I understand what you mean, but still I don't agree so much.
As is true Mac won't be a priority for Apple, in any case they're a big part of their earnings.

 

[Rob_2811]

Who cares? The cpu isn't the only component of a computer.

Regardless the Mac clearly isn't a priority for Apple and is never likely to be ever again. They are 10% (at best) of a dying PC market.

iPad, Watch and services represent better growth opportunity.

 

[Meldalinn]

Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't see how we don't get a new MBP at WWDC. Despite the lack of rumors, the stars really are aligning:

• Every computer is outdated except for the new MB.
• 10th anniversary of the MBP (Apple loves anniversaries)
• Back to school
• It's WWDC for crying out loud
• No economic reason to wait until the last calendar quarter of the year

I realize there has been a lot of hand wringing given the lack of update, but I just don't see how, given the above, Apple does not update the MBP at WWDC. The real question for me is whether it will be a spec bump to Skylake, without a redesign, or a complete redesign with the OLED bar, etc.

There is just one reason, Polaris 11.

 

[chr15]

...the 15" got some meaningful updates (super fast flash storage, Force Touch, better CPU/dGPU options). In fact, I'd argue that the updates the 15" got were more significant than Broadwell as processor performance is relatively flat these days.

The point is, Apple could have done all those things AND upgraded the processor. They chose not to. People are understandably annoyed at that.

 

[BenTrovato]

I don't buy this stuff that the Mac isn't a priority for Apple. The problem is that people like Apple's products but don't like how Apple goes about delivering their closed end-to-end product. It's a method of operating that only looks good in hindsight.

 

[dallegre]

Because Intel delayed the chips Apple uses. Meanwhile Apple is giving laptops insane SSD speeds, making new keyboards, and improving battery life.

You realize these "insane" SSD speeds, while certainly very fast, aren't quite as fast as the Samsung 950 PRO and 951 SSDs going into higher end PCs these days? They're more like "reasonably market competitive SSD speeds".

The retina iMac is certainly a unique product with the 10 bit 5k display.

 

[Rob_2811]

I understand what you mean, but still I don't agree so much.
As is true Mac won't be a priority for Apple, in any case they're a big part of their earnings.

Not really. Mac Sales currently account for about 10% of overall revenue, the highest it has been in the last five years is 11%.

Its a good business but it doesn't offer the potential for growth in the way subscription services like Apple Music and new product lines like the Watch do.

It just doesn't make sense to prioritise a product line that is likely to see little growth. They will do enough to keep it competitive but that's about it.

 

[Woochoo]

Who cares? The cpu isn't the only component of a computer.

...

Because Intel delayed the chips Apple uses. Meanwhile Apple is giving laptops insane SSD speeds, making new keyboards, and improving battery life.

...

It's really easy to cherry pick features from one or two other laptops and say Apple is lagging behind but it's not really all that true. Apple is leading in some respects and following in others. For me, I'd rather have a 5k iMac than a 2k or 1080p all in one that has a USB-C port, but I guess to each their own.




For the MacBook Pro, the only delay seems to be based on Intel though. They updated the MacBook Pro last year as well, so I'm not sure how they're breaking their pattern

1. CPU is only one component, but the core, and the one that people usually look for to see if a computer is actual or behind competence. So it's normal. Add the fact that in laptops, CPU is what brings new thunderbolt revisions, more PCIe lanes to get better performance on disks, supports DDR4 RAM at more clock speed, etc. Oh wait, I forgot about the most important: new iGPU. It might seem it's just that, a CPU with 5-10% more performance, but it's definitely more than that.

2. New keyboards that feel clunky to many users, so not an upgrade for all.

3. Of course, and nobody asks Apple to be the very best at everything (having the best GPU, best CPU, best disks, best port config...), but there are many things they do wrong: iMacs still come with 5400RPM HDDs, low-mid end dGPUs on almost 3000€ top-end machines, ridiculous price upgrades, prioritizing design over functionality, etc.

4. Apple is not constrained by Intel delays right now, they were until April-May, but not anymore. So if they don't release new MBPs at WWDC (and shipp them in July-August due to yelds), it will be because they are just lazy or they have other priorities rather than Macs. I can't believe Apple is delaying the Macbooks release till September because it was "a very complex design", they had 4 years to work on it. And if they are overwhelmed by many projects, maybe it's time to hire more engineers, since they are the business that have less engineers per dollar generated (I've read the statistic somewhere months ago, I bet it won't be hard to find it if you want to search for it)

 

[WRONG]

Not really. Mac Sales currently account for about 10% of overall revenue, the highest it has been in the last five years is 11%.

Its a good business but it doesn't offer the potential for growth in the way subscription services like Apple Music and new product lines like the Watch do.

It just doesn't make sense to prioritise a product line that is likely to see little growth. They will do enough to keep it competitive but that's about it.

10% Macs VS 12% services.
And 10% Macs is still 5 billions.
They won't need to prioritize it, but at least to keep it competitive, yes.
The problem is they're not doing it.

 

[charlievb]

Not really. Mac Sales currently account for about 10% of overall revenue, the highest it has been in the last five years is 11%.

Its a good business but it doesn't offer the potential for growth in the way subscription services like Apple Music and new product lines like the Watch do.

It just doesn't make sense to prioritise a product line that is likely to see little growth. They will do enough to keep it competitive but that's about it.

I think you are missing the big picture. If Apple imploded their Mac line, their revenue would fall by a lot more than 10%. The Mac sales are gateway sales, that drive demand for many other Apple products.

I buy a Macbook, I decide to buy an iPhone and a iPad, maybe also a watch.

If I had bought a Dell XPS, I may have gone instead with a Nexus, and a Samsung Tablet.

The Mac line is crucial for maintaining a strong base of loyal Apple customers

 

[Wowereit]

Not a chance the Mac is a priority for Apple over the iPhone.

No business that is answerable to shareholders is going to focus on a product that offers limited growth potential over one that accounts for the majority of its revenue.

Thats just the way it is, as a Mac user you just have to accept that. These days the Mac is always going to be less of a priority to Apple than maintenance of its iPhone business and growth of new lines like the Watch. Thats why the Mac line is made up of machines that are lagging behind their Windows counterparts.

Anybody who is telling you otherwise is just giving you false hope.

That's just not true for other companies.
The problem is in Apple's internal structure.
There is someone managing hardware, someone managing software and so on. Of course they won't focus on the Mac if iPhone is in their responsibility, too.

For exactly this reason other companies allocate their managers in another way.
They would have someone totaly reponsible for delivering new Macs, someone reponsible for iPhone etc.

 

[OllyW]

I think you are missing the big picture. If Apple imploded their Mac line, their revenue would fall by a lot more than 10%. The Mac sales are gateway sales, that drive demand for many other Apple products.

I buy a Macbook, I decide to buy an iPhone and a iPad, maybe also a watch.

If I had bought a Dell XPS, I may have gone instead with a Nexus, and a Samsung Tablet.

The Mac line is crucial for maintaining a strong base of loyal A

I think that was true 5 years ago but these days I would say it's the other way around and it's people from the vast iOS customer base who are discovering the Mac.

 

[xmlninja]

Macs? Where we are going we dont need macs.

 

[shareef777]

I could not see things any more differently. They put out a 13" MBP with Broadwell, didn't they? If it was all about profit margins, then surely they would have kept Haswell in that machine too. And they did update the 15" MBP as well with the faster flash storage and they bumped the graphics card up as well. The quad core Broadwell chip was delayed for a lot longer than it should have been, and I think that Apple just got tired of waiting, saw that the Haswell 15" MBP was getting long in the tooth, and decided to do something to improve the machine (which they did) even if it used the same processor line.

As for the price, I don't know why anyone would expect a price cut. That's not Apple's model for Macs, and it never has been. They set a price when they introduce the product and it stays that way. Just look at the 2012 cMBP that they are still selling for 2016 prices. Are these price tactics greedy? I suppose, but I don't think that the sole reason for skipping Broadwell was to increase profit margins.

You're naive if you don't think it's based off profit. They could have easily did a silent update to Broadwell the moment they were available (to at least keep it competitive with other systems). Absolutely nothing would have to be changed to make the current rMBP use Broadwell. There's only ONE reason why they wouldn't and that's money.

 

[OSX7]

I think you are missing the big picture. If Apple imploded their Mac line, their revenue would fall by a lot more than 10%. The Mac sales are gateway sales, that drive demand for many other Apple products.

I buy a Macbook, I decide to buy an iPhone and a iPad, maybe also a watch.

If I had bought a Dell XPS, I may have gone instead with a Nexus, and a Samsung Tablet.

The Mac line is crucial for maintaining a strong base of loyal A

Actually is completely the opposite. Gateway drugs are iPhones/iPads, iPod touch included. These are low cost devices compared to a USD 1000+ MacBook X. In my case it was an iPod touch, a few years later, I even have an Airport Extreme, and virtually every iDevice. They converted me (and then I convience dmy family)just with the iPod touch years ago. I have seen the same thing happen with many of my friends. People usually start small and then move on towards the high priced items, I mean look at iPhone/iPad sales. Macs are still important but it is in no way the main gateway drug, hence macs being only 10% of their profits.