This would be a pity if the appropriate Kaby Lake CPUs become available in Feb -March 17. You can bet that A pple's competitors will have the newer processors in their products as soon as they can, and the MBP will face competition from updated Dell, HP and MS laptops.
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.
Waiting for the 2017 MBP (Kaby Lake / Cannonlake / Coffee Lake??)
- Thread starter buster84
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
This would be a pity if the appropriate Kaby Lake CPUs become available in Feb -March 17. You can bet that A pple's competitors will have the newer processors in their products as soon as they can, and the MBP will face competition from updated Dell, HP and MS laptops.
Apple goes by the beat of its own drum. Look at the 15" MBP, prior to the 2016 model, it was on Haswell. Clearly they could have done a speed bump on that a number of times but didn't.
Exactly. Also Apple is not motivated to update the processors each year. Why would they? You are gonna buy it with Skylake anyway.
There's no point for Apple to dedicate resources for engineering and testing that is required with each processor update.
They know you are gonna buy it no matter what. As is evidence with prior MBP 15" which didn't receive a processor update since 2013.
Only if you vote with your wallet will Apple ever be motivated to update processors.
If you look on wikipedia for the MacBookPro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Pro, you'll see this:
What that shows is Apple releasing a mpb in October of 2012, an update 4 months later in 2013 and another update 6 months after that (which is what I'm typing on). That makes three updates to the laptop in the course of 12 months. Is that not an example of precedence?
I think this is pretty applicable for the "tock" of Intel's release strategy (or in this case, the second tock). Kaby Lake is a tock, and has the same form factor as Skylake. Spec updates aren't really announced with fanfare, they just show up.
What that shows is Apple releasing a mpb in October of 2012, an update 4 months later in 2013 and another update 6 months after that (which is what I'm typing on). That makes three updates to the laptop in the course of 12 months. Is that not an example of precedence?
I think this is pretty applicable for the "tock" of Intel's release strategy (or in this case, the second tock). Kaby Lake is a tock, and has the same form factor as Skylake. Spec updates aren't really announced with fanfare, they just show up.
Last edited:
The "update" 4 months later in 2013 was a price drop on the 13", the machine was the same. True the 15" got a minor spec bump but that had been released in June.
If precedence really mattered then we wouldn't have waited over 500 days for the last MBP update...
For the 15" rMBP, initial refresh rate was about 8 months. The early 2013 update didn't change the lineup and price. The late 2013 update introduced iGPU 15" for the first time with a $1999 (8GB RAM/256GB SSD) intro price. If you factor in the $200 RAM upgrade to 16GB and another $200 for dGPU, it would've been the same price as the current 2016 low end 15". Finally the first significant price drop for 15" rMBP started with the mid 2014 update, which makes 16GB RAM standard, and that's about two years later with a $200 price drop.
Yes - but this was a hardware redesign - and by the looks of the battery life issues - they could have used another 100 days....
That's the issue, they added a brighter display (that uses more power), and the touch bar which runs all the time, and yet shrunk the batter. I'd rather have a larger battery then a 5mm thinner laptop
They seem to sacrifice everything,
in favor of a thinner chassis and design...
We all want good design, but not at the expense of usability...
in favor of a thinner chassis and design...
We all want good design, but not at the expense of usability...
You are right: it's an IGZO display so it should consume less... the question is: given the high NITS / brightness capability, does it actually consume more (using a higher NITS configuration) ?
Well the max brightness settings on the new ones (top 2 clicks or so) are basically only useful for bright outside locations, IMO. They are wayyyyy too bright to be used indoors, it almost hurts my eyes with how bright it gets.
I've got mine set to 120 nits for photos (about 3 clicks up from halfway on mine) and it's plenty bright for everyday use so I'd say it's saving me quite a bit of energy over the old screen at the same brightness.
Anyone have an idea how long it takes for MBP to ship from China to be delivered in the Eastern US? I'm currently P4S and will likely go to ship in the next 48 hours. I'm trying to figure out if there's a realistic chance of my order being delivered this week.
I think this is what you need:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/2016-macbook-pro-order-shipping-thread.2009747/
You're right, I'm wrong and retract my statement about the display, but that makes the poor battery life even more curious
No worries. Honestly I think it's mostly down to poor software optimization right now. Apple seems to be having a hell of a time getting Skylake and macOS to work nicely together. I won't deny there seems to be issues with under-performing battery life on the new MBPs (especially the 13" TB), but I'm not quite willing to say it's purely down to them just packing too small a battery in it. I'm willing to give Apple an update or two to see if they can remedy the problems. It's a good thing we have until January to return these
The issue is they went from a 75whr battery to a 49whr in the MBP to make it thinner. This was a stupid decision that nobody wanted and only makes thermal dissipation more difficult and cut the battery capacity. We could have 12+ battery life on this machine if they had kept the same thickness with the new display and more efficient processors.
Don't forget that by reducing the battery by 35%, Apple will increase it profit margins on these new Macs based on the money saved on the smaller, less capacity battery.
They also could make some keys in touch bar still physical ,such as combination of +,- on the right to be used with some keys ,for example the s for sound and +.- for volume etc and the esc on the left side in order to be able to switch off the touch bar if needed ,then its very awkward that you have to use a big solution like lift to raise the battery life, i'd prefer'd too a 5 mm more instead .
- Status