Waiting for the 2017 MBP (Kaby Lake / Cannonlake / Coffee Lake??)

[navaira]

You want an Arnold Schwarzenegger who looks like Pamela Anderson?

I didn't know I wanted to see that, but now I kind of do.

Production timeline and cost of finding the old tech in the most optimum shape for the new chassis, I would imagine. Apparently the new tech that failed testing happened quite late, so the switch was probably done very late too, not leaving much time

I wonder if what happened with the Note 7 has caused them to delay this until Samsung find out what the problem was – so Apple don't end up accidentally replicating it with explosively courageous new MBP.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

When would be a reasonable time for Apple to release an updated mbp with Kaby Lake?

To be honest I think WMC still feels to early given the recent supply chain boost needed to meet the high demand of the new mbp with touch bar. I'll try and keep track of these updates in my new blog. However, I don't think I can wait for an update either way. New MBP 15 needed ASAP (the price though!)

I hope for an announcement at WWDC and shipping in July. That's best case.

Then of course October could be an option.

Worst case in spring 2018 around March/April timeframe.

I cannot make a guess with Apple anYmore. Besides iPhone of. Course

 

[Ma2k5]

I didn't know I wanted to see that, but now I kind of do.


I wonder if what happened with the Note 7 has caused them to delay this until Samsung find out what the problem was – so Apple don't end up accidentally replicating it with explosively courageous new MBP.

There was an article with the problem with the Note 7 by a 3rd party battery company, it was a much more simple problem of just not leaving enough space around battery. Samsung had an easy fix but it meant lower battery capacity and a totalrecall is probably a better option than to say "hey we fixed it, but it now has 15% less battery". So they shelved the product.

The technology Apple uses is different to Samsung and likely had other more complex issues.

 

[zarathu]

It doesn't help that Apple has been pre-occupied with the iPhone, and only recently put any time into the MBP and the other Mac lines. Then it turned into a rush job.

It comes with no longer having a visionary at the head of the organization. Visionaries are hard to come by, actually.

 

[gifo]

So you want Apple to make a sexy thin laptop that is as powerful as your clunky PC? You do know that Apple is totally dependent on Intel's cpu's and Graphic and manufacturers of gpu's to make them small enough and power efficient enough to fit in Apple's sexy thin laptops, right? You want an Arnold Schwarzenegger who looks like Pamela Anderson?
[doublepost=1486043025][/doublepost]

Sometimes when you make something, you just can't know if it will work synergistically with everything else in the space you designed it for---until you actually put it in the space. Modeling and specs only go so far when you are dealing in complexity theory.

no, i just want an updated classic macbook pro with retina, but probably i'm not good enough in writing to be clear to you.

are the touchbar, the reduced volume, the reduced weight, the reduced thickness going to increase my productivity? NO
would the official support to external gpus, an update cpu and the presence of both "future-proof" and "legacy" ports increase my productivity? YES

i know apple, and since they decided to not give us (or me) this alternative i'm not complaining on the forums about what they had in mind with the 2016 mbp, but probably you are missing why i posted: apple is selling a 2015 machine at the same price it was launched in 2015, and that's RIDICULOUS.
i mean, that machine is still good enough for most of the things a semi-pro would do with a mac, and is possibile to use an external gpu even via tb2 (with some effort) but the price is too damn high for 2 years old tech.

 

[Investor27]

Still, it does not explain why, reverting to old tech (li-ion) battery, they had to leave empty space around...[/QUOTE

For higher profit, of course.

 

[zarathu]

i know apple, and since they decided to not give us (or me) this alternative i'm not complaining on the forums about what they had in mind with the 2016 mbp, but probably you are missing why i posted: apple is selling a 2015 machine at the same price it was launched in 2015, and that's RIDICULOUS.
i mean, that machine is still good enough for most of the things a semi-pro would do with a mac, and is possibile to use an external gpu even via tb2 (with some effort) but the price is too damn high for 2 years old tech.

Actually its not the same machine. If you do a lot of raw video imaging its much faster. I'm just saying that the parameters that Apple has already made clear is their focus, sexy thin-ness, an lightness, have made it nearly impossible to substantially increase the power of the GPU and the CPU. AND..... Apple is totally dependent on Intel and AMD/NVvideo making units that will work in the size and weight requirement of the new machine. If they stepped back to a 5 lb unit, one inch think unit, then they could make what you want. But then, a whole different set of people would be complaining that the machine is just not keeping up with the competition in sexy thin-ness and lightness.

 

[NJPT]

Actually its not the same machine. If you do a lot of raw video imaging its much faster. I'm just saying that the parameters that Apple has already made clear is their focus, sexy thin-ness, an lightness, have made it nearly impossible to substantially increase the power of the GPU and the CPU. AND..... Apple is totally dependent on Intel and AMD/NVvideo making units that will work in the size and weight requirement of the new machine. If they stepped back to a 5 lb unit, one inch think unit, then they could make what you want. But then, a whole different set of people would be complaining that the machine is just not keeping up with the competition in sexy thin-ness and lightness.

I think you're missing what gifo is saying. He's saying Apple is still selling the 2015 rMBP (2.2 GHz Haswell i7, 16 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD) for $1,999, which is the same price it was at when it was first released in May 2015. That's what's ridiculous.

 

[gifo]

Actually its not the same machine. If you do a lot of raw video imaging its much faster. I'm just saying that the parameters that Apple has already made clear is their focus, sexy thin-ness, an lightness, have made it nearly impossible to substantially increase the power of the GPU and the CPU. AND..... Apple is totally dependent on Intel and AMD/NVvideo making units that will work in the size and weight requirement of the new machine. If they stepped back to a 5 lb unit, one inch think unit, then they could make what you want. But then, a whole different set of people would be complaining that the machine is just not keeping up with the competition in sexy thin-ness and lightness.

it's like the fifth time in five pages you say that apple rely on amd and intel timings, and that's correct but:
1st, almost everyone in this forum already knows that,
2nd, apple unfortunately has taken his "rhythm" in presenting and releasing new products, it was almost always in the best timing when intel was on the tick-tock scheme but now it's probably time to change or apple will ALWAYS be too late or too soon.
3rd, honestly i've never found someone who was not satisfied by the sizes of apple products or someone saying "i hope they'll make the next gen thinner" but i found a lot od people complaining about the battery life, the lack of connectivity the gpu, the ram, the keyboard,they already have a line of thin products.

To be honest i really LOVE the design of the new macbook pro, but again if someone would ask me if i wanted to buy the current late 2016 macbook pro with touchbar as it is or a macbook pro with the design and the battery of the 2015 macbook pro retina with updated internal hw (tb3 upgrade would be enough) even at the same base price l i would for sure go with the latter one.

I think you're missing what gifo is saying. He's saying Apple is still selling the 2015 rMBP (2.2 GHz Haswell i7, 16 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD) for $1,999, which is the same price it was at when it was first released in May 2015. That's what's ridiculous.

thanks.

 

[Sanpete]

3rd, honestly i've never found someone who was not satisfied by the sizes of apple products or someone saying "i hope they'll make the next gen thinner"

I (and many others) always hope to get one that's thinner, smaller, and lighter. Some people complain when Apple improves the MBP in almost every respect, including by making it thinner and lighter. But most people like that.

 

[ugru]

If they stepped back to a 5 lb unit, one inch think unit, then they could make what you want. But then, a whole different set of people would be complaining that the machine is just not keeping up with the competition in sexy thin-ness and lightness.

There is the MacBook for them...

I (and many others) always hope to get one that's thinner, smaller, and lighter.

Apple is already selling the perfect laptop for you...It is the MacBook

 

[Sanpete]

Apple is already selling the perfect laptop for you...It is the MacBook

Ha, I hope you're only pretending to completely miss the obvious.

 

[ugru]

You mean the obviously stupid choice of continuously making both (because the Air is gone for good) the lines of laptop thinner and thinner, instead of keeping one thin and light and the other powerful and expansible?

No, i did not miss it and I am precisely complaining about that

 

[Sanpete]

Obviously it's not either/or. Obviously people don't only about size and weight, or only about performance. Obviously it's a balance of many competing factors for every model. Obviously if you didn't care about weight and size yourself you'd get a ten-pound portable that takes 64 GB RAM and has desktop components. You may not like the balance Apple chooses, but obviously many do. Complain all you want, but don't pretend there's some objective fact in your favor. It's just your subjective preference.

 

[ugru]

It's just your subjective preference.

As it is, obviosly, your subjective preference for a thinner laptop...

 

[Sanpete]

Thinner than what? As I just said, obviously if you didn't care about weight and size yourself you'd get a ten-pound portable that takes 64 GB RAM and has desktop components. Is that what you've done? No, because you do care about it. There's nothing stupid about Apple balancing that with other things.

 

[ugru]

Obviously it's not either/or

It is precisely that...it is a trade-off between the TDP of CPU and GPU, battery power, and thinness.

If they kept 2015 thinnes, which was already perfect, they could have put better hardware, 32 GB of ram (for those who need it), a bigger battery. Instead they chose to compromise on the low-power side.

So, to sum up: was the 2015 rMBP too thick for you? If that is the case then I give up...

 

[TheralSadurns]

It is precisely that...it is a trade-off between the TDP of CPU and GPU, battery power, and thinness.

If they kept 2015 thinnes, which was already perfect, they could have put better hardware, 32 GB of ram (for those who need it), a bigger battery. Instead they chose to compromise on the low-power side.

So, to sum up: was the 2015 rMBP too thick for you? If that is the case then I give up...

I so agree with you!

There doesn't have to be a compromise! Just make it thinner ONLY when it is not compromising anything of the previous generation. Like the display. They managed to make it better AND thinner. The rest... not so much.

 

[navaira]

How I see the lineup is:
rMB is actually Air
rMBP Escape Edition is actually Macbook
rMBP with Touch Bar with 2015 thickness with better specs and battery would be actually Macbook Pro
(Currently sold Air is some sort of legacy product that exists for no particular reason other than rMB being expensive)

 

[Sanpete]

It is precisely that...it is a trade-off between the TDP of CPU and GPU, battery power, and thinness.

If they kept 2015 thinnes, which was already perfect, they could have put better hardware, 32 GB of ram (for those who need it), a bigger battery. Instead they chose to compromise on the low-power side.

So, to sum up: was the 2015 rMBP too thick for you? If that is the case then I give up...

You just described how it's not either/or but some of each. You want some thinness and lightness, and some power. You want the balance you want, others want a different balance. Again, it's a subjective preference. It's not stupid to have a different preference than you do.

One reason 13" machines are so popular is that people really do want something smaller and lighter, and are willing to trade performance and features for that. The same applies to the 15". The 17" wasn't popular enough to survive.

It's a mistake to think Apple didn't use desktop RAM only because of thinness and lightness, mythology notwithstanding. It would make the machine bigger and heavier, but it would also reduce battery life even with a maximum-sized battery. I know, you don't care, but many do.

There doesn't have to be a compromise! Just make it thinner ONLY when it is not compromising anything of the previous generation. Like the display. They managed to make it better AND thinner. The rest... not so much.

Again, all laptops involve compromise of size and weight with performance and features. All, without exception.

And for the record, the 2016 is improved over the 2015 in easily a dozen significant ways.

 

[TheralSadurns]

You just described how it's not either/or but some of each. You want some thinness and lightness, and some power. You want the balance you want, others want a different balance. Again, it's a subjective preference. It's not stupid to have a different preference than you do.

One reason 13" machines are so popular is that people really do want something smaller and lighter, and are willing to trade performance and features for that. The same applies to the 15". The 17" wasn't popular enough to survive.

It's a mistake to think Apple didn't use desktop RAM only because of thinness and lightness, mythology notwithstanding. It would make the machine bigger and heavier, but it would also reduce battery life even with a maximum-sized battery. I know, you don't care, but many do.



Again, all laptops involve compromise of size and weight with performance and features. All, without exception.

And for the record, the 2016 is improved over the 2015 in easily a dozen significant ways.

Exactly. Not everyone has the same idea about what they need. That's why the older machines were perfect... from a lineup perspective.

You could go thin and light... with okay performance...
or a lot heavier and bulkier with really good performance and all the ports you'd need.

Now there is only ultra thin and light with almost no performance.
and still super thin with okay performance.

All I want... is a pro machine that deserves that name.
And no... I don't ask for a 10 pound Alienware style monstrosity. But a workstation like it is available from many other vendors.

My main pain point is that I have a 2011 17" MBP with 16GB of Ram... and a solid Quad Core i7.
The new machines ... HAVE THE SAME. CPU... okay that is on intel... but after 6 years! I can ask for more Ram... can't I?

 

[Sanpete]

Now there is only ultra thin and light with almost no performance.
and still super thin with okay performance.

All I want... is a pro machine that deserves that name.
And no... I don't ask for a 10 pound Alienware style monstrosity. But a workstation like it is available from many other vendors.

My main pain point is that I have a 2011 17" MBP with 16GB of Ram... and a solid Quad Core i7.
The new machines ... HAVE THE SAME. CPU... okay that is on intel... but after 6 years! I can ask for more Ram... can't I?

These are highly subjective ideas, what OK performance is, what's pro, etc. For some people, the 10-pound machine still isn't pro enough. MBP performance is on a par with the performance of similarly classed machines for the bulk of pro tasks. It's actually quite a bit better for some things, like editing video fast (with FCPX), and quite a bit worse for others. The SSD continues to excel, the screen is top of class in various ways, etc.

More RAM is currently only available at the cost of battery life, something that also matters to most people, including most pros. It's doubtful that a lot of people are willing to accept the cost, weight and battery trade-offs, but there are rumors that Apple is working on a sort of XPS model that will offer that choice.

 

[zarathu]

As it says below, I have a late 2013 MBP. I really don't see the point in it being thinner. I mean shaving off 6mm, who cares? There's a point where they'll have to go to solid beryllium to make it strong enough to be that thin. People who complain that it is too heavy to lug around must be pretty weakling people. All through junior high, high school, and college I often lugged up to 25 lb of books and gear. I still do(50 years later). If you need a workstation, then you'll need an iMac or a MacPro. Once its on a table or my lap I don't notice another 1/2 lb.

I find Apple's search for the ultimate thin-ness to be just dumb, but its not really a problem for me. It is their choice.

 

[Sanpete]

Yet more treatment of subjective preferences as though they had special objective validity.

People who complain that it is too heavy to lug around must be pretty weakling people. All through junior high, high school, and college I often lugged up to 25 lb of books and gear. I still do(50 years later).

Then I suppose a 25-pound laptop would be just the thing for you. Imagine all the RAM you could get in it!

 

[zarathu]

Yet more treatment of subjective preferences as though they had special objective validity.
Then I suppose a 25-pound laptop would be just the thing for you. Imagine all the RAM you could get in it!

I never said I wanted a 25lb laptop. I SAID that I used to carry around a lot of stuff, still do including books, and that even at my advanced age of 68 carrying around a 4.5 lb laptop with all the other junk is no big deal. I said its really hard to tell the difference between 1/2 pound, and implied that all this discussion is just wild discussion.

Oddly I'm not even disagreeing with anything you have said except when you don't even bother to read my posts before posting "alternative facts" on my position, or reading between lines which are not there..