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 2019 16.4 Inch Macbook Pro
- Thread starter gadgetfreaky
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe the new 10nm Ice Lake-U mobile chips running at 28W will deliver performance levels previously reserved for 45W? These processor roadmaps are so convoluted now I get a headache trying to decipher them!
https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Intel-Client-Mobile.jpg
https://www.patentlyapple.com/paten...ce-a-new-gaming-cpu-at-computex-tomorrow.html
I don't mind paying $3k for a new MBP as long as they give us a powerhouse.
I am also for FACE ID. That would be a game-changer.
OLED screen would be great, though I highly doubt we will see those for another year or two.
Perhaps the capability to have up to 64MB of installed ram? I know you guys will think that's outrageous, but I have 32GB of RAM and with about two dozen programs either always running or just currently, my memory is over 50% full.
I am also for FACE ID. That would be a game-changer.
OLED screen would be great, though I highly doubt we will see those for another year or two.
Perhaps the capability to have up to 64MB of installed ram? I know you guys will think that's outrageous, but I have 32GB of RAM and with about two dozen programs either always running or just currently, my memory is over 50% full.
I believe the following would be a compelling reason to draw in buyers.......
1. Better keyboard
2. Upgraded GPU
3. 120 Hz screen
4. 1080 FaceTime camera
5. Of course a 16 inch screen that many would like to have
6. Default 256 SSD
7. Reduced bezels
8. Better thermals
9. FaceTime ID
10 4K
11 Successor to the T2 chip
12 Larger battery
13.A great price
14...The Apple Logo
To name a few
I feel like I should wait for the 16" as well given that even if I don't want to pay whatever exorbitant price they're asking, the 15" should drop in price.
But...do I even want a 16" laptop? 15" is pushing it. 13" is perfect but the power just isn't there.
I really think Face ID alone is worth waiting for though.
But...do I even want a 16" laptop? 15" is pushing it. 13" is perfect but the power just isn't there.
I really think Face ID alone is worth waiting for though.
Yeah, I know. But it could still have some improvements over Coffee Lake. Support fir LPDDR4 would be nice for once.
Good point, however I'd add the caveat that the Windows world can offer more options because there's more companies creating hardware. Apple is just one company, compared to tons of PC companies, some of which are much larger in terms of units sold than Apple (HP, Lenovo, etc.). Just think if there were five or six very good hardware makers cranking out different variations of MacOS laptops, desktops, all-in-ones, etc. Apple will always provide less choice in this context just because it's only one company.
I'd argue that Apple made more general-purpose and flexible laptops from 2007 - 2015. So there was something for everyone. PC makers offer this too. There's no reason why Apple couldn't make a Dell Precision 7740. The hardware is similar across PC manufacturers. If they did make this, I'd guess that they'd attract professional and gamer sales and those that want a machine that will provide plenty of compute life usefulness ten years from now.
I would 100% agree that Apple did offer more general purpose and flexible laptops from 2007 - 2015. If I could be in charge I'd steer Apple more in that direction for sure.
Doesn't Apple realize that their current laptop line is so very limited design-wise, with respect to there is no good choices for people who wouldn't mind a bit more bulk to get better internal accessibility, better thermals, lower cost, etc. I am scratching my head why they don't offer better options myself! But then again there's always Macrumors folks who believe that Apple's lineup is "too complex", "too many choices", etc. already, when in fact I think they should branch out with more choices, LOL.
Apple does offer choices. But the segmentation of those choices is more price/performance than functional.
Today, the Market Cap of MSFT is $1.08 Trillion. The Market Cap of AAPL is $957 Billion. That's rather amazing as Microsoft's hardware business is fairly small and Apple sells a lot of hardware that Microsoft doesn't make. They do seem to be doing a lot of things well.
I daresay that Apple could just take the Dell Precision 7740 and get macOS to run on it with a relatively small amount of effort.
You're not the only one. It'd be funny if this all turns out to be just rumours and they don't actually release a 16" MacBook this year, or if they intended to but they push it back to next year.
Both of those would hit battery life hard. I could see a 120 Hz display, which by default switches to 60 Hz when unplugged. But we won't have 4K (we already have a rumored resolution of the screen).
And I don't really see the need to increase pixel density at this point. I have sharp eyesight and I have to lean way in to see the individual pixels on my 2018 MBP. I've never seen anybody who routinely uses their laptop with their face right up against the screen like that.
How that? The basic design philosophy of the MBP is identical to what it was before 2016. Only now you get much faster hardware in a more compact footprint, and if course much better connectivity than pre USB-C laptops could offer.
They could. Except they never did. The current 17” precision is heavier and bulkier than any MBP ever made. Not to mention that it does not adhere to the MBP thin and light design philosophy.
I fully agree that Apple could potentially release a MacBook Fat or whatever it would be called, but since this never happened, I’d assume that this market segment doesn’t interest them that much. It’s too niche. People who really need power get a desktop.
[doublepost=1564175901][/doublepost]
And yet this was the recipe that made Apple what they are now. I think you are missing the crucial point. Apple is not interested in becoming the most common computer brand out there. They are more then happy with their 10% market share. Their business is premium segment, where they are doing rather well.
You have a point there. I would disagree with Apple's strategy, as the more people use MacOS devices, the more services Apple will sell, and we all know that services have big, fat margins, even better than Apple's high priced hardware. We'll see the long-term consequences of Apple's abandonment of low/moderate-priced hardware, for better or worse.
> How that? The basic design philosophy of the MBP is identical to what it was before 2016. Only
> now you get much faster hardware in a more compact footprint,
Some might want even faster hardware and not care about the compact footprint. Some might also want higher performance at lower temperatures.
> and if course much better connectivity than pre USB-C laptops could offer.
That's quite debatable. It's often debated here.
> They could. Except they never did. The current 17” precision is heavier and bulkier than any MBP ever
> made. Not to mention that it does not adhere to the MBP thin and light design philosophy.
No. It isn't. I have an 8 pound 2008 MacBook Pro on my table.
> I fully agree that Apple could potentially release a MacBook Fat or whatever it would be
> called, but since this never happened,
They could call it the 2007 MacBook Pro or the 2008 MacBook Pro as those are very close to one-inch thick.
> I’d assume that this market segment doesn’t interest them that much. It’s too niche. People who really
> need power get a desktop.
If there were no market, then the PC makers wouldn't make them year after year after year.
> And yet this was the recipe that made Apple what they are now. I think you are missing
> the crucial point. Apple is not interested in becoming the most common computer brand out
> there. They are more then happy with their 10% market share. Their business is premium
> segment, where they are doing rather well.
The 7740 and similar are premium products. You can price it out to at least $10K. A minimum configuration
for me is $3,700. That's certainly within Apple's market space.
> now you get much faster hardware in a more compact footprint,
Some might want even faster hardware and not care about the compact footprint. Some might also want higher performance at lower temperatures.
> and if course much better connectivity than pre USB-C laptops could offer.
That's quite debatable. It's often debated here.
> They could. Except they never did. The current 17” precision is heavier and bulkier than any MBP ever
> made. Not to mention that it does not adhere to the MBP thin and light design philosophy.
No. It isn't. I have an 8 pound 2008 MacBook Pro on my table.
> I fully agree that Apple could potentially release a MacBook Fat or whatever it would be
> called, but since this never happened,
They could call it the 2007 MacBook Pro or the 2008 MacBook Pro as those are very close to one-inch thick.
> I’d assume that this market segment doesn’t interest them that much. It’s too niche. People who really
> need power get a desktop.
If there were no market, then the PC makers wouldn't make them year after year after year.
> And yet this was the recipe that made Apple what they are now. I think you are missing
> the crucial point. Apple is not interested in becoming the most common computer brand out
> there. They are more then happy with their 10% market share. Their business is premium
> segment, where they are doing rather well.
The 7740 and similar are premium products. You can price it out to at least $10K. A minimum configuration
for me is $3,700. That's certainly within Apple's market space.
What is the big deal about faceID and why are people so eager to use it? I wouldn't want my face signature stored on apple servers (even though they say its stored locally). Is it that hard to just use touch id? It's not like people are opening and shutting macs 10 times a min.
I think it comes from the iPhone where you don't have Touch ID so they want a comparable interface on their PC.
Windows does have it but it just uses the camera I think.
Touch ID is usually an option on Windows PCs for systems that offer it.
because there is no human friction- you are just always signed in to whatever
and no it doesn't work that way. your face isn't stored in apple servers somewhere. it's stored on the device.
Yes I know, even then I would think twice trusting a company with a rotating scan and a face signature.
Most people log onto a computer and use it for a while, is it that much of a chore to use touch ID or something? People here are acting like faceID on a mac will be some amazing feature but I just don't see it. It makes sense on a phone but it's not a big deal on a laptop.
It’s not necessarily about what you want but about the product a company wants to make. You can’t make everyone happy. Fir better or worth, Apple has their own ideas about how a laptop should look like and those were largely unchanged since 2006.
It’s an objective fact. You can connect many many more devices at much higher bandwidth to current MBPs that to any pre-2016 Mac. That is what connectivity means, not “Apple sucks fir not giving me a serial port fir my printer”
The heaviest MBP ever made was the early 17” that was 6.8 pounds (same weight as the dell you mention), so no you don’t. And it was 10 years ago, when comparable laptops where twice as thick and weighted around to 5 kg. And the 17” was not any faster than the 15”, it just had larger display and bigger battery.
It was 10 years ago. For 2007, it was very much light and thin. This is the reason why people were buying those things in the first place. For performance crowd, there were other brands that offered double the performance of a MBP.
Of course there is a marker. Just not a large one enough to make it interesting for Apple. Did you already forget that they discontinued the 17” based on its lackluster sales performance?
And how many 7740 does Dell sell? Few hundreds per month? Price alone doesn’t make things premium. It’s like saying that a combine harvester is premium since it costs more than a luxury sedan. The 17” precision is a narrow purpose, niche machine for a small number of professional users. Apple does target that market, but only the desktop segment. Again, pros who really need performance usually go for a desktop.
> It’s not necessarily about what you want but about the product a company
> wants to make. You can’t make everyone happy. Fir better or worth, Apple
> has their own ideas about how a laptop should look like and those were largely
> unchanged since 2006.
There's a lot of input from product design, engineering and marketing and we can certainly say that Apple made a mess of it for the past several years. It's not that one person makes the decision but a bunch of people contribute to the decision and sometimes the conglomeration of decisions results in a bad product. This is normal in large corporations.
> It’s an objective fact. You can connect many many more devices at much higher
> bandwidth to current MBPs that to any pre-2016 Mac. That is what connectivity
> means, not “Apple sucks fir not giving me a serial port fir my printer”
You can't connect them directly and there's a debate on them. It is not an objective fact. That the rest of the industry continues to provide legacy ports is a good testament to their usefulness. That there's a healthy market for 2015 and older MacBooks lends credence to that. That the current iMac provides an SD slot, four USB-A ports, and an Ethernet port is proof that Apple still considers it a good idea to provide legacy ports.
Of course the really simple solution would have been to provide the newer ports with the older ports which is what every other hardware company does and what Apple does on all of their other hardware.
If USB A ports are obsolete, then why did Apple add two of them to the new Mac Pro? And then, of course, there's the new Mac Mini. So yes, your comment makes no objective sense.
> The heaviest MBP ever made was the early 17” that was 6.8 pounds (same weight as the dell you mention),
> so no you don’t. And it was 10 years ago, when comparable laptops where twice as thick and weighted around
> to 5 kg. And the 17” was not any faster than the 15”, it just had larger display and bigger battery.
Mine weighs eight pounds. I'm not sure why - it might be a configuration difference. I got the Early 2008 because it had the Penryn processor and I was interested in the SIMD instruction set. I got it for the larger display, and the optional higher resolution display. And it was a great machine for ten years with plenty of ports.
> It was 10 years ago. For 2007, it was very much light and thin. This is the reason why people were
> buying those things in the first place. For performance crowd, there were other brands that offered
> double the performance of a MBP.
I didn't buy it because it was light and thin. I usually carry two laptops around so weight is a minor consideration. I'd guess that people had a variety of reasons for buying them back then.
> Of course there is a marker. Just not a large one enough to make it interesting for Apple. Did you already
> forget that they discontinued the 17” based on its lackluster sales performance?
I don't know why they discontinued it. Companies often discontinue products because they don't want to carry more product lines.
Apple has discontinued the iPhone SE as well. I think that there's high demand for a product that size.
> And how many 7740 does Dell sell? Few hundreds per month? Price alone doesn’t make things premium.
> It’s like saying that a combine harvester is premium since it costs more than a luxury sedan. The 17”
> precision is a narrow purpose, niche machine for a small number of professional users. Apple does target
> that market, but only the desktop segment. Again, pros who really need performance usually go for a desktop.
How many of the equivalent model does HP, Lenovo, Asus, MSI, and many other brands sell?
Price alone doesn't mean premium but it's impossible to argue that those specs aren't premium. Especially given that they blow Apple's products away in performance.
> wants to make. You can’t make everyone happy. Fir better or worth, Apple
> has their own ideas about how a laptop should look like and those were largely
> unchanged since 2006.
There's a lot of input from product design, engineering and marketing and we can certainly say that Apple made a mess of it for the past several years. It's not that one person makes the decision but a bunch of people contribute to the decision and sometimes the conglomeration of decisions results in a bad product. This is normal in large corporations.
> It’s an objective fact. You can connect many many more devices at much higher
> bandwidth to current MBPs that to any pre-2016 Mac. That is what connectivity
> means, not “Apple sucks fir not giving me a serial port fir my printer”
You can't connect them directly and there's a debate on them. It is not an objective fact. That the rest of the industry continues to provide legacy ports is a good testament to their usefulness. That there's a healthy market for 2015 and older MacBooks lends credence to that. That the current iMac provides an SD slot, four USB-A ports, and an Ethernet port is proof that Apple still considers it a good idea to provide legacy ports.
Of course the really simple solution would have been to provide the newer ports with the older ports which is what every other hardware company does and what Apple does on all of their other hardware.
If USB A ports are obsolete, then why did Apple add two of them to the new Mac Pro? And then, of course, there's the new Mac Mini. So yes, your comment makes no objective sense.
> The heaviest MBP ever made was the early 17” that was 6.8 pounds (same weight as the dell you mention),
> so no you don’t. And it was 10 years ago, when comparable laptops where twice as thick and weighted around
> to 5 kg. And the 17” was not any faster than the 15”, it just had larger display and bigger battery.
Mine weighs eight pounds. I'm not sure why - it might be a configuration difference. I got the Early 2008 because it had the Penryn processor and I was interested in the SIMD instruction set. I got it for the larger display, and the optional higher resolution display. And it was a great machine for ten years with plenty of ports.
> It was 10 years ago. For 2007, it was very much light and thin. This is the reason why people were
> buying those things in the first place. For performance crowd, there were other brands that offered
> double the performance of a MBP.
I didn't buy it because it was light and thin. I usually carry two laptops around so weight is a minor consideration. I'd guess that people had a variety of reasons for buying them back then.
> Of course there is a marker. Just not a large one enough to make it interesting for Apple. Did you already
> forget that they discontinued the 17” based on its lackluster sales performance?
I don't know why they discontinued it. Companies often discontinue products because they don't want to carry more product lines.
Apple has discontinued the iPhone SE as well. I think that there's high demand for a product that size.
> And how many 7740 does Dell sell? Few hundreds per month? Price alone doesn’t make things premium.
> It’s like saying that a combine harvester is premium since it costs more than a luxury sedan. The 17”
> precision is a narrow purpose, niche machine for a small number of professional users. Apple does target
> that market, but only the desktop segment. Again, pros who really need performance usually go for a desktop.
How many of the equivalent model does HP, Lenovo, Asus, MSI, and many other brands sell?
Price alone doesn't mean premium but it's impossible to argue that those specs aren't premium. Especially given that they blow Apple's products away in performance.