if that argument held you'd never have faceID on Macs which wouldn't make a ton of sense.
they can make slimmer modules or they may go somewhere else.
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
they can make slimmer modules or they may go somewhere else.
Or they will just make the screen thicker for that matter. With the Pro XDR display leading into the next design era at Apple, we might see the next "pro"duct generations consist of thicker displays with the need for more cooling, until Apple switches to their MicroLED standard later down the road.
Just pure speculation, but I kind of a get the feeling Apple wouldn't want to miss out on the opportunity to push their display to the next level while already at it. They might go for a standard screen for now though, making enough room for upcoming design iterations.
I wouldn't count it out. Apple is redefining itself in the Pro segment. Look at the cheese grater. They're going back to the roots, they want to regain the trust of their professional customers.
During the last couple of months, I got like 10 mails from Apple about their B2B offerings onto my company mail, asking me how they could improve them. I think they're getting pretty desperate about regaining footing in this segment again. So, under this circumstances, I think increasing the thickness could even be a positive company statement.
Did some basic math and found that with the leaked resolution of 3072 x 1920, and given the same pixel density, the resulting screen size would be exactly 16.426 inches diagonally.
So Apple can either increase the chassis size a smidge (I agree .1 inch is just too brittle of a bezel), or they can increase the pixel density slightly.
Hmm, how is it possible that we come to such different results? Unfortunately I don't have my 15" anymore, but if the dimensions on the Apple website reflect the actual width -- 13.75" -- then the aspect ratio -- 16:10 -- would allow for a maximum of 16.21" screen diagonal (assuming 0 bezels). Are you sure, that you don't simply take the current diagonal as a measure, which has an 14,5:10 aspect ratio? Because then you can't just fit a 16.4" screen in there like that. Or are my calculations wrong/based on the wrong assumptions?
No the new Mac Pro is not going back to their roots. They have gone to a whole other level. Over at Gearslutz, a big pro music forum, there almost more complaints about the new Mac Pro than there is praise. It’s basically way too powerful and expensive for most audio pros (and the base model is very poor value for money as you’re paying for a ridiculously over engineered case and PSU if you’re only putting an 8 core chip in there).
Don’t get me wrong. For customers who need huge power at major expense it’s a beautiful machine. But even for most audio pros it’s ‘too pro’. Many at GS are just wishing it was just the old cheese grater design with an i9 CPU.
If this machine is going to be a MacBook Pro Pro, then I’d say it could get thicker. Just like the iMac Pro got a more efficient cooling system over the iMac.
But if it’s going to be the main body for the future 16” MacBook Pro then there’s plenty of customers who don’t want a thicker machine. The 8 core i9 runs fine in the current design.
Don’t get me wrong. For customers who need huge power at major expense it’s a beautiful machine. But even for most audio pros it’s ‘too pro’. Many at GS are just wishing it was just the old cheese grater design with an i9 CPU.
If this machine is going to be a MacBook Pro Pro, then I’d say it could get thicker. Just like the iMac Pro got a more efficient cooling system over the iMac.
But if it’s going to be the main body for the future 16” MacBook Pro then there’s plenty of customers who don’t want a thicker machine. The 8 core i9 runs fine in the current design.
I'm one of those who has been priced out of the mac pro. I had original cheese grator, 2013 trash can (still silently working away on my desk), and just need a nice fast expandable machine. The new mac pro is great for video pros but as said above, way too expensive for the rest of us IMHO.
With that said, the sweet spot for a macbook pro for me would be one with a 16/17" screen, latest i9, sd slot, old school usb as well as usb-c, a keyboard that actually feels good, facetime for unlock and I wouldn't mind at all if it was thicker to support all that with a decent thermal dynamic.
My worry is that they're going to go mega high end with it like they did with the mac pro. Xeon etc
It's not like I can blame them. They've identified a top end customer base prepared to pay, what business wouldn't do that! it's just I personally hope that the laptop isn't 4/5K
With that said, the sweet spot for a macbook pro for me would be one with a 16/17" screen, latest i9, sd slot, old school usb as well as usb-c, a keyboard that actually feels good, facetime for unlock and I wouldn't mind at all if it was thicker to support all that with a decent thermal dynamic.
My worry is that they're going to go mega high end with it like they did with the mac pro. Xeon etc
It's not like I can blame them. They've identified a top end customer base prepared to pay, what business wouldn't do that! it's just I personally hope that the laptop isn't 4/5K
But isn't the iMac/iMac Pro supposed to do exactly that? Filling the gap between MBP and Mac Pro? Because from what I've gathered, a lot of people in the Movie Industry felt abandoned by Apple not offering any kind of high high end of hardware. Obviously, their needs are way beyond any of mine...
What are the needs of a modern audio pro? I'd think that an iMac Pro (or maybe even a Mac mini, especially if it gets updated soon with newer CPUs) should be sufficient.
Well the imac doesnt work as a power users machine because of lack of upgrades and having a screen built in means we're paying for something that we already have.
It isn't just the movie industry that felt abandoned by Apple, it was any pro who pushes their kit on a daily basis and started looking over at pcs watching all the upgrade potential whilst being stuck on a 2013 mac pro.
I'm not saying there aren't choices. iMac pro, mac mini fully specced, macbook pro attached to external monitors, but I am saying that they've neglected the market to which the old mac pros appealed and if they do the same with the next macbook pro then it'll be a real shame.
[doublepost=1565785971][/doublepost]
right and that's what I'm saying is a shame for many of us and I hope it won't be the case for the new MBP.
(* with the slight clarification on the "regular desktop pc" - there are many of us who need Pro kit, latest cpu/gpu, talking to monitors we already have. We're not movie makers for whom cost is completely irrelevant, we're photographers, coders etc.)
For some, the inclusion of PCI slots is important. For some it’s having multiple hard drives. For many it’s having a computer that is quiet and can run at close to 100% capacity for hours on end without throttling or having load fans. Many pros have their computers outside of their studio to reduce fan noise. Can’t do that with an iMac Pro.
The cheese grater was a great form factor for those reasons. The new MP is too.
I’m just an audio amateur. For me the Mac mini 6 core i7 is fine, though an 8 core i9 would give me a bit of headroom as plugins get ever more powerful.
The cheese grater was a great form factor for those reasons. The new MP is too.
I’m just an audio amateur. For me the Mac mini 6 core i7 is fine, though an 8 core i9 would give me a bit of headroom as plugins get ever more powerful.