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.
We can blame one party for the crippled 13" MBP: Intel.
- Thread starter Dwalls90
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
like another user pointed out, it's not just about battery life. also, how can you argue the 3 hour increase when it's advertised on their website? it's not like i just made up the number
Regarding the video/audio on the mini display port, it's only available for the 2010 models.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/new-macbook-pros-support-audio-over-mini-displayport.ars
The new low-end MBP is about the same as the previous high-end MPB 13". Slightly slower CPU, much better GPU, much better battery life, $1199 instead of $1499.
Apple paid about $300 million. AMD would cost about $8 billion, about 25 to 30 times more.
Is this seriously a rip off? Are apple maintaining "healthy margins"? With the student discount, at least, the 13" looks very competitive. The closest competing laptop I can find is the alienware m11x. It has:
* Similar price
* Similar battery
* More gaming power
* Worse CPU for tasks that don't use GPU
* No dvd drive
* Slightly higher resolution screen on an 11"
Basically, for the tradeoffs, it looks pretty similar to the 13" macbook 2.4ghz. Are there any other laptops out there that are better value? That compare in all areas of price, battery, computing power, gpu, features?
Because I am struggling to see evidence of the so called "Apple Tax", at least when considering the student discount prices.
And it makes me think that all these people saying it could have fit an i3, and should have, because other companies can, are simply mistaken - because I can't see those competing laptops out there. If someone else has found them, I'd love to know what they are - I'm researching about buying a 13" myself, and may go for a non-apple if it's a better deal.
* Similar price
* Similar battery
* More gaming power
* Worse CPU for tasks that don't use GPU
* No dvd drive
* Slightly higher resolution screen on an 11"
Basically, for the tradeoffs, it looks pretty similar to the 13" macbook 2.4ghz. Are there any other laptops out there that are better value? That compare in all areas of price, battery, computing power, gpu, features?
Because I am struggling to see evidence of the so called "Apple Tax", at least when considering the student discount prices.
And it makes me think that all these people saying it could have fit an i3, and should have, because other companies can, are simply mistaken - because I can't see those competing laptops out there. If someone else has found them, I'd love to know what they are - I'm researching about buying a 13" myself, and may go for a non-apple if it's a better deal.
Well, i does have only half the GPU and CPU compared to some competitors (like Sony VAIO Z)
After mentioning the Vaio Z, will you agree to never, ever complain about Apple prices again? Who would want to pay twice the money for a laptop that doesn't even come with MacOS X?
You can't just lay out a pile of things that one computer does well and then say "show me another computer that is the same but for a lower price". Such a computer doesn't exist. But there are many machines out there that may be worse than the MBP in some department, such as battery, but destroy it in other categories. The 13" MBP is a jack of all trades, master of none, but it has the pricetag that makes you squirm due to the fact that it's not only old technology, but also lacking in several places where other machines are well ahead.
I could pick some example machine, and say it has a larger, faster hard drive, better processor and better GPU, all for $200 less than a base MBP. But then some tool would quote my post saying something like "GOD U R AN IDIOT, IT ONLY HAS A 6 HOUR BATTERY AND ITS UGLEE!!!1!!ONE!1!"
So I'm just not going to waste my time.
apolloe's post is valid; a lot of people in this thread are saying that apple could have had i3 + dedicated graphics if they wanted to, but were basically too lazy to do it. it would help if people actually listed the i3 machines other manufacturers have made and see how it actually compares to the new 13" MBP.
I am well aware that you can't do such a thing. Perhaps you misread me, or flat out misunderstood - I did not say it had to be the same as the 13" MBP in all areas. I said that it has to compare well, taking all things into account. The very thing you accuse me of is the thing I see others doing - saying that the 13" MBP has old technology and is too expensive, while comparing only some aspects of the package.
When I listed the m11x as a comparable laptop, you will note that I did NOT say it is the same in all areas. It lacks a dvd drive, and has inferior cpu, but better gpu. Clearly not an identical machine in all areas - but it is comparable.
People claim that the 13" MBP is too expensive for what you get. From my perspective that looks like BS. It looks like people only comparing a subset of the overall package. It looks almost as though these supposed other "better deals" are mythical machines that exist out there somewhere, but no-one can find (I say "almost", because the m11x seems to be one such machine).
Don't waste your time then - you don't have to reply, but perhaps others want to.
Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate that you in particular would take the response that I described. In fact, I would think that the majority of the people in this topic are at least somewhat level headed. The problem comes when one or two people completely wreck the productivity of the thread.
Corporations. They really don't care for OS X. They prefer windows by a wide wide margin.
Worked with Intel... How? By telling them to drop their patent crap with nVidia? By making their IGPs up to prime?
The battery life increases come from the new 320M and the larger battery capacity. The 320M is more power efficient then the 9400M (8w vs 12w). The 320M is also the fastest IGP on the market.
If people really wanted an i3, they should just get the 2.66GHz MBP13. It's faster than any mobile i3.
Easy I use logic, science, and real experience. And the well documented history of
overestimating and underdelivering on specifications. Also I don't eat the **** (rhetoric) that spoons feeds the mass market. I am able think for myself and come to my own conclusions. Instead of oh if
did this, they must have a reason. And then the hordes of non thinking sycophantic fanboys legitmise why this must be the case. And once they have decided on a reason, they can rest happy knowing, they understand and have their best interests at heart...Yeah they have your best interests in mind, and your wallet will be all the lighter for it.
I still blame Apple. I read the excuses and the justifications.
Apple can do i5 and i7 in the MBP. Other companies can do i3, i5, i7 in portables, including 13" and similar specs.
They could have introduced an i5 at least as an option.
But what I'm more disappointed about is the lack of anti-glare. There is no excuse for it. It kind of proves that the 13" ones are not meant to be professional machines. At least, they are not in the eyes of Apple.
Apple can do i5 and i7 in the MBP. Other companies can do i3, i5, i7 in portables, including 13" and similar specs.
They could have introduced an i5 at least as an option.
But what I'm more disappointed about is the lack of anti-glare. There is no excuse for it. It kind of proves that the 13" ones are not meant to be professional machines. At least, they are not in the eyes of Apple.
Easy I use logic, science, and real experience. And the well documented history of
Instead of oh if
Yeah they have your best interests in mind, and your wallet will be all the lighter for it.
Speaking of rhetoric, that was some fine grade nonsense. Do you have any "logic" to back up your conclusion that our wallets will be all the lighter for it? I have posted in this thread and in another, asking for these supposed mythical "better deals" offered by other companies. I don't own a mac, and never have. I've spent a lot of time researching laptops for my current purchase, and (with student discounts) the macbook pro comes across as very competitively priced for what you get. I will probably buy one in a day or two. Since you know so much, perhaps *you* can point out to me the "better deal" laptop that I can't find. I'd be genuinely appreciative of being shown wrong. Until then, you seem as bad as the supposed fanboys you love to mock.
Regarding battery, let's check the history - you quote the watt-hour difference between the batteries, and says that doesn't equal 3 hours. So what? Since you're such a good wielder of logic, science, and real experience, you already know that's not the only way to improve how long something will run before needing a recharge. fuzzielitlpanda rightly points out that he didn't just pull the number from nowhere, nor did Apple. Real world tests of the laptop - running it doing the same tasks as 2009 macbook, and timing how long it drains in comparison - will determine if Apple's claims are accurate. Not some lame gesture to the battery capacity differences, ignoring everything else.
An i3 would cost more than the Core 2 that is currently used. So this means a more expensive 13" MBP.
A dedicated graphics chip would cost much more than an integrated graphics chip. So this means a more expensive 13" MBP.
If Apple were too "lazy" to do it, to not be "lazy" would mean Apple actually working on it, that is, spending research and development on it which costs more than being "lazy". So this means a more expensive 13" MBP.
What you then have is a dramatically more expensive 13" MBP which completely misses the target audience of people wanting a cheap, portable Mac.
i3+nVidia 13"= Asus U30jc-A1
Here is the laptop you're talking about, but the trade offs are obvious. I'm not saying the MacBook Pro versus the Asus is a no brainer. Some may prefer the i3 and the graphics in the Asus. Apple made the choice not to make a chunky clunky laptop and keep the old form factor. Asus went the other way to include an i3 (but there is a slightly better graphics chip in the apple offering)
Here is the laptop you're talking about, but the trade offs are obvious. I'm not saying the MacBook Pro versus the Asus is a no brainer. Some may prefer the i3 and the graphics in the Asus. Apple made the choice not to make a chunky clunky laptop and keep the old form factor. Asus went the other way to include an i3 (but there is a slightly better graphics chip in the apple offering)
Ugh, I don't really understand the big deal about the 13" MBPs still on C2D.
I don't know of any professionals that would buy a 13" MBP whose work absolutely requires i3 or i5. If they really wanted the muscle, they'd go for the 15" or 17" or buy a Mac Pro. The 13" MBP is not a workstation machine.
I think that people need to stop thinking that they need more power than they really do.
"But [xxx] brand has 13" laptop with i5's and Bluray and HDMI for waaaay cheaper!"
Well gosh, go buy [xxx] then.
"But it's a MacBook Pro, I NEEEED all that power for [video editing/ photo editing/.../Facebook]!"
Personally, I've only seen creative pros use 15"/17" machines and/or desktops.
Assuming that someone does go with a 13" model, pro applications certainly benefit from newer processors, but it is not a necessity. Hell, some machines 5 years and older can still run current versions of FCP wonderfully.
The only thing I don't see satisfactory about the new 13" MBP is gaming performance, but a lot of people forget that MBPs were never marketed to be gaming machines. Macs in general got popular largely due to the creative pro community. They have enough muscle to do creative work, but they were never meant to run the latest and greatest games (for evidence, note that Steve Jobs bragged about 1.8x better performance on Doom 3. yaaaaay).
Think about it, new cutting-edge PC games come out roughly once every 6 months. The MBP product cycle is as long as 10 months to a year. Apple has shown us time and time again that they don't care about gaming performance. Therefore, you shouldn't care about gaming on a Mac. Macs weren't meant to game. They were meant to do work. If for some ridiculous reason you find that your work absolutely cannot be accomplished on a C2D, damn, don't stop halfway at a 17" i7, buy a Mac Pro.
I don't know of any professionals that would buy a 13" MBP whose work absolutely requires i3 or i5. If they really wanted the muscle, they'd go for the 15" or 17" or buy a Mac Pro. The 13" MBP is not a workstation machine.
I think that people need to stop thinking that they need more power than they really do.
"But [xxx] brand has 13" laptop with i5's and Bluray and HDMI for waaaay cheaper!"
Well gosh, go buy [xxx] then.
"But it's a MacBook Pro, I NEEEED all that power for [video editing/ photo editing/.../Facebook]!"
Personally, I've only seen creative pros use 15"/17" machines and/or desktops.
Assuming that someone does go with a 13" model, pro applications certainly benefit from newer processors, but it is not a necessity. Hell, some machines 5 years and older can still run current versions of FCP wonderfully.
The only thing I don't see satisfactory about the new 13" MBP is gaming performance, but a lot of people forget that MBPs were never marketed to be gaming machines. Macs in general got popular largely due to the creative pro community. They have enough muscle to do creative work, but they were never meant to run the latest and greatest games (for evidence, note that Steve Jobs bragged about 1.8x better performance on Doom 3. yaaaaay).
Think about it, new cutting-edge PC games come out roughly once every 6 months. The MBP product cycle is as long as 10 months to a year. Apple has shown us time and time again that they don't care about gaming performance. Therefore, you shouldn't care about gaming on a Mac. Macs weren't meant to game. They were meant to do work. If for some ridiculous reason you find that your work absolutely cannot be accomplished on a C2D, damn, don't stop halfway at a 17" i7, buy a Mac Pro.
According to Gizmodo, the processor wouldn't fit in the 13".
http://gizmodo.com/5520388/the-little-macbook-pros-weak-upgrade-explained
http://gizmodo.com/5520388/the-little-macbook-pros-weak-upgrade-explained
I'm a little lost, I thought point of the 13" mbp was still portability + a lil more power than the whitebook
I understand argument for i3, but really higher clocked c2d is not an outdated chip and likesay the biggest argument on 13" mbp and whitebook has been graphics. This 320 really looks like a step up from the 9400m
The 15 and 17 models have more square footage heh, so they obviously can do more and better things with them. To me the mbp pro has always been the 15 and 17" models and before that the 14" g3. I still dont agree with apple's policy on making the aluminum 13" a "pro" product, I'd just assume keep it and the white book same basic specs with more bto options on the silver but how much more can they really throw in and keep price at the cheap place it's at
So blame apple for crippling the 13" mbp if it must be called a pro product, they should never have given the impression that it was a pro product in the first place
I understand argument for i3, but really higher clocked c2d is not an outdated chip and likesay the biggest argument on 13" mbp and whitebook has been graphics. This 320 really looks like a step up from the 9400m
The 15 and 17 models have more square footage heh, so they obviously can do more and better things with them. To me the mbp pro has always been the 15 and 17" models and before that the 14" g3. I still dont agree with apple's policy on making the aluminum 13" a "pro" product, I'd just assume keep it and the white book same basic specs with more bto options on the silver but how much more can they really throw in and keep price at the cheap place it's at
So blame apple for crippling the 13" mbp if it must be called a pro product, they should never have given the impression that it was a pro product in the first place
I just purchased my first apple product ever in the latest refresh of the 13" MPB. I keep reading here that "using i3's would just raise the price". I disagree:
How much was apple paying for the 2.4 C2D processors when they first came out in the MBP's. How much do you think they are paying for them now? I imagine far, far less since they not the most current technology from Intel.
Storage - Yes the base MBP came with a modest increase in disk space. I would bet that the 250g drive is currently cheaper, if not the same price as Apple paid for the 160g drive from the prior MBP revision.
Memory - 2g to 4g. Similar comment here. Memory seems to get cheaper over time. I am sure in this case moving from 2g to 4g added to the price of the laptop.
Graphics - The updated graphics chip has to be a wash for apple as well. The current chip is nowhere state of the art and I doubt it cost apple any more than the last generation graphics chip.
I am very happy with my new MBP and made the choice to get the Apple over a Vaio with superior hardware specs (and $200 less).
My only point is with the above statement is that the upgrades Apple made DID NOT add to the cost of the MBP. Apple is making some $$ on this version!
How much was apple paying for the 2.4 C2D processors when they first came out in the MBP's. How much do you think they are paying for them now? I imagine far, far less since they not the most current technology from Intel.
Storage - Yes the base MBP came with a modest increase in disk space. I would bet that the 250g drive is currently cheaper, if not the same price as Apple paid for the 160g drive from the prior MBP revision.
Memory - 2g to 4g. Similar comment here. Memory seems to get cheaper over time. I am sure in this case moving from 2g to 4g added to the price of the laptop.
Graphics - The updated graphics chip has to be a wash for apple as well. The current chip is nowhere state of the art and I doubt it cost apple any more than the last generation graphics chip.
I am very happy with my new MBP and made the choice to get the Apple over a Vaio with superior hardware specs (and $200 less).
My only point is with the above statement is that the upgrades Apple made DID NOT add to the cost of the MBP. Apple is making some $$ on this version!