when will the next mbp 13' come out?

[rohit6060]

maybe the next mbp will come out with similar specs as the new imac.
AMD graphics. I will like that.

I think the 13' macbook pro and the white macbook will just be a replica of recently upgraded 21.5' imac.It'll still be hardly a upgrade since c2d and i3 r almost same.(dunno abt nvidia and ati graphics card)
On top of that if apple offers same configuration for white macbook and 13' macbook pro that might be a bit disappointing.I mean cmon,I'm paying you 200$ more,get me something better,atleast a better graphics card and a bigger hard disk.Is it too much to expect?
Although there r some positives and i must mention them as well.Firstly they have offered 512mb graphics memory for high end 21.5'.I think we gonna get this even in base model of 13' macbook pro assuming new range in launched in 2011 so thats good 6-8 months from now.Second i expect that new macbook pro 13' gonna have 500 gb space and may be some more options for ssd and 7200 rpm.

 

[gigi11192]

I think the 13' macbook pro and the white macbook will just be a replica of recently upgraded 21.5' imac.It'll still be hardly a upgrade since c2d and i3 r almost same.(dunno abt nvidia and ati graphics card)
On top of that if apple offers same configuration for white macbook and 13' macbook pro that might be a bit disappointing.I mean cmon,I'm paying you 200$ more,get me something better,atleast a better graphics card and a bigger hard disk.Is it too much to expect?
Although there r some positives and i must mention them as well.Firstly they have offered 512mb graphics memory for high end 21.5'.I think we gonna get this even in base model of 13' macbook pro assuming new range in launched in 2011 so thats good 6-8 months from now.Second i expect that new macbook pro 13' gonna have 500 gb space and may be some more options for ssd and 7200 rpm.

BTW, does SSD perform better than the common ones? whats the difference? thanks.

 

[spinnerlys]

BTW, does SSD perform better than the common ones? whats the difference? thanks.

SSD vs. HDD

The two entries at the bottom are HDDs, the entries above that are all SSD.

 

[DVD9]

I can't believe I read that someone considers the 13" to be overpriced. Wow.

The 15"? It's pushing it. It's about $200 on the high side.
The 17" is the only really overpriced one of the bunch. Component wise I'd peg it at around $1700. But Apple is obviously adding the price of the aluminum core.

Not counting the Air cause...well...it's a product with no real direction, clearly overpriced and catered to an image-oriented audience.

Apple's (Foxconn) profit margins run over 60% according to the New York Times.

That "aluminum core" cost about $25 more. Everything made by Apple is manufactured by Chinese making less than $250 per month

You are having your blood sucked by Steve Jobs and about twenty Apple princes who surround him. They live like feudal lords from the European middle ages.
--

 

[chris2k5]

Apple notebooks are luxury products so they charge what they want.

Ever wonder why Louis Vuitton bags cost so much? Sure the leather material is just ok in my opinion but the LV monogram (logo) and the construction is what you pay for.

 

[CaoCao]

The reason we have C2D is there is no space because Intel is a jerk. Intel decide Nvidia can not make the Chipset therefore not only must Apple put the CPU and the integrated Nvidia chip, but they must also add a third chip, does there look like room to you?

 

[rohit6060]

The reason we have C2D is there is no space because Intel is a jerk. Intel decide Nvidia can not make the Chipset therefore not only must Apple put the CPU and the integrated Nvidia chip, but they must also add a third chip, does there look like room to you?

well i'm not a computer expert but i guess c2d is a 45nm processor compared to i3 which is a 32nm processor.I guess i3 processor takes less space than c2d and is also more power efficient.steve's statement that he choose killer graphics and longer battery life over slight bump in performance seems a bit nasty as with i3 we would have got hyper threading and an inbuilt intel graphics as well,that could have improved the graphics and could have been more power efficient as well...

 

[vant]

well i'm not a computer expert but i guess c2d is a 45nm processor compared to i3 which is a 32nm processor.I guess i3 processor takes less space than c2d and is also more power efficient.steve's statement that he choose killer graphics and longer battery life over slight bump in performance seems a bit nasty as with i3 we would have got hyper threading and an inbuilt intel graphics as well,that could have improved the graphics and could have been more power efficient as well...

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Look at the 15"/17" laptops. Why do you think they are stuck with lower battery life despite the increase in battery capacity?

Hyper-threading adds a marginal increase to applications that can actually use it. And Intel's IGP is terrible. It performs significantly worse than the 320M, we'd be going backwards if we had Intel's IGP compared to the 9400M.

 

[chris2k5]

I agree with vant.

Intel's graphics chips are horrendously poor. They are even worse than the 9400m which was used before. No way Apple was going to go backwards. They'd rather stay neutral and gain something which is what they did.

C2D + 9400m ----> C2D + nVidia 320m (You have neutral and PLUS)

That is so much better than:

C2D + 9400m ----> Core i3 + Intel Graphics (You have PLUS and NEGATIVE)

 

[rohit6060]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Look at the 15"/17" laptops. Why do you think they are stuck with lower battery life despite the increase in battery capacity?

Hyper-threading adds a marginal increase to applications that can actually use it. And Intel's IGP is terrible. It performs significantly worse than the 320M, we'd be going backwards if we had Intel's IGP compared to the 9400M.

Oh!U got me totally wrong.I'm not talking of replacing c2d and 320m with a single i3 processor.I'm talking of replacing just the c2d and that coupled up with a nvidia 320m with automatic switching would have been a smarter move than c2d.And regarding battery,15' and 17' definitely have better processors but they also have bigger batteries.I'm not being decisive,I just can't understand why it was so difficult for apple to replace c2d with an i3,keeping everything just the way it is...And regarding the in built IGP,when u r simply browsing or listening to music and not involved in any graphic intensive work,atleast for that purpose the inbuilt IGP is good enough and if u have automatic switching then i think it gonna save a bit of power as the GPU wont be active or won't be required to work in full swing...I guess it makes some sense..

 

[ouimetnick]

I'm using a base model 13" MacBook Pro Mid 2010. See sig for specs. It runs iLife great, iWork, Steam games, web works fine. And so does Photoshop Elements. Its a nice little power house. Yes it does have the P8600 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, but it works great. So many other feature make up for the "outdated C2D" A nice screen, build quality, battery life, trackpad, OSX, and more.

 

[CaoCao]

well i'm not a computer expert but i guess c2d is a 45nm processor compared to i3 which is a 32nm processor.I guess i3 processor takes less space than c2d and is also more power efficient.steve's statement that he choose killer graphics and longer battery life over slight bump in performance seems a bit nasty as with i3 we would have got hyper threading and an inbuilt intel graphics as well,that could have improved the graphics and could have been more power efficient as well...

45nm vs. 32nm refers to how small the transistors are, the chips themselves are basically the same size, but if you want an i3 you have to put another chip on there for the Intel integrated GPU. The 320m is easily 3 times better than the 9400 and guess what, even the 900 is better than Intel GPU

Oh!U got me totally wrong.I'm not talking of replacing c2d and 320m with a single i3 processor.I'm talking of replacing just the c2d and that coupled up with a nvidia 320m with automatic switching would have been a smarter move than c2d.And regarding battery,15' and 17' definitely have better processors but they also have bigger batteries.I'm not being decisive,I just can't understand why it was so difficult for apple to replace c2d with an i3,keeping everything just the way it is...And regarding the in built IGP,when u r simply browsing or listening to music and not involved in any graphic intensive work,atleast for that purpose the inbuilt IGP is good enough and if u have automatic switching then i think it gonna save a bit of power as the GPU wont be active or won't be required to work in full swing...I guess it makes some sense..

the 320m is an IGP, you can't have automatic switching between two IGPs... And when did people start making 13 and 15 foot laptops.

I'm currently using a MacBook @2.4GHz and 320m IGP and it's way better than my @2.0GHz and 9400m IGP

 

[falterego]

I just picked up the 13 inch MBP 2.66 (Mid 2010 P8800). It's release date was April 13, so personally I don't see any reason to expect a refresh in October. Even if there is one, I'm totally happy with mine since it came with an iPod touch that I'm selling, thus netting me the computer for about $1,225. If I were to wait till October, there will most likely be a slight price increase above the $1,399, and the free iPod offer would have expired, so I wouldn't be able to recover that small chunk. The way I look at it, I got the current model for about $200 less than the possible next model that may come out in October, but may not. The generation before the 2.66 model ran over 10 months before it was discontinued. If that happens again, the next rev isn't due until about February 2011.

I needn't mention that I'm beyond stoked with this computer. Streaming media to my Xbox 360, running huge graphics in Photoshop with ease and being able to handle upwards of 160 fps in World of Warcraft. I don't think I could ask for anything more.

As a side note, I was able to coax friends/family into getting me gift cards for my b-day, and I sold my old original MB CoreDuo 2.0 for $500. Combined with the iPod selling, I paid about $500 out of pocket for my upgrade. I think of it like a car. Sure I could wait a few more months and get the next year model, but is it really going to make THAT much of a difference to me in the long run? No, not me personally. Also, do I really need to keep the old model that I had after I upgrade? Again, no I don't.

 

[krnboy503]

please read my words carefully, dude, I was saying "at least i3" in a 500 dollar laptop and it dosen't means that i would buy a mbp13 with i3.

we are all sort of mac fans,but I don't want to be a stupid one that can accept anything of Apple.

curious...why don't you just get your i3 $500 laptop and be happy?


no wonder your a 'macrumors nooooob'

 

[rohit6060]

45nm vs. 32nm refers to how small the transistors are, the chips themselves are basically the same size, but if you want an i3 you have to put another chip on there for the Intel integrated GPU. The 320m is easily 3 times better than the 9400 and guess what, even the 900 is better than Intel GPU


the 320m is an IGP, you can't have automatic switching between two IGPs... And when did people start making 13 and 15 foot laptops.

I'm currently using a MacBook @2.4GHz and 320m IGP and it's way better than my @2.0GHz and 9400m IGP

Thanks for clearification.really helpful..But u still haven't got my point completely.I was just talking about having an i3 with a nice gpu which would provide 9400 or 320 m like graphics and there i feel the automatic switching would have made more sense...After all its there "pro" laptop.there has to be something out of the box...I would not talk of price because i know its worth every penny of it...

 

[revelated]

Apple's (Foxconn) profit margins run over 60% according to the New York Times.

I don't doubt their profit margin are high. But that doesn't include or exclude the 13" model.

I can already guarantee there are significant margins on:

• Poly MacBook
• MacBook Pro 17"
• MacBook Pro 15"
• MacBook Air (most definitely)
• Mac Pro (most definitely)
• Mac Mini (most definitely)
• iPhone (was there ever any doubt?)
• iPad (of course)
• iPod Touch (though not as much as before)
• Cinema Display (of course)
• peripherals (of course)
• RAM/hard drives bought from them
• AppleCare (most definitely)

The margin on the MacBook Pro 13" - no, I don't believe it to be significantly high. Is there profit in it? Of course, but there's no way it's substantial like you're implying. Hell, as I said, the RAM alone is $400 even when bought from Crucial or Kingston.

When I gauge cost I ask: If I were to build this myself, component by component, would I come close to what they're charging? IN the case of the lowest end MacBook Pro 13", that is a big YES.

 

[DannySmurf]

I'm a bit curious where all these $500 i3/i5 machines are. Reading some posts in this thread, I'd think they were falling from the sky, but a quick scan of the Dell and HP websites doesn't reveal any. I see Core 2 Duos for the 13-14" size class on Dell's site, with one i3 (which is $800 by the way and comes with something called "Intel HD Graphics," which sounds like it's just *dripping* with power), and mostly Pentiums and Neos from HP. Not even anything over 2GHz from HP in that size range for less than $700.

The point: Ya, you can get cheaper machines from elsewhere. None of them look remotely appealing (which is probably why the complainers are here wishing for an Apple machine instead of buying one of the others -- the lower prices are just a talking point for them, not an actual feature).

PS - If anyone could point me to a $500 Core i3 (a good one), or a $500 Core i5, I'd love you do, cause I'd definitely buy one at that price for my Windows work. (wouldn't replace my C2D MBP though, even at that price)

 

[wordoflife]

I'm a bit curious where all these $500 i3/i5 machines are. Reading some posts in this thread, I'd think they were falling from the sky, but a quick scan of the Dell and HP websites doesn't reveal any. I see Core 2 Duos for the 13-14" size class on Dell's site, with one i3 (which is $800 by the way and comes with something called "Intel HD Graphics," which sounds like it's just *dripping* with power), and mostly Pentiums and Neos from HP. Not even anything over 2GHz from HP in that size range for less than $700.

The point: Ya, you can get cheaper machines from elsewhere. None of them look remotely appealing (which is probably why the complainers are here wishing for an Apple machine instead of buying one of the others -- the lower prices are just a talking point for them, not an actual feature).

PS - If anyone could point me to a $500 Core i3 (a good one), or a $500 Core i5, I'd love you do, cause I'd definitely buy one at that price for my Windows work. (wouldn't replace my C2D MBP though, even at that price)

$500 is pushing it. It's more like $600-$700 but still not bad.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...86&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20

If you check bestbuy.com (links from bestbuy never work for some reason) but you can get an i3 for $550 (gateway) or $580 (dell)

Pony up to the $800 range you get i5.

The prices are much better than $1800 for an i5 (from Apple) but you'll the PC laptops are just fugly!

 

[revelated]

$500 is pushing it. It's more like $600-$700 but still not bad.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...86&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20

If you check bestbuy.com (links from bestbuy never work for some reason) but you can get an i3 for $550 (gateway) or $580 (dell)

Pony up to the $800 range you get i5.

The prices are much better than $1800 for an i5 (from Apple) but you'll the PC laptops are just fugly!

Perfect link.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115682

Of all of the C2D's on NewEgg, that one is the closest analog to the 13" MacBook Pro that I can see. Of course the graphics card in this Acer is absolute trash; yet they're charging $1000 for it. Pay $1000 for this and deal with a horrible graphics card? Or pay $100 more and get a base 13" MacBook Pro with a better card? $1000 for the privilege of mailing my laptop in when something goes wrong, or $1100 for the ability to walk it into an Apple Store?

The base 13" is far from overpriced, people. If you want to start comparing the i5's and the i7's then so be it, you'll find some overpriced machines, but let's be frank here. MacBook Pros today are nowhere near as overpriced as some of the PowerBooks and early MacBooks were. Profit margin yes...overpriced? Not all the way around.

 

[DannySmurf]

The base 13" is far from overpriced, people. If you want to start comparing the i5's and the i7's then so be it, you'll find some overpriced machines, but let's be frank here. MacBook Pros today are nowhere near as overpriced as some of the PowerBooks and early MacBooks were. Profit margin yes...overpriced? Not all the way around.

+1

Four years ago, I spent C$2600 for a MacBook Pro. That was the cheapest machine available. The least expensive 15" is now C$800 less than that, and a base MBP can be had for C$1250. Apple prices have come down substantially.

 

[DVD9]

The margin on the MacBook Pro 13" - no, I don't believe it to be significantly high. Is there profit in it? Of course, but there's no way it's substantial like you're implying. Hell, as I said, the RAM alone is $400 even when bought from Crucial or Kingston.

Are you serious? You can buy a Windows 7 laptop with 4GB of RAM for $400.

When I gauge cost I ask: If I were to build this myself, component by component, would I come close to what they're charging? IN the case of the lowest end MacBook Pro 13", that is a big YES.

Well, you ask the wrong question. If you ask the wrong question it does not matter what answer you come up with.

Foxconn manufactures Apple computers in China.

Foxconn manufactures HP computers in China.

Foxconn manufactures Dell computers in China.

So the question to ask is: How much do HP and Dell laptops cost in comparison to Apple?

$900 would be a fair price for the 13" Apple MBP in its base configuration. Apple would probably still have a better profit margin on that than Dell and HP.
--

 

[CaoCao]

Are you serious? You can buy a Windows 7 laptop with 4GB of RAM for $400.




Well, you ask the wrong question. If you ask the wrong question it does not matter what answer you come up with.

Foxconn manufactures Apple computers in China.

Foxconn manufactures HP computers in China.

Foxconn manufactures Dell computers in China.

So the question to ask is: How much do HP and Dell laptops cost in comparison to Apple?

$900 would be a fair price for the 13" Apple MBP in its base configuration. Apple would probably still have a better profit margin on that than Dell and HP.
--

Three years from now what's the resale ratio on an MBP vs. an HP on Dell Laptop?

 

[frunkis54]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there will never be a 13' mbp released.

Difference between foot and inch abbreviations

a few people in this topic need to learn the difference.

 

[revelated]

Are you serious? You can buy a Windows 7 laptop with 4GB of RAM for $400.

With a POS graphics card, a 3-hour battery, and innards that won't last more than 2 years at the most. What's your point? You're comparing Apples to lemons (pun intended), dude.

$900 would be a fair price for the 13" Apple MBP in its base configuration. Apple would probably still have a better profit margin on that than Dell and HP.
--

No dude. Just no. I perfectly understand your confusion. You're looking at RAM, processors, graphics card and maybe screen. I'm looking at the other stuff the PCs don't have on the lower end. LED backlighting on the keyboard, component cost ( and I'm happy to break that down if you don't get it ), panel quality (which is definitely superior to anything the PCs are doing), general durabilty, and battery life.

And oh by the way, I don't hear a rebuttal on the link I posted.

Perfect link.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115682

Of all of the C2D's on NewEgg, that one is the closest analog to the 13" MacBook Pro that I can see. Of course the graphics card in this Acer is absolute trash; yet they're charging $1000 for it. Pay $1000 for this and deal with a horrible graphics card? Or pay $100 more and get a base 13" MacBook Pro with a better card? $1000 for the privilege of mailing my laptop in when something goes wrong, or $1100 for the ability to walk it into an Apple Store?

The base 13" is far from overpriced, people. If you want to start comparing the i5's and the i7's then so be it, you'll find some overpriced machines, but let's be frank here. MacBook Pros today are nowhere near as overpriced as some of the PowerBooks and early MacBooks were. Profit margin yes...overpriced? Not all the way around.

If you think you've got the game, I'll listen. Find a laptop that has IDENTICAL specs to the 13" MacBook for $400 and post it here. I'm wagering you won't find one, because it doesn't exist.

 

[gigi11192]

a few people in this topic need to learn the difference.

you really think its necessary?
pay attention to the topic, not the trifle.