Why all the negatives??

[DLovett]

Clearly the people who are positive about the update, know jack **** about computer hardware.

Core2Duo still being on the 13" is just pathetic. If anything, they could have just bumped the speed a bit higher than 0,13 GHz on both models. That is simply pathetic.

But Apple is Apple, and we love their products, and that's why we're all gonna buy them anyway, even though update after update disappoints us, and we're never going to see USB3/Blu-Ray/1080p/HDMI out/A top-end GPU.

Complaining about the updates makes no sense, because Apple know what they are doing, and they won't change it for anyone.

 

[Hmac]

So on the all the new posts about the MBP there are about the same number of Positive ratings as there are negatives.

Whats the deal?

Is it mostly people mad about the 13" not being upgraded to an ix processor.
And is it from people who have MBPs that are under a year and a half old so they don't see this as a big upgrade?

I'm just curious because I've been looking forward to this upgrade so I can up my iBook G4.

Is this really that bad of an update to the Pro line?

You have to be careful about taking MacRumors Forums seriously. It tends to be populated by people who are in no way representative of Apple's customer base. Generally speaking, there is a whole different set of agendas going on here than in the real world.

Despite all the whining, Apple will sell a ton of these new MacBook Pros, the overwhelming majority will be happy with the purchase and with their customer service.

 

[drew0020]

That's Intel's fault, not Apple's. See what I mean? I'm amazed by the number of people complaining about this, when they haven't done a shred of research.
Forgive them for giving an already powerful computer more power, a custom graphics card that it's never had, and 10 hours of battery life. No offense, but in my opinion the people complaining about the 13 inch are being pretty ridiculous. If you want more power, go for the 15 inch. And before someone says, OH WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO OMG!? Because you always did. The 15 and the 17 inch notebooks were always more powerful. You were always sacrificing screen real estate AND power using the 13 inch. And then of course the next argument is, well it's ancient technology. Get over yourself, seriously. One of the computers I see thrown around here as an awesome PC, is the Alienware M11x.....Have you even bothered to look at its processor? BTO OPTION is a Core 2 Duo.



1. 2008 model came out less than 2 years ago. Way to do math.

2. The graphics card is brand new, and custom made.

3. Again, they should apologize for not melting your lap or desk, and giving you a quality laptop. Bad Apple.

I don't know why some people feel compelled to defend Apple when they make poor decisions. I'll never understand that. And let's be honest the new graphic cards are a shame too but I'm sure the Apple fanboys will find a way to defend those too. Just like the state of the art processor in the ipad

 

[firsttimemac]

1. 2008 model came out less than 2 years ago. Way to do math.

2. The graphics card is brand new, and custom made.

3. Again, they should apologize for not melting your lap or desk, and giving you a quality laptop. Bad Apple.

My god. I continue to be amazed at the attitude of all you apple fanboys.

I never did any math. I was just commenting on how amazing and generous apple is to be giving us the same processor as 2008, at the same price, in 2010. Way to go!!

Just because apple gets something custom made. Does it become brilliant? NO. It is still a shared integrated display with a measly 256 mb max.

Again, you continue to ignore the logical points in order to push your stupid justification for anything apple does. - if there was a technical issue they should have fixed and IF NOT - they should have brought the price down instead of graciously giving us the opportunity to spend 1500$.

I guess you are one of those people who would buy the 13" high end, for whatever reason.

 

[mark28]

That's Intel's fault, not Apple's. See what I mean? I'm amazed by the number of people complaining about this, when they haven't done a shred of research.
Forgive them for giving an already powerful computer more power, a custom graphics card that it's never had, and 10 hours of battery life. No offense, but in my opinion the people complaining about the 13 inch are being pretty ridiculous. If you want more power, go for the 15 inch. And before someone says, OH WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO OMG!? Because you always did. The 15 and the 17 inch notebooks were always more powerful. You were always sacrificing screen real estate AND power using the 13 inch. And then of course the next argument is, well it's ancient technology. Get over yourself, seriously. One of the computers I see thrown around here as an awesome PC, is the Alienware M11x.....Have you even bothered to look at its processor? BTO OPTION is a Core 2 Duo.



1. 2008 model came out less than 2 years ago. Way to do math.

2. The graphics card is brand new, and custom made.

3. Again, they should apologize for not melting your lap or desk, and giving you a quality laptop. Bad Apple.

The GPU is not brand new. It's old ancient GPU's from Nvidia. For that reason alone I stay away from Nvidia.

They keep rebranding ancients GPU's because their new Fermi cards are a disaster and ATI is currently destroying Nvidia.

13 inch = 2008 tech CPU & GPU ( it's not new technology )

 

[starman0147]

I think its a pretty decent update all-round, but the 13" pro was bumped up by £100, which is completely unjustified and strikes me as pure greed.

 

[cathyy]

Sony is the Windows version of Apple. Charging $$ for style while providing lower spec GPU. The recent FW to F transition is a perfect example. I abandoned Sony for my gaming rigs two years ago because of their slavish devotion to style over graphics prowess.

Tis indeed sad that Apple and Sony will never change. They have many, many customers who will pay for style over substance.

Cheers,

But you have to admit that the Sony Vaio Z is something drool-worthy. It packs the same power as the top Macbook Pro, yet Sony managed to pack it into such a tiny frame that's the same weight as the Macbook Air, which is indeed a breakthrough for laptops.

Apple on the other hand has given us mediocre specs when you consider the size of their laptops. The MBA is nowhere in the same league as the Vaio Z. The 13" MBP is outdated like hell, and is 50% heavier than the Vaio Z. The 15 and 17" MBPs are on par with the Vaio Z, but 1 - 1.6kg heavier than it.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

here's what's happening:

the pc-to-mac people (long time windows users) know what's up, and are displeased with the insignificant update and the price hike.

the apple fanboys who put unibody and the apple experience at the top of their priorities list in a computer only see that something "new" has been released by their gods at apple, so they're happy and are saying "haters gonna hate."

That makes no sense.

1) PC to Mac switchers did so with their own volition. Macs have always been spec'd lower than PCs as far as I can remember. If that fact upset them they should not (and guessing did not) switch in the first place.

2) The only price hike is at the low end of the MBP ($100). The other 15 and 17" models got price cuts.

3) Apple Fanboys generally have a love/hate relationship with Apple. Its rare Apple releases a product and is initially received well by a majority of fanboys. There is always grousing.

What is really happening here is par for the Mac update course. It has zero to do w/ switchers vs. fanboys.

 

[danwellsvt]

The 13 inch is Intel's fault (no non-Intel integrated graphics on Core i series) - the only way a discrete GPU would have fit (space, power and thermal) is to ditch the optical drive. That would have been a great compromise for many here, but the less tech-savvy college kids who are a majority of 13" customers want the optical.

What I'm slightly disappointed with is the lack of very high-end options on the 17". I would have liked to see 4 RAM slots and perhaps a high-speed interface of some sort (eSATA or USB 3.0). I would have liked to see a 17" that truly competed with the EliteBook 8740, the ThinkPad 701 and the Dell Precision 6500... I'm going to buy the 17" anyway (and upgrade to at least one SSD - maybe a second in the optical bay), because I don't like viruses and any of the other options mean Windows, and therefore viruses (they can't, as far as I know, be Hackintoshed). I'll add eSATA with an ExpressCard. Apple prioritized battery life and price on the 17" over the options offered by those few workstations. For a high-end 17" laptop, the MBP is cheap (it's a lot more than the really cheap 17 inchers at Best Buy, which don't perform anywhere near as well, but it's $1000 cheaper than a nicely configured EliteBook).

 

[Starfires]

That makes no sense.

1) PC to Mac switchers did so with their own volition. Macs have always been spec'd lower than PCs as far as I can remember. If that fact upset them they should not (and guessing did not) switch in the first place.

2) The only price hike is at the low end of the MBP ($100). The other 15 and 17" models got price cuts.

3) Apple Fanboys generally have a love/hate relationship with Apple. Its rare Apple releases a product and is initially received well by a majority of fanboys. There is always grousing.

What is really happening here is par for the Mac update course. It has zero to do w/ switchers vs. fanboys.

Sorry, I'm one of the complainers. Surely the attraction of the Macbook pros is that they are very beautiful machines and run OSX. Yet the functionality is crucial as for most people, these will be their main machine and here I do indeed feel let down. For a start, the 13 inch is clearly yesterday's technology in today's box- yet when I bought my first Macbook, it was state of the art to have a (very similar, but admittedly hotter-running). I want to upgrade, but what is there for me with this?

Sure, I could invest in a 15-inch; less portable but it gives me at least access to newer tech. But then I have to forgo Blu Ray (I know Apple sees it as competition and doesn't support it for now), which cuts me off if I want to use it as a HTPC. I feel Apple is going back to their old 'proprietary' ways a bit here, after the promise of universal hardware when they changed to Intel. I think like a PC user when it comes to wanting all the latest tech in my machine, so I can use it for whatever I want. I know, historically Apple has a habit of doing this but, the times I've personally bought Apple products is when I feel they're generally ahead of the game- 2007 Macbook with the latest Pentyrn processor. iPhone 3G, the king of smart-phones.

Now I'm being told that with Mac I should accept older hardware unless I get a bigger machine than I want and even then I can't have quad-core in my laptop, that we are back to the 'specs don't matter, it's the experience' line that seemed to go quiet for a while in the switch to Intel.

I realise, I'm probably expecting too much and should think within the Mac camp. But honestly, I would like Apple to succeed as they have the style and the OS to do so, but I see them shooting themselves in the foot here, consigning themselves to being a niche product to an extent that isn't necessary. Probably, they can afford to do it and many won't mind about what to me is a bit of a deal-breaker. But I'm not here to offer market analysis or suggest strategies to Apple. I just want to have the power and flexibility I expect in a main computer, that I can forgo in a portable device. I can see, many others feel the same way. So Apple, please, if you are listening, offer more BTO options for those who want the latest and greatest.

 

[pastparticiple]

Now I'm being told that with Mac I should accept older hardware unless I get a bigger machine than I want and even then I can't have quad-core in my laptop, that we are back to the 'specs don't matter, it's the experience' line that seemed to go quiet for a while in the switch to Intel.

I realise, I'm probably expecting too much and should think within the Mac camp.

I don't think you are expecting too much. You are expecting a laptop that is in ALL ways at least equal to, and preferably better than, your other choices. We didn't get that with the new MBP lineup. Instead we got too little, too late for a higher cost. I wouldn't have taken much to please most of us who are unhappy...nobody is really asking for anything unreasonable. I was ready to buy on Tuesday but now I will not. I mentioned before I know about 10 other people who feel the same. That is $17,000 to $25,000 dollars lost because they decided to go cheap on their end and nickle and dime us on our end...and that's just the small sample of people I know.

I know there are many people to whom fashion matters more than or equal too function and they are willing to pay extra for it. Then there are those of us who won't. Apple keeps charging more and more for less and less relative to the price. There comes a point for a lot of consumers where there is no longer a value in the purchase. I love OSX but not so much I am willing to be drug along at any cost. I wanted a new MBP this week but Apple didn't earn my purchase.

 

[Thunder82]

I'd love to purchase a 15" i7 with anti-glare screen.. but for 1999, not the $2199 to $2349 asking price. The new pricing scheme is ridiculous and is nothing more than a price gouge on Apples part. I'd be willing to bet that the included spec bump on the i7 model cost Apple no more than $50-75 and they're charging $400 for it. All of this, and they'll charge you $150 extra for the anti-glare high res screen. What happened to the existing glossy screen? They pocket the $ difference?

 

[riotgear]

I bought a 15" 2.66Ghz machine and love it. It's faster than my 2009 MBP and that is all I care about. I would prefer to have a gig of RAM in my video card, but I don't play games on my Mac... I have a gaming desktop for that. I am running Photoshop, Illustrator, and Dreamweaver at the same time and so far the machine is much "snappier" than my old MBP.

 

[pastparticiple]

All of this, and they'll charge you $150 extra for the anti-glare high res screen. What happened to the existing glossy screen? They pocket the $ difference?

It really is slimy to force people to upgrade to the high res screen in order to get matte...first they charged $50 extra for matte taking it from a standard option to a "premium" option...now they force you to upgrade and pay $150 if you need matte. There comes a point when you offend the customer base by doing such things and I have reached that point. By trying to squeeze an extra $150 out of me they lost a sale of ten times that much.

 

[millertime021]

I don't think you are expecting too much. You are expecting a laptop that is in ALL ways at least equal to, and preferably better than, your other choices. We didn't get that with the new MBP lineup. Instead we got too little, too late for a higher cost. I wouldn't have taken much to please most of us who are unhappy...nobody is really asking for anything unreasonable. I was ready to buy on Tuesday but now I will not. I mentioned before I know about 10 other people who feel the same. That is $17,000 to $25,000 dollars lost because they decided to go cheap on their end and nickle and dime us on our end...and that's just the small sample of people I know.

I know there are many people to whom fashion matters more than or equal too function and they are willing to pay extra for it. Then there are those of us who won't. Apple keeps charging more and more for less and less relative to the price. There comes a point for a lot of consumers where there is no longer a value in the purchase. I love OSX but not so much I am willing to be drug along at any cost. I wanted a new MBP this week but Apple didn't earn my purchase.

Good points but also you have to realize that not everyone buying a Pro needs the "best".
For example, we shall take myself. I don't do video/audio editing. I'm currently using a 9 year old desktop (that hasn't ever been updated with more ram etc) and an iBook G4 that's 5 years old now. Both of these machines combined have 1 gig of ram and just over 2GHz of processing power (1.2GHz and 933MHz). So for me, the last generation of Pros with C2D were more than enough for my needs.

I only held out for the ix processors because they should, theoretically, last longer. Being a freshman in college, I'm hoping my recently purchased 15" i7 will gets through at least 3 years. And you know what, it probably will.
So yes, there are better computers for a better price but for durability, style, functionality, etc I'm happy with my purchase and I'm glad I'm not holding out.



Personally I think the update in the Fall, if there is one, will probably up the 13" to an ix series and just add minimal options to the 15" and 17".
I don't see a major case redesign for a few more updates. Maybe Sandybridge? But that's just my 2 cents. And what do I know. Haha

 

[pastparticiple]

Miller I don't want super high end either...what I DO want is not to be charged super high end prices for mediocre parts. Give me value for my money and I am a happy camper...do something that makes me feel like I am NOT getting a good value and you lose my money...simple stuff.

 

[millertime021]

Miller I don't want super high end either...what I DO want is not to be charged super high end prices for mediocre parts. Give me value for my money and I am a happy camper...do something that makes me feel like I am NOT getting a good value and you lose my money...simple stuff.

I completely agree. I don't want to be "ripped off" but I've held out since December. I can't wait till the next update and I'm happy with this one and if it lasts me 3 years, I won't be disappointed or feel like I got ripped off.

 

[pastparticiple]

Yeah I have been holding off that long too and that is why I am so disappointed. I can't decide if I want to risk buying a newly used MBP from last Monday's generation (so I can stay with OSX and not give Apple any profit) or jump ship. I do know I will not buy new and reward Apple for this nonsense.

 

[wordoflife]

I'm pretty happy with it. I know people who use more processor intensive apps will need an i5 or something like that, but I think i'll be fine on a Core 2 Duo.. even though it is outdated.

I think Apple isn't purposely just not putting blueray, USB 3.0, etc for some random reason. I think they have issues they need to sort out in order to implement it.

I will agree, $999 is a bit expensive for a laptop, but in a few years if I can sell it for $500-$600, the price isn't bad at all.

People wanted new Macbook Pros urgently... and this is what they got. Now they give all the negatives.

I don't think Apple is going to release anything revolutionary unless it's in a WWDC. I am surprised that they did the ix processors.
"Revolutionary" things like blueray would probably come in WWDC when ever apple does release it

 

[melchior]

I'm pretty happy with it. I know people who use more processor intensive apps will need an i5 or something like that, but I think i'll be fine on a Core 2 Duo.. even though it is outdated.

I think Apple isn't purposely just not putting blueray, USB 3.0, etc for some random reason. I think they have issues they need to sort out in order to implement it.

I will agree, $999 is a bit expensive for a laptop, but in a few years if I can sell it for $500-$600, the price isn't bad at all.

People wanted new Macbook Pros urgently... and this is what they got. Now they give all the negatives.

I don't think Apple is going to release anything revolutionary unless it's in a WWDC. I am surprised that they did the ix processors.
"Revolutionary" things like blueray would probably come in WWDC when ever apple does release it

usb3.0 requires a separate chip at this point. plus intel is pushing for a 2011 lightpeak release which apple is apparently onboard for. blu-ray requires unbalanced licensing agreements. (plus apple needs to push itunes - optical media is dying regardless). core ix requires using the intel gpu or a discrete gpu. apple doesn't want a discrete gpu in the 13" line. again this is licensing.

simple stuff here. as to the gpu? well, it's hard to say. apple might have a deal with nvidia. maybe the graphics switching stuff is only possible with nvidia? maybe it was decided that their customer base doesn't know better and they'd get better battery life and cheaper units with the 330m.

licensing and deals, complemented by the proven ignorance of customers. it's not that hard to figure out.

 

[therealseebs]

Pretty sure they don't get better battery life with the 330M than with a lower-power GPU.

Cheaper, sure, but not better battery life -- and wouldn't anyone worried about battery life be using the chipset instead of the discrete GPU anyway?

 

[melchior]

Pretty sure they don't get better battery life with the 330M than with a lower-power GPU.

Cheaper, sure, but not better battery life -- and wouldn't anyone worried about battery life be using the chipset instead of the discrete GPU anyway?

better battery life compared to more powerful gpu. such as 350m, etc...

the interesting thing about the new switching stuff is that there are two options, on and off. when on you have no control over when it's turned on. it happens automatically based on when certain API calls are made by software you are running. when it's turned off, you only get the 330m. there is no way to only use the intel. apparently anyway.

 

[Starfires]

I was hoping for more

Good points but also you have to realize that not everyone buying a Pro needs the "best".
For example, we shall take myself. I don't do video/audio editing. I'm currently using a 9 year old desktop (that hasn't ever been updated with more ram etc) and an iBook G4 that's 5 years old now. Both of these machines combined have 1 gig of ram and just over 2GHz of processing power (1.2GHz and 933MHz). So for me, the last generation of Pros with C2D were more than enough for my needs.

I only held out for the ix processors because they should, theoretically, last longer. Being a freshman in college, I'm hoping my recently purchased 15" i7 will gets through at least 3 years. And you know what, it probably will.
So yes, there are better computers for a better price but for durability, style, functionality, etc I'm happy with my purchase and I'm glad I'm not holding out.



Personally I think the update in the Fall, if there is one, will probably up the 13" to an ix series and just add minimal options to the 15" and 17".
I don't see a major case redesign for a few more updates. Maybe Sandybridge? But that's just my 2 cents. And what do I know. Haha

You know, for someone in your shoes, for whom it is a massive update, I can see the attraction. When I bought my Core 2Duo a few years back, I was in exactly the same situation and I suppose it was designed to last in the sense that it still does most of what I need. I just want HTPC abilities and it seems Apple is saving that for later; no doubt it will be a great implementation when it arrives, but I'm not sure how long I can wait.

They have made progress on this, as the mini-displayport can now send audio too, which is great, but I'd have to reboot into Windows every time I want to play the Blu Rays I buy and rent; they are a big part of my life now.

I could almost live with that, but then I looked at the price for the 15-inch with the hi-res screen. Once you get the necessary Applecare (my logic board failed, so I know first-hand that can happen), the price jumps up $350, becoming about $2,300 and this is with a slow hard-drive that I'd soon replace with a 7200 model (the difference is very noticable)! If they specced out the 13-inch more, I'd be happy with that, but it really is too much for someone who has a fairly modern computer already.

So, like I'm saying, there isn't too much here for upgraders from a machine from the last 3 years or so, whereas if they put in all the latest technology now mainstream in the PC world, there could quite easily be and I'd have one in a heartbeat, even paying more than I was intending. Speaking as a consumer, rather than an Apple fan (which, believe it or not, I am), the compromises are just too hard to swallow.

 

[Mindinversion]

I mentioned this on another board, and I think I'll throw it out here as well.

Honestly, if the new pro line included the ATi5830m instead of the 320/330, would anyone even be having this conversation?

My opinion lies in my sig. Both machines are less than a month old, and both machines combined would have paid for a SINGLE one of these "new" MBPs.


I think I got the better end of the bargain

 

[mikeo007]

usb3.0 requires a separate chip at this point. plus intel is pushing for a 2011 lightpeak release which apple is apparently onboard for. blu-ray requires unbalanced licensing agreements. (plus apple needs to push itunes - optical media is dying regardless). core ix requires using the intel gpu or a discrete gpu. apple doesn't want a discrete gpu in the 13" line. again this is licensing.

simple stuff here. as to the gpu? well, it's hard to say. apple might have a deal with nvidia. maybe the graphics switching stuff is only possible with nvidia? maybe it was decided that their customer base doesn't know better and they'd get better battery life and cheaper units with the 330m.

licensing and deals, complemented by the proven ignorance of customers. it's not that hard to figure out.

Interesting post here, I like some of this thinking...

First my situation: I am one of the disappointed ones who hasn't been shouting out bloody murder. This will be the first macbook that I am personally buying. I am required to get an Apple computer for school, so I have no choice, but I'm not too upset about that. Maybe I'll explain my reasons disappointment another time, but right now I want to hit on Apple's reasoning for doing this update.

First, the 13"...The way I see it, this is an experiment by Apple. It was likely brought on by a shortage of time or manpower (research capability). It's been discussed before that the 13" Pro is their top selling model. Apple is always going to sell a good number of computers to the diehards, regardless of the product quality or value. By using cheaper components, but keeping the price high, Apple is going to see just how far they can gouge their remaining clientèle. Nobody can argue that the 13" MBPs aren't overpriced (even more so than the normal Apple fare). If sales drop, they introduce "all new low prices" and come out smelling like roses.

As for the 15" & 17", well I really have nothing to say about that. The update is exactly what I expected, so I'm not disappointed or elated by the new offerings. Is it lackluster? Yes, but so was the previous generations offering. There's nothing different there.

There are lots of little reasons that people are upset, as well as a few big reasons. There are more people disappointed by this refresh than any other one that I remember though, which could be due to Apple's slowly increasing market share, or it could be that fact that this is one of their worst offerings in a while. The majority of websites are saying it's a lackluster update, even Engadget (aren't they on Apple's payroll?) is not impressed. So the upset people definitely have grounds for their disappointment, but if the majority still buy, Apple is going to consider this experiment a success.