Why no 1920x1200 on 15" MBP?

[08380728]

Apple sells to 75% of the market with their standard configurations, 20% of the market with BTO, and the other 5%, well dell and alienware can take those. Apple doesn't want those customers.

That is very immature and extrastupidly naive!!! When profit and shareholders are concerned they care about every dollar they could potentially earn. Don't ever think greed and profit is any priority other than number 1!!!

I don't have any raw stats such as the ones you mention but a quick glance around here and many other forums of late seem to suggest figures closer to 80+% CTO's. I've not seen too many standard config's mentioned anywhere. At the 3 stores I went to today the sales guys all shared the same info, basically every machine was a CTO, everyone wanted the Hi-Res option or the i7 or some other variant. I know this can't be used as an across the board determination of figures but still this small sample provided info opposite of your stats.

 

[Relznuk]

I think it would be counter productive for the majority of people's uses.

+1 Waaaay too high res.

 

[sammich]

That is very immature and extrastupidly naive!!! When profit and shareholders are concerned they care about every dollar they could potentially earn. Don't ever think greed and profit is any priority other than number 1!!!

I don't think you get how Apple has done business. It's always the smallest number of possible standard configurations, and small but relatively overpriced CTO options. You know why this is good from a money perspective? Less support for various configurations, less separate parts needed to stock and less unsold stock sitting in warehouses.

I don't have any raw stats such as the ones you mention but a quick glance around here and many other forums of late seem to suggest figures closer to 80+% CTO's. I've not seen too many standard config's mentioned anywhere. At the 3 stores I went to today the sales guys all shared the same info, basically every machine was a CTO, everyone wanted the Hi-Res option or the i7 or some other variant. I know this can't be used as an across the board determination of figures but still this small sample provided info opposite of your stats.

Fine, I did pull those numbers of numbers from my nether regions, but this is MR, a computing enthusiast forum, you can't generalise. As for what the sales guy said, well that's interesting but it's possible that because it's a BRAND NEW ITEM it's a lot of people that have been eagerly awaiting the new update have come all at once, wanting the best because Apple's refresh cycles mean that a newly released machine is worth the most. The average consumer or the "50% of Apple's customers are switchers" will more or less buy the standard configuration because all they want is 'just a computer'.

 

[frostiex]

I would totally pick it up if it were an option. 1680x1050 is so 2006....that was 5 computers ago I had that resolution on my Asus G1S.
After that I went to 12-13" laptops and only had 1280x900 and really miss it.
But I have gotten to love the Macs' so I went for it anyway even tho the resolution was inferior.

 

[Dozerrox]

Does this mean we should not expect Apple to bring this technology to Mac OS X, because other OS's don't support it? Or are you simply trying to correct all the misinformant numpties around here sprooking off that Windows (incorrectly) has RI?

Nobody said that Windows has proper RI. But Apple still need their OS to catch up with the tech available so they can offer it imo.

 

[08380728]

I don't think you get how Apple has done business. It's always the smallest number of possible standard configurations, and small but relatively overpriced CTO options. You know why this is good from a money perspective? Less support for various configurations, less separate parts needed to stock and less unsold stock sitting in warehouses.

I know exactly how Apple do bizniz, now and in the past. The Apple of today is a different beast of the Apple in the 90's. Back then they couldn't care less about windows users switching over to Mac's. Don't you remember when they had significantly more configurations back then? Desktops alone, at one time for example at the end of Amelio's reign there was the 7600, 8600 and 9600's models plus server versions of the top end model 9650 and the entry level Performas. Then they had some configurations with PC/DOS cards so Mac user's could run windows.

The reason why Apple has so fewer models now is as you say to streamline the product range but at the same time to maximize profits, not because they don't care about 'xusers'. I'm cautious to go into any more detail as i'm starting to sound like a post of contradictions in many ways LOL ;-)

I understand and appreciate the point you make however, that Apple provide minimal configuration options for the reasons you mention (actually this is exactly what Steve did upon return to Apple in 97/98 and part of the success in profits). Apple though, seem to be casting the net wider in terms of config options, since the switcher campaign began so it seems they still wish to attract anyone they can to the Mac. To the point of the 1920x1200 15" i think this option is unavailable largely for engineering and usability reasons rather than cost (they will put a handsome price on the option if they chose to) or any other reason mentioned here. I think the absence of Resolution Independence is the only reason holding them back on providing this option on the 15".

Fine, I did pull those numbers of numbers from my nether regions, but this MR, a computing enthusiast forum, you can't generalise. As for what the sales guy said, well that's interesting but it's possible that because it's a BRAND NEW ITEM it's a lot of people that have been eagerly awaiting the new update have come all at once, wanting the best because Apple's refresh cycles mean that a newly released machine is worth the most. The average consumer or the "50% of Apple's customers are switchers" will more or less buy the standard configuration because all they want is 'just a computer'.

Highly possible on all points. Tho I wouldn't like to throw any figures around in concluding switcher percentage. I wouldn't have a clue about that. I introduced many people to Mac's back in the early/mid 90's, so I don't personally know too many windows users, nor do I care for them or their windows problems and I certainly don't care for them to switch to Mac's anymore, keeps the support calls to a minimum ;-))

 

[08380728]

Nobody said that Windows has proper RI. But Apple still need their OS to catch up with the tech available so they can offer it imo.

Oh I think it has been mentioned or blindly acknowledged a few times ;-) in many places besides this thread. I don't care to bother chasing em up tho ;-)

Of course Apple need to offer it. They have been banging on about it for probably 5 years now, where is it? Tiger was supposed to bring it from memory, same with Quartz2DExtreme, what happened to that as well? meh Maybe the focus on the iPad an the touch interfacing GUI advancements will be used later to bring RI to OS X...only Apple has the keys to that vault of knowledge ;-)

 

[sammich]

It's getting late, but thought to shoot off a reply. I wasn't cool about that reply you had of my comment above.

I know exactly how Apple do bizniz, now and in the past. The Apple of today is a different beast of the Apple in the 90's. Back then they couldn't care less about windows users switching over to Mac's. Don't you remember when they had significantly more configurations back then? Desktops alone, at one time for example at the end of Amelio's reign there was the 7600, 8600 and 9600's models plus server versions of the top end model 9650 and the entry level Performas. Then they had some configurations with PC/DOS cards so Mac user's could run windows.

Well yes, I'm only young(ish) and I'm much much more familiar with the 'new Apple' and the apparent way they are doing things. Nevertheless, this goes with my point.

The reason why Apple has so fewer models now is as you say to streamline the product range but at the same time to maximize profits, not because they don't care about 'xusers'. I'm cautious to go into any more detail as i'm starting to sound like a post of contradictions in many ways LOL ;-)

Perhaps I was being far too blunt regarding my first post about 'xusers' but it seems you get my idea now. You are welcome to go into more detail if you wish, just out of interest, not out of more reasons to contradict

To the point of the 1920x1200 15" i think this option is unavailable largely for engineering and usability reasons rather than cost (they will put a handsome price on the option if they chose to) or any other reason mentioned here. I think the absence of Resolution Independence is the only reason holding them back on providing this option on the 15".

Just usability, I'm certain that engineering isn't much of a problem because they already have those size screens. I would totally buy a 1920 15" if the option were available.

Yeah, where is the Resolution Independence ? It would be amazing if they you zoom in on the screen using control-scroll, that RI would take over and you'd have crisp text filling up your screen.

Highly possible on all points. Tho I wouldn't like to throw any figures around in concluding switcher percentage. I wouldn't have a clue about that. I introduced many people to Mac's back in the early/mid 90's, so I don't personally know too many windows users, nor do I care for them or their windows problems and I certainly don't care for them to switch to Mac's anymore, keeps the support calls to a minimum ;-))

It's actually in the conference call Q's:

- Retail store sales up 22%, and 50% of retail store Mac purchasers continue to be new to Mac.

 

[Little Endian]

Who cares about 1920x1200 on the 15" mbp, I think The 13" should have gotten that option as well. While we are at it I also think that the ipad should have a 1600x1200 resolution on its 9.7 inch screen!! Better yet th next iPhone had better be sporting 1600x1200 on it's piddly little screen because we all know that resolution is king and that is all that matters. I can't wait for the day that PPI is packed so tight that I'll need a microscope and a 1000x UI
zoom to see things, but that's no problem right because I will be able to see the world at a glance and everthing willbe so sharp and crisp under that electron microscope

 

[08380728]

Who cares about 1920x1200 on the 15" mbp, I think The 13" should have gotten that option as well. While we are at it I also think that the ipad should have a 1600x1200 resolution on its 9.7 inch screen!! Better yet th next iPhone had better be sporting 1600x1200 on it's piddly little screen because we all know that resolution is king and that is all that matters. I can't wait for the day that PPI is packed so tight that I'll need a microscope and a 1000x UI
zoom to see things, but that's no problem right because I will be able to see the world at a glance and everthing willbe so sharp and crisp under that electron microscope

We wouldn't be in this horrible situation if these frelling TFT display's weren't backward-assed designed with fixed resolutions. The benefit of our old CRT's was the ability to change the graphics card to any resolution without any blurry fuzzy unreadable **** we get now on a TFT. It was great to switch the rest to 1600x1200 while others stayed on 1024x768 ;-)

 

[silexh]

We wouldn't be in this horrible situation if these frelling TFT display's weren't backward-assed designed with fixed resolutions. The benefit of our old CRT's was the ability to change the graphics card to any resolution without any blurry fuzzy unreadable **** we get now on a TFT. It was great to switch the rest to 1600x1200 while others stayed on 1024x768 ;-)

So if Apple released an upgraded iMac G3 with a maximum resolution of 2240x1680 you'd use it as a notebook?
I am with you really, that functionality was really nice. If I look at my parents and sisters however, they don't really care: They think 800x600 looks fine on an 1024x768 TFT screen. So I guess, as they are average (quite ignorant) users, people do not really give a ****.

Personally I really like the screen upgrade, but I think it shouldn't be any higher - it really makes things to small.

 

[Little Endian]

No one has seemed to mention that the 330M GPU in the MBP will be taxed quite heavily with the native 1920x1200 resolution. In particular certain games will have poor performance at a native 1920x1200 resolution and High detail settings. Almost all games currently available and upcoming through Valve's Steam will run great or at least acceptable at High detail settings under 1680x1050 with the current MBP hardware.

 

[///M5]

My 13" Sony Vaio Z has a 1920x1080 res. screen and I love it.

I'm sure everybody with the so called high-res 15" MBP in this thread would buy the 1920x1200 in a heart beat if it were available. You guys are just in denial.

/thread

 

[entatlrg]

I bet if they did have the 1920x1200 option everyone here would get it and praise the hell out of it. How are more pixels ever a bad thing?


umm increase font size?

It's not that simple. There's currently a lot of discussion about it here with the new hi res 15" MBP's ... now you're talking 1920 x 1200 that's even worse, far worse.

 

[Garrus]

I would totally pick it up if it were an option. 1680x1050 is so 2006....that was 5 computers ago I had that resolution on my Asus G1S.
After that I went to 12-13" laptops and only had 1280x900 and really miss it.
But I have gotten to love the Macs' so I went for it anyway even tho the resolution was inferior.

I actually have a g1s(a1) waiting till june for buying a mbp i7 (will make 3 years since i have it) and i find this resolution to be perfect, i dont need more (except maybe when watching 1080p movie...).

 

[kolax]

1680x1050 on the 15" MacBook Pro is pushing it.

I think 118 pixels per inch is probably optimum. If you want more screen real estate, buy a bigger monitor..

 

[bigjobby]

1680x1050 on the 15" MacBook Pro is pushing it.

I think 118 pixels per inch is probably optimum. If you want more screen real estate, buy a bigger monitor..

hear, hear!

I'm sure there are other feature requests that are way more of a priority than a higher res.

 

[jshbckr]

I want to see these 15" laptops from 6 years ago that had 1920x1200 displays.

I'm a little skeptical they existed. There weren't many widescreen displays back then, let alone 15" ones with that high of resolution.

 

[bigjobby]

I want to see these 15" laptops from 6 years ago that had 1920x1200 displays.

I'm a little skeptical they existed. There weren't many widescreen displays back then, let alone 15" ones with that high of resolution.

me too. Would hate to see the prices of those units if they ever existed.

 

[murdercitydevil]

and for a lot of modern day games, these stuff are usually developed with the higher resolution in mind, so the lower the resolution the lesser the quality of pixel information you receive. It's all about details

you are seriously talking out of your ass now

and if this was the case, you really think the extra resolution is somehow going to make the MBP a BETTER gaming machine? Extra res is nothing but a huge crippling factor when you're dealing with a 330M.

 

[choco]

oh geez. if at 1680 x 1050 people are complaining about small text, i can't imagine the number of complaints on this forum if the resolution were any higher.

 

[Stetrain]

First Apple needs to release a good system-wide scaling option in OSX like Windows has had since Vista.

Resolution independence was supposed to come with Leopard. Maybe 10.7?

 

[tim100]

Apple sells to 75% of the market with their standard configurations, 20% of the market with BTO, and the other 5%, well dell and alienware can take those. Apple doesn't want those customers.

Does everyone think that 75% are being standard configs? That would make me feel better about buying an i7 standard res.

I agree. Would make no sense to sell different sizes with same resolution. 1680x1050 will become a standard in 15" in an update or two, then 13" may get an option for 1440x900 and 15" may get an option for 1920x1200 if 17" gets 2304x1440

I dont like the multiple screen options

 

[hypermog]

Here's 1920x1080 in a 13" laptop, knock yourself out.

 

[topicolo]

Here's 1920x1080 in a 13" laptop, knock yourself out.

Want!