Why no large screen consumer notebook?

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by Falhófnir, Aug 19, 2017.

?

Is a 13" laptop big enough for you, or would you welcome a larger size?

  1. I'm happy with the range as-is

    3 vote(s)
    30.0%
  2. I think there's a gap for a larger screened MacBook in the lower price range

    7 vote(s)
    70.0%
  1. Falhófnir macrumors 6502a

    Falhófnir

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2017
    #1
    I think this is ok as I couldn't find another thread addressing this issue as a whole, rather than speculating in general about a 14 inch option for the existing MacBook design.

    One thing that I find frustrating about Apple's lineup is the linking of screen size to performance, with bigger = higher performance, and of course more expensive. With iOS devices it's more of a non issue, because of the relatively smaller penalty for going large, but with a Mac, you're only choice for a laptop larger than 13" is the 15 inch pro, which is exorbitantly expensive for people like me who can make good use of the screen space, and want a portable machine (as in not a desktop) but who don't need H series chips and cutting edge, expensive SSD speeds for what we're doing.

    Obviously there's the larger bill of materials to factor in, but I have to wonder why Apple reserves the single most popular size of laptop for its highest end model with its highest end price tag, it's not like 15" is some ultra niche size, as I said it's the most popular choice of size for laptop computers as a whole, and Apple doesn't have an offering in the category that would appeal to most prospective buyers, outside of the heavy-duty pro users.

    So am I alone or would anyone else like to see a 14-15 inch non-pro MacBook using less powerful cpus like the i5 7300u in the surface pro (which, while a regular 15w ultra book cpu, could likely be made fanless as with the surface pro in a larger machine) at a price more in line with the current 13 inch options to give you the choice? I'm not asking for a bottom-dollar machine with compromise upon compromise to meet a price point, just a solid 15" option for those who don't need to spend 2k+ on a configuration to suit our needs.

    The two options I could see would be re-purposing the 2012-15 15" pro design using lower wattage cpus, and more components in common with the cheaper MBP 13", or designing a scaled up 12" MacBook from scratch. I'd imagine the former would be cheaper if Apple just wanted to dip its toe in the water to test the market.
     
  2. Stefan johansson macrumors 65816

    Stefan johansson

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2017
    Location:
    Sweden
    #2
    A larger screen would make a laptop too bulky to carry around. I used a 17 inch Alienware for many years,of course it was a great gaming machine,but carrying it was mostly out of the question. I prefer a lightweight laptop,and if I need more screen size,I just use a HDMI adapter,a cable,and a standard 40-55 inch TV set.
     
  3. dwfaust, Aug 19, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2017

    dwfaust macrumors 68040

    dwfaust

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    I am here => [•]
    #3
    One reason, IMO for no 15" ultra light is the fact that Apple is obsessed to a fault with thinness of their products. Something that large and that thin would be extremely likely to see damage in terms of breaking and bending. They had issues with the iPhone bending - something significantly smaller than a 15" laptop... can you imagine how fragile a 15" version of the retina MacBook might be?
     
  4. Erdbeertorte macrumors demi-goddess

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    #4
    Over three years ago I purchased a used 17-inch Late 2011 MBP and last December a refurbished Early 2016 12-inch MB, which are both fast enough for my use case. I purchased the new one only because the 17-inch is too heavy for using it everywhere.

    Since a while I only use the 12-inch because I don't like to always maintain two MacBooks to keep them exactly the same software wise.

    Upgrading from 12 to 13-inch (nTB) doesn't make much sense to me and the 15-inch is way too expensive for what I'll do with it.

    I don't need a dGPU and the CPU power of last and this years 15-inch and am also fine with one USB-C 3.1 Gen. 1 port for now.

    So I would be happy with just putting similar or slightly better internals what my current 12-inch MacBook has in a light, thin and MOST IMPORTANT rose gold case :D with a much larger display where I don't have a need to use this:

    Screen Shot 2017-08-19 at 4.20.54 PM.png
     
  5. maerz001 macrumors 6502

    maerz001

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    #5
  6. Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    #6
    Absolutely! To me, 12" is perfect. If you want larger, simply buy the 13" non TB MBP - it's very little extra price wise. I really don't understand this 'I want a bigger MacBook' thing. The non TB MBP is lighter than the Air. Such first world problems guys! Please don't complicate things!!! Appreciate what you've got - stop comparing amazing Mac's to rubbish Windows computers - A REAL Mac user would never do that!!! (it's like comparing your Ferrari to a new Ford Focus) and Go out more!!!
    --- Post Merged, Aug 19, 2017 ---
    If you're looking a LG Windows rubbish, you really should not be on a Mac page. It's insulting!
     
  7. maerz001, Aug 19, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2017

    maerz001 macrumors 6502

    maerz001

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    #7
    Oh boy. Come down.
    First this post was about bigger than 13" displays which just leaves the 15" MBP for double the price and double the weight.

    And second Apple for sure also checks the rubbish windows world to know their competitors. They aren't that blind. So my post said the direction of making a 14" laptop with the weight of the rMB is the right direction. I didn't say a LG in general is the better laptop. But some details;)

    Third the MBP is not lighter
     
  8. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #8
    Is the 15” screen really the most popular in overall PC/Apple sales? It sure feels like the industry has narrowed in on 12-14” as the sweet spot.
     
  9. Falhófnir thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Falhófnir

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2017
    #9
    Exactly, think people talking about portability have somwhat missed the point of the thread, which is about having a >13" option without having to buy the top end pro.

    To be specific it's the standard 15.6 16:9 that's the most common, though 13.3 has rapidly established itself as the more portable standard size to build a machine around. Of course Apple use a 15.4 16:10 and 13.3 16:10 so they are already slightly larger in screen area due to the squarer aspect ratio. Probably one of the best 'features' of MacBooks having the extra vertical space.

    Wow, don't you just read the darnedest things on the internet...
     

Share This Page