Would you buy a new 17" MacBook Pro if Apple made one?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by booksbooks, Nov 12, 2017.

?

Would you buy a new 17" MacBook Pro if Apple made one?

  1. Yes

    57.5%
  2. No

    42.5%
  1. baypharm macrumors 68000

    baypharm

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #76
    Well Apple is betting their stock that people will turn up enmasse to buy their new imac pro which will cost close to $20K completely decked out. So I guess there are people out there with their homes already paid off.
     
  2. R2FX macrumors regular

    R2FX

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    #77
    Absolutely! Still using my old 17" 2.33GHz from 2006 (with SSD) and love the screen estate. My main machine is now 15" mid 2014 and I love it (runs Mavericks) but would immediately move on to new 17" if there was one. 17" was a desktop replacement for me, now with TB3 and eGPU it would be one in literal sense too
    --- Post Merged, Nov 20, 2017 ---
    This argument is pretty piss poor - back in 2012 there were no 17" retina displays & GPU to drive it, it's pointless to talk about their price. Now in 2017 it would be quite possible (I haven't seen 17" retina though) but GPU's are not a problem... I would gladly pay any premium for that form factor
     
  3. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #78
    Its 2017, the desktop/laptop market is shrinking, and while Apple is holding it own, I don't believe it makes sense to resurrect a form factor that Apple once used and didn't sell well enough is justifiable.
     
  4. Beachguy macrumors 65816

    Beachguy

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #79
    I was trying to make it sound like it would cost as much as my home. Looking now, I missed THAT mark. That said, you again illustrated my point- that Apple has decided that an arm and a leg isn't enough for their machines.
     
  5. turbineseaplane macrumors 601

    turbineseaplane

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    #80
    That really isn't the question being asked by the thread title.
    Are you responding to a post in the thread or the title?
     
  6. tobefirst macrumors 68040

    tobefirst

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #81
    I would not. The base 15" is out of my price range, so the 17" definitely would be.
     
  7. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #82
    I'm providing my opinion regarding the 17" laptop and as such that I don't think we'll ever see it at this point.
     
  8. baypharm macrumors 68000

    baypharm

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #83
    Perhaps. And it makes me wonder why Apple would bring out an almost $20,000 machine that only a handful of users will be able to afford let alone use to capacity. Maybe it will meet the same fate as the much desired 17” form factor?
     
  9. Queen6 macrumors 604

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Flying over the rainforest at dawn - Priceless
    #84
    Kudos and to show it's prowess little more. Apple wants the average consumer to think they are purchasing a "Pro" machine, something special as this is intrinsic to Apple's sales and marketing. Another factor is the tech press as Apple has been taking significant flak here, enter the iMac Pro, equally yet another "hamstrung" platform, equally it will generate massive press which is exactly what Apple wants...

    Q-6
     
  10. MBPro17 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    #85
    Wow, I am on my 3rd 17" Macbook Pro. I just happened to catch the last one, the late 2011 machine. Maxed it out at the time, the 2.5 Ghz, the 512 SSD from Apple, and the 8 GB of RAM. I think I paid close to $5,000 at the time with tax, over $4,000 for sure. The 512 SSD was at least $1,000 option at the time, maybe $1,500. Since then I brought the RAM up to 16 GB and swapped the hard drive for a Samsung Pro 1 TB.

    I am on my 3rd Logic Board, the two replacements paid for by Apple, although I paid for the first replacement myself and was reimbursed years later. Last year I had a keyboard issue and replaced the entire "Top case" which includes the keyboard, track pad, and top surface. Also changed the battery last year. Since the first board went I set the fans to run at 4000 RPM base but didn't stop it from going again.

    It's not about resolution, it's about screen space and being able to see what you have in front of you. I can't easily drag a desktop and large monitor into bed with me some nights.

    I have travelled around the world with it without any problems. It weighs 6.6 pounds. The current 15" weighs 4 pounds. What would a new 17" weigh, maybe 5 pounds, or God forbid 5.5 pounds. How lazy are you people? Join a gym if you can't carry around an extra pound or two.

    Would love a new 17" with the latest performance and the slimmer body. Until then I will keep this machine going as long as I can.
     
  11. jljue macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Location:
    Brandon, MS
    #86
    While not quite a Mac and not exactly apples to apples, I've had a 17" HP ZBook workstation that was a beast to have to carry around when traveling and a terrible nuisance to deal with when working inside a vehicle. Also, I had too many problems with the laptop and backpack sliding under the airplane seat, since I sometimes got stuck on a last-minute flight in a crappy seat with limited leg room. I downgraded to a 15" HP Elitebook 850 G3 that is so much smaller and lighter that works better for my travels, but it still feels big in vehicles. The 15" with the same resolution is a good compromise that works well as an all-around computer for me.

    I currently have a 27" iMac and had a 15" MacBook Pro with 27" ACD at home for personal and part-time work use, and I couldn't have enjoyed the part-time work with anything larger than a 15" Mac.
     
  12. Falhófnir macrumors 68040

    Falhófnir

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2017
    #87
    A little off topic, but the laptop/ desktop market has actually returned to (relatively modest) growth in recent times. I agree though that a 17” is unlikely, unless they decide they absolutely must have a portable with considerably more power than they can squeeze into the 15” chassis.
     
  13. cambookpro macrumors 603

    cambookpro

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #88
    I found our old 17" PowerBook G4 the other day - it seems comically large compared to what we're used to now. Even if it was the same thickness/bezel size as the current MBP, I couldn't go back to something that big.

    I'd probably go for an even smaller (~11-12") MBP if they made one. A computer the size of the retina MacBook but with more powerful processors, 4 TB3, Touch Bar & Touch ID (Face ID?!) would be perfect. I use a 27" monitor at home, and just want a really portable machine for being on the go.
     
  14. ZapNZs macrumors 68020

    ZapNZs

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2017
    #89
    Using a retina MacBook as my portable machine now, I would say yes, absolutely, with one catch - that is, either A) it not be priced significantly higher than the 15-inch if it doesn't really have any different features, or B) it is priced significantly higher than the 15-inch but it has several very different/more premium features (e.g., an enhanced GPU, more Thunderbolt ports, better CPU, more RAM, larger SSD, etc.)
     
  15. Freyqq macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #90
    No, if Apple made one, it would start a $3,000+
     
  16. MH01 Suspended

    MH01

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #91
    Still use my 2009, only one problem, not sure I would buy it the new form factor, a 2015 unit , would be perfect
     
  17. R2FX macrumors regular

    R2FX

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    #92
    I dunno....How big will the iMac Pro segment be? They admitted to misjudge the desktop Pro segment with 2013 model. From segmentation perspective their laptop offer is a mess too at the moment. It's always good to have 3 models regardless of sales as the most expensive always works as an anchor. Right now I have no idea why they have so many models in the middle and the high end looks same as the others with lesser SSD, weaker CPU/GPU.

    Screen size can be reused - Apple went back 12" size (PB G4 to current Macbook) because it wanted to trail blaze something new (compact fan-less design). The trend towards larger screens is quite obvious in iOS devices (especially the 12" iPad Pro) and people are willing to pay premium for the screen estate.
     
  18. hotmetal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #93
    As a freelance designer I really appreciate my 2011 17" (16GB RAM, 1TB SSD). For some of us who literally need a 'portable desktop' to work on at client sites for 8-9 hours a day, any extra weight is a small price to pay for a half-decent screen size. At nearly 50, I can't really see the pixels on my non-retina screen but like the extra physical size. Especially as I use a Wacom tablet in front of it which means the screen is a bit further away. If I can carry my 2011 MBP around (I do, and yes I admit it is heavy), I would love to have a 17" modern one, which would be smaller and lighter than my existing one, and I wouldn't be constantly worrying about logic board failure. Although I guess I'd have to worry about how to pay for it and whether the keyboard would last! I'm aware that my age and use case makes me a tiny subset of Apple's target market, and it will never happen, but one can but dream.
     
  19. MC6800 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2016
    #94
    Close to my use-case; there may be a lot of us with both aging eyes and machines.

    Apple brought back the small iPhone, so why not the large MBP?
     
  20. Falhófnir macrumors 68040

    Falhófnir

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2017
    #95
    Hmm, well I’m considerably younger than yourself but I still don’t like using 13” laptops as I find eye strain symptoms are worse when everything is rendered smaller on screen. That means either scaling up to where you are hurting for space resolution wise, or leaning in uncomfortably close to the screen (which causes a different type of eye strain as you’re focusing unusually close for long periods of time). I still have no idea why Apple’s default screen size is 13” and 15” options are limited to a single high end model. I don’t think 17” would work for me as I still like to move around a fair amount, but I can definitely see the appeal.
     
  21. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #96
    I'm a few years into my 50s, and I can see why the 17" could be a good thing :) I've had a 13" MBP and found the screen to be too limiting, not just because of eye strain but also screen real estate. I have a 15" MBP and that works well for me. I also have a 13" Surface Pro and found that to be decent. The scaling is set so I can read the screen but I still find that form factor to be too limiting. My 15" laptop is getting long in the tooth, being a 2012, so I am wondering if I need to replace it in the near future.
     
  22. Mr. Dee macrumors 68000

    Mr. Dee

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Location:
    Jamaica
    #97
    Persons keep saying, it would be too expensive. I guess you are looking at it from the price of the base high end model 15 inch. Remember, there is no 17 inch existence, thats why the $2,800 15inch MacBook Pro exist.

    If Apple were to re-introduce the 17 in MacBook Pro, it would actually replace that model. If you needed more features, of course, the cost would go up.

    I think Apple could repurpose the 2015, 15 inch MBP chassis and use up the bezel to push it to maybe 16 to 17.1 inches.
     
  23. Queen6 macrumors 604

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Flying over the rainforest at dawn - Priceless
    #98
    Bottom line was the 17" didn't sell in sufficient numbers, partially due to Apple not really differentiating the larger notebook with it being basically only a scaled up 15" MBP and a significantly higher price tag. Markets undoubtedly do exist given a high end portable workstation's can easily exceed $10K USD, equally Apple's focus is the consumer wanting a premium experience, not the traditional professional markets.

    The key is the current MBP, Apple has already diluted the notebook, the majority of the market for 17" notebooks being professional's needing a portable heavy lifter and or gamers. It's just not in Apple's DNA to diversify into such new realms with Apple becoming if anything; staid, boring and thoroughly unimaginative...

    In short I don't see any opportunity for a resurgence of the 17" MB. If by some remote chance Apple did reintroduce the 17" MBP best we can hope for is more of the same; reduced features in a larger format, Thinner Desktops and all...

    Q-6
     
  24. Mr. Dee macrumors 68000

    Mr. Dee

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Location:
    Jamaica
    #99
    This is not a good sign for Apple and its a trend thats happening among many professionals. Apple seriously dropped the ball on this one. But many are defending the 2016/17 because they have no choice but to do so. Come on, who wouldn't defend their purchase after spending near 3000 to 4000 in some cases.

    http://blog.blairbunting.com/microsoft-surface-book-2/

    In 2018 or 2019, we are gonna see the mea culpa release of the MacBook Pro, then the silence will be deafening. I'm collecting all threads from the defense team on the forums so I can do my 'I told you so posts'.
     
  25. nikster0029 macrumors 6502a

    nikster0029

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    #100
    If the bezels of the laptop were shrunken just like Dell XPS line, im sure the 17" won't be much bigger than the 15" in physical dimensions.
     

Share This Page