I have to hand it to Apple, they certainly have their fans eating out of the palm of their hands. They put a better GPU in a £200 set-top box than their £800 computers and the fans say that's brilliant.
The only sensible answer has been that it would lower sales of the MBP. But I, as a consumer, don't particularly care for Apple purposely crippling one computer line to increase sales of a more expensive one. Do you guys think that's brilliant too?
Is a £30 GPU too much to ask in a Macbook, when I'm paying £800? Is there any reason why it can't be a BTO?
Yes integrated graphics are "fine" for what the Macbook does. But it would be
better with a real GPU. Don't you guys remember what Apple said about integrated graphics before they suddenly u-turned and put them in their products?
The MacBooks are brilliant computers. But Apple has
purposely built an achillies heel into them in the form of the integrated graphics. The fact that discrete graphics are cheap enough to put in the

tv is a real kick in the teeth of those who would
love to see a go 7300 in their MacBook.
It would make playing games, which certainly isn't a "pro" feature, possible on the Macbook. All you guys who say "If you need graphics buy a MBP" need to ask yourselves "Is playing a game a professional task?" and "Does having the lowest possible GPU in a laptop make it professional". The answer to both is "no", by the way.
Nobody's asking for the best GPU in the world in the MacBook, but one that's
so cheap it can be put in the

tv.
Not only would it mean games could be played but it would increase the quality of videos and
improve performance all round since the GPU isn't sucking RAM from the OS.