Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The next MacBook Pro redesign (merged)
- Thread starter nope7308
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I haven't read every single comment on this topic, but here's my idea of Apple's future lineup (based on some vague rumors / my ideas):
View attachment 616970
I quite like how this turned out.
Pretty simple thinking really; MacBook in 12" and 14" sizes which replace the 11" and 13" models (MBA & MBP), 16" MacBook Pro which replaces the 15" MBP.
The screen sizes sound confusing at first, but in the end you get more screen real estate for every model in a similar sized housing (I modelled the picture above to the "Compare Mac Models" picture from the Apple site with 12, 13 and 15" sizes).
Personally, I really like the 12" MacBook which is why I wanted all models to look like it. Additionally I think the current 13" MBP has to much overlap with the 13" MBA which is why I'd replace it with one 14" MacBook instead.
Now comes the 'future' part; processing power.
Basically, the current 12" MacBook doesn't perform as well as the Airs. So for the future, it should be comparable to 13" MBA - 13" MBP - 15" MBP power wise, ranging from the smallest to biggest screened model as pictured above.
Maybe the Pro gets fans and gets a little thicker, don't know about exact processors. Battery life should be around 9-12 hours. 14" MacBook should have at least two Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) ports, 16" Pro should have all its Pro ports.
Oh, and they all come in Space Grey, Silver, Gold and Rose Gold
That sounds like the way it'll go in my opinion, as well. I wonder if they'll split the 14 inch options and try and make a 14 inch MBP with a quad core CPU +/- dGPU? I'm currently rocking a 15 inch MBP but such a device would make it an interesting proposition to upgrade to that vs a potential 16 inch MBP.
So I guess you didn't buy Apple's logic behind the "retina" branding
From a consumer standpoint, if Apple claims that they've improved the "retina" display resolution, they should be sued for cheating or falsifying facts. Though I wouldn't expect it from the American corporate owned-FTC."normal viewing distance" is no defined size.
Also: different humans, different eyesight.
I'm definitely able to tell the difference between retina and even higher resolutions, allthough I have to admit that it's not worth the trade offs in battery life and graphics power to drive the display.
Also: different humans, different eyesight.
I'm definitely able to tell the difference between retina and even higher resolutions, allthough I have to admit that it's not worth the trade offs in battery life and graphics power to drive the display.
When was the last time Apple made a revision to the camera in the rMBP? What is the current resolution of it? Is it good enough or is it one of the things Apple should improve upon? PFKMan23 said on the previous page the 5MP front camera in the 6S gives him hope.
How does the camera on the rMBP compare to other high end laptops?
How does the camera on the rMBP compare to other high end laptops?
So I guess you didn't buy Apple's logic behind the "retina" branding
Improving via increasing contrast/brightness/colordepth/etc is also improving not per se resolution bound.
I can't wait for an upgrade for my 2011 MBP
.
So I guess you didn't buy Apple's logic behind the "retina" branding
I doubt that -- they'd just brand it as "Retina Ultra HD" or similar. There's always a new tagline they can employ to convey that it's better than the old, without necessarily damaging the old brand.
They've already did the "Retina" to "Retina HD" change on the phones, so the "Retina" keyword isn't exactly sacred or all-encompassing.
The point is not about their branding its about their honesty. Listen the Job's iphone 4 announcement and all the hype (lies?) about the magic number of the human retina having 300ppi limit and their retina display having 326 ppi. They sold the "retina" display on the basis of the "fact" that the human retina cannot distinguish beyond this ppi. Now you tell me - from pure logic, what would be the point of increasing that ppi if the human eye cannot distinguish anyways? So its either them lying about it then, or lying about increasing it now. Here's the link, check around time 7.25:
The camera is 720p. I think they should upgrade it to 1080p Full HD since the screen is high res. In 2011, Apple switched from the iSight which had a 480p camera to the 720p HD one.
Marketing can't be based on lies, but proof of concept, like taking a series of surveys and using the most liable numbers to back up promotional claims.
I believe exposure to more pixels per inch will make us more aware of the extra density and tighten the gap between screen and reality. It's an experiment and a bet I feel is safe to promote rather than to safeguard old technology. There will always be a mass of legacy technology on the second hand markets for dwellers of the past.
All improvements are welcome. Even the little ones...
Last edited:
Scaling. The very simple answer to the question as to why Apple should increase the resolution, is scaling.
And yet they released a new iPhone with "Retina HD display". They're not going to limit improving the screen on a MacBook Pro because of the retina name.
sure. only because agencies like FTC are toothless.
[doublepost=1456181849][/doublepost]
scaling has nothing to with with the display ppi. you can still distinguish only X ppi through your eye.
[doublepost=1456181888][/doublepost]
correct, but it is based on lies, and Jobs did a good number with it.
PPI = DPI and books are usually printed at 300 DPI so that's more dots / pixels than enough for the human eye. Everything higher, it's going to be pure marketing, specially when it rises prices and lower battery life.
PD @Exile714 all the hype with W10 cames from the same users who hated W8 because they thought that they had to use the ugly metro interface and that W8 was only optimiced for touch users (which isn't true). That said... universal apps, microsoft apps (images, mail, videos, music), dx12, xbox integration w/ crossplay / crossbuy, cortana, multiple desktops, notification center, real scaling ui, microsoft edge (which is in deed faster than chrome), are just some of the new features which made it an upgrade big enough to be hyped about. It's still an unfinished OS though, but still a great OS.
Also agree, touch screen seems pointless for vertical surfaces.
PD @Exile714 all the hype with W10 cames from the same users who hated W8 because they thought that they had to use the ugly metro interface and that W8 was only optimiced for touch users (which isn't true). That said... universal apps, microsoft apps (images, mail, videos, music), dx12, xbox integration w/ crossplay / crossbuy, cortana, multiple desktops, notification center, real scaling ui, microsoft edge (which is in deed faster than chrome), are just some of the new features which made it an upgrade big enough to be hyped about. It's still an unfinished OS though, but still a great OS.
Also agree, touch screen seems pointless for vertical surfaces.
I disagree with this. Let's have Intel worry about battery life, as that's going to be one of the key selling points for Intel as performance is no longer as viable due to transistor density issues. Raising the quality of hardware is the opposite of marketing, and with your "good enough" statement, it is a strong indicator that you are biased by or towards advertised claims from Apple.
Touch will bring another dimension, even on laptops, as long as it doesn't interfere with traditional input methods. It will require better hardware and in the end only benefit you as a consumer. The worst thing you can hope for is really a CPU bump paired with a jump in price.
Pixels, money, houses, cars, lovers...it's all the same. It is never enough.
Last edited:
I'm not against leveling up the hardware, but only when all the hardware can work together. Today laptop's CPU, GPU and batteries can't handle 4k in a solvent-practical way. Once we reach that point I'll be happy with 4k screens.
That's why at the moment it's pure marketing for users so they can say: "Haha you still on 1800p and I have 4k" while I'm more in the "Haha you got 6 hours less of battery life than me for not real improvements" But again... there are people who use a Hummer to go to the grocery , and people who find a Mercedes-benz / BMW "good enough" ...
Solvent practical?
The current MacBook Pro 15" from 2015 have no problems with 4K. Battery will be solved by more efficient power management from Intel and AMD/Nvidia. Not by excluding newer technology.
If I can be more effective through touch and with richer resolutions, battery comes second, even though the total time of operation is shortened. Its the same with the iPhone. The increments in usage and performance outweigh the need for battery.
Features and performance can't really be compared to something as general as consumable energy. Getting charged is a breeze compared to developing, financing and delivering improvements for millions/billions of consumers. Again, Nostalgia may be bought for half price or less second hand.
Last edited:
The current rMBP 2015 <screen panel> is 1800p that's 4 million pixels away from being a 4K screen. It doesn't matter what you display on it, it will consume power as a 1800p monitor. Quote: "Battery <will> be solved by more efficiente power..." Yes... that's exactly what I said, once we get to that point, but not now.
4K, or as you said <richer resolution> doesn't make you more effective, au contraire, you are forcing CPU, GPU and therefore having worse performance, more heat and less battery life than you'll have with 1800p.
Doesn't matter, you don't get it, go and buy a Hummer.
Yes, Hummers are great if you use a matching set of roads. That brand of cars are sold from 32000 USD and up, so not comparable to Apple products if you exclude vanity Apple Watch models. I can't see myself using a MacBook Pro while driving.
Last edited:
You lose visual fidelity and take performance hit from scaling to higher resolutions on the Macbook Pro. A higher native resolution would eliminate or diminish this.
pen:: for note-taking during lektures, annotating pdf's
touchscreen:: reading pdf's and books, enlarge webpages -- much easier compared to a trackpad, discussing things with other people in front of the pc - allowing them to point to, enlarge, open weblinks ..., it sounds a little bit strange but while lying in the bed it is much easier to touch the screen
Last edited:
why would you lose visual fidelity if you cannot distinguish beyond 300 ppi in the first place? (as claimed by Apple)
First off, the Macbook Pro isn't at 300ppi. It's at about 220 for the 15" and 227 for the 13". Secondly, because when you scale to a different resolution the Macbook needs to render the display at a x2 resolution and then scale down to 2880 x 1800. This causes a loss in fidelity as well as a performance hit because the graphics card needs to work that much harder.
Also, you're forgetting the distance part in determining the optimal ppi, but that's not all that important to what I've said.
- Status