...I want a BMW 7 series that looks like the 3 series but i'm asking them to take the V12 engine and put it in the 3 series chasis.
...which is not possible. Terrible analogy.
...I want a BMW 7 series that looks like the 3 series but i'm asking them to take the V12 engine and put it in the 3 series chasis.
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
As someone who has never used OSX, I can't understand all the hype for Windows 10. It's basically 8 with a start menu. Overall speed certainly isn't improved, and I chuckled a bit at your assertion that "file copy" is something to appreciate. Is that a problem with OSX?
As for the touch screen issue, I still haven't used that feature and I've had Windows 8 since it came out. It doesn't seem... Practical? I mean, the mouse and keyboard is a powerful combo. For what I use my PCs for (Photoshop, Minecraft, writing using Word and Scrivener, Internet stuff you can't do on a phone, etc.), a touch screen is really useless. It's great on a phone, but not on a large device meant for productivity and long-term use.
If the new MacBook Pro comes with touchscreen, I'll honestly be a little disappointed and confused. It's just not a practical user interface for a laptop.
The biggest strength of the rMBP is also it's weakness now. The screen resolution needs to be improved. That will be the biggest upgrade.
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.
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.
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: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.
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?
So its either them lying about it then, or lying about increasing it now.
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 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:
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.
scaling has nothing to with with the display ppi. you can still distinguish only X ppi through your eye.Scaling. The very simple answer to the question as to why Apple should increase the resolution, is scaling.
Marketing can't be based on lies, but proof of concept
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.
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 by 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.
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.
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.
Doesn't matter, you don't get it, go and buy a Hummer.
scaling has nothing to with with the display ppi. you can still distinguish only X ppi through your eye.
Hey, if it's a feature people feel strongly about I'll support it. But I personally don't see a use, and all I want is for you, who does see a use, to describe what those uses are. I'm not being accusatory, just curious how other people do things. Heck, you might even give me some insight into ways I can use my stuff more effectively!
But what, exactly, do you use the touchscreen and pen for? Web browsing, document creation, image work, video, gaming... What?
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.
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.
why would you lose visual fidelity if you cannot distinguish beyond 300 ppi in the first place? (as claimed by Apple)