Will Apple ever build the 17 (or 16.5) inch MBP? [Merged]

[Stephen.R]

which became less relevant by next year when retina models were introduced (as I also wrote in the same very sentence you quoted but conveniently decided to let that very part out).

How is the following year relevant, if the point is "what advantage did the 17" have over the 15"? That's like asking "should I shave my head or get a crew cut?" and someone saying "it will snow next winter, so wear a hat".

That is why I left it out - because it's exactly what I'm talking about - you're trying to frame this as "the 17" is no better than a 15" retina".

 

[Ploki]

So, you consider increased screen size (so that the increased resolution is still readable), additional USB and an expansion slot that could provide future-proofing upgrades like USB3 or eSATA, could host an SSD, etc "minor details".

Clearly you never used those features if you ever had one. That's fine, not everyone uses all the features of a computer - but I really don't understand how you can claim "it had no advantage". I didn't say lots of people use those features, I didn't say they should have kept them in current models. I said, the 17" had extra features/ports not found on the 15" and to disregard them as "minor details" is frankly being ignorant about what it is being discussed.

Practically nobody had thunderbolt docks back then - people complain now about the number of USB ports a MacBook Pro has - and yet somehow having two additional expansion options - one common, low-speed and one less-common but relatively high speed.

2008s had ExpressCard 34. I had an eSata port on it.

2.5gbps of the expresscard wasn't bad, but don't forget that both 15" and 17" 2011 featured a thunderbolt 1 port, which had 4x the bandwidth.

 

[willmtaylor]

I wasn't a Mac user back in the day of the 17 inch MBP, but I do recall seeing a fair amount of them and wanting one pretty badly at the time. I regret not getting one.

Any chance Apple will build the 17 again? I'd buy it.

Probably not b/c it’s too large for most folks, but I predict that in 4-5 years the iPhone Plus’ screens will have gotten about that size, so that’s something.

 

[Stephen.R]

2008s had ExpressCard 34. I had an eSata port on it.

2.5gbps of the expresscard wasn't bad, but don't forget that both 15" and 17" 2011 featured a thunderbolt 1 port, which had 4x the bandwidth.

Right - but as I'm sure you're aware ExpressCard is an industry wide thing - Thunderbolt pre-v3 was largely an Apple thing (despite Intel's involvement). I doubled the internal SSD storage with an extra one in the express card slot - and it made no external difference (as opposed to e.g. a TB1 SSD)

And it's not like the 17" gave up TB1 for ExpressCard - it gave up a single specific card reader, for a slot that could also - you guessed it - host a multitude of different card readers.

 

[Ploki]

Right - but as I'm sure you're aware ExpressCard is an industry wide thing - Thunderbolt pre-v3 was largely an Apple thing (despite Intel's involvement). I doubled the internal SSD storage with an extra one in the express card slot - and it made no external difference (as opposed to e.g. a TB1 SSD)

And it's not like the 17" gave up TB1 for ExpressCard - it gave up a single specific card reader, for a slot that could also - you guessed it - host a multitude of different card readers.

I wasn't happy with the 2009 switch to SD card reader either.

it's such a niche port... I see TB3 ports as Expresscard on the unibody models.

imagine a 15" with just charging port and 4 express card slots. this is what the 2016-201x models are

 

[Stephen.R]

I see TB3 ports as Expresscard on the unibody models.

In some ways that's not far off - it's effectively external(pluggable) PCI Express + USB, and the standard is maintained by USB-IF.

Given the popularity of USB-C in the generic PC industry, I think the TB3 bet on piggybacking on the port is a good one - and because for most things what you need now is an adapter cable not a full card with ports, its a much easier concept for average people to use it.

 

[theluggage]

They are literally the same computer sans size and I think the 17” has some weird memory slot rather than an SD card slot plus an extra USB.

Sigh. Any port I don’t use must be useless.

It had an industry-standard ExpressCard slot - basically external PCIe - a feature that had been dropped from the rest of the range. Thoroughly obsolete in 2019, but in 2011, at a time before Thunderbolt devices were widely available, would have been essential for some users who needed to add specialist interfaces as well as various types of card reader. I know that there were also devices used by video editors that used it (digitisers and TV-standard preview I believe). I used mine to add 2 USB3 sockets without occupying the sole Thunderbolt port (which was also the only external display connection).

Of course, unlike Thunderbolt, you could plug in an Express card (OK some had big external lumps) and leave it in place without messing up the portability of the Mac.

...the extra USB port was useful, and the screen was a vast upgrade - both in physical size and resolution) over the non-retina 15” - $300 extra for that is nothing by Apple standards!

Anyway, a “modern” 17” would probably be packing a 4K or similar display that would give a similar usable screen-estate advantage over the 15” - maybe with more ports and space for a properly cooled CPU/GPU and decent size battery. No, I don’t think it’s likely, but the current Mac range seriously lacks choice if you don’t value thickness and weight over versatility.
[doublepost=1550150749][/doublepost]

Given the popularity of USB-C in the generic PC industry, I think the TB3 bet on piggybacking on the port is a good one - and because for most things what you need now is an adapter cable not a full card with ports, its a much easier concept for average people to use it.

Well, it’s a good bet for Intel, because it’s a way to get their controller chip adopted as the go-to USB-C controller. Doesn’t mean it’s good for anybody else, though. For one thing, every USB, DisplayPort, HDMI port a and even power input suddenly needs 2 PCIe lanes and a feed from the GPU - consequence: laptops with only 2 or 4 ports for everything, and suddenly external docks/hubs are a necessity rather than a luxury.

...and if you think USB-C is easier for average people to use... ROTFL! People learn from the age of 6 months that the square pegs go into the square holes, which used to be a pretty good first guess. Now, everything is a USBC shaped hole and you’re worrying about which physically-identical flavour of cable you’re plugging in. Would that be a charge-and-USB2-one cable? Fast charge enabled? Active Thunderbolt? Passive Thunderbolt? Is your USBC display DisplayPort? (Apple/LG 4K display - one set of rules) or Thunderbolt (Apple/LG 5k, another set of rules)... and the second sort of HDMI adapter that requires HDMI native mode hasn’t hit the shelves yet...

Piggybacking multiple, unrelated functions onto a single socket only makes things more complicated, not simpler - and it’s a hassle that is only necessary on phones (which will probably be going all-wireless soon, anyway).

 

[Fishrrman]

A question that comes up regularly in this forum:
"Will Apple ever build the 17 inch MBP again?"

Fishrrman's "regular" answer:
No.

 

[Plutonius]

Any chance Apple will build the 17 again?

I doubt it.

 

[0388631]

Hopefully. If they do, I'd probably buy at least two.

 

[Stephen.R]

...Snip...

I'm not going to debate the merits of Thunderbolt3/USB-C here, but I think you misunderstood.

When I said:

its a much easier concept for average people to use it

I was referring to Thunderbolt (in general - a high bandwidth PCI port that can be adapted to multiple tasks over a cable) vs ExpressCard - cards that can be tricky to insert/remove, get stuck etc.

Even as a technical user I found when looking for ExpressCard SSD's that a number mentioned only in the fine print, that they used the USB (2.0 I believe) connection rather than PCI, and thus would have been woefully slow.

 

[Falhófnir]

Sigh. Any port I don’t use must be useless.

It had an industry-standard ExpressCard slot - basically external PCIe - a feature that had been dropped from the rest of the range. Thoroughly obsolete in 2019, but in 2011, at a time before Thunderbolt devices were widely available, would have been essential for some users who needed to add specialist interfaces as well as various types of card reader. I know that there were also devices used by video editors that used it (digitisers and TV-standard preview I believe). I used mine to add 2 USB3 sockets without occupying the sole Thunderbolt port (which was also the only external display connection).

Of course, unlike Thunderbolt, you could plug in an Express card (OK some had big external lumps) and leave it in place without messing up the portability of the Mac.

...the extra USB port was useful, and the screen was a vast upgrade - both in physical size and resolution) over the non-retina 15” - $300 extra for that is nothing by Apple standards!

Anyway, a “modern” 17” would probably be packing a 4K or similar display that would give a similar usable screen-estate advantage over the 15” - maybe with more ports and space for a properly cooled CPU/GPU and decent size battery. No, I don’t think it’s likely, but the current Mac range seriously lacks choice if you don’t value thickness and weight over versatility.

What? Who said anything about useless? I'm sure it had it's fans, but clearly not enough to make the 17" popular enough to continue, that's the sole point I'm making.

Yes I agree with the 4K screen, it would have to be given the 15" pro now defaults to 1680x1050. It would definitely make a difference as I don't find 1200p to be comfortable at 15.4".

Literally the same except bigger screen, higher resolution, additional USB and an expansion slot that e.g. allows you to add USB3 to the computer.. But sure. "Literally the same".

Maybe you're using that new, ironic definition of 'literally' which really means 'practically'?

Literally the same, except for the few differences I noted - as in the main components are the same, just a couple of IO differences and of course the screen which is self evident. Anyway, getting back to the point, clearly not enough people wanted to stump up the extra for the bigger machine without more benefit. If they brought the machine back, it would have to differentiate itself further.

nah, 4K runs fine on UHD630...

Perhaps the basic UI, but what about starting to do anything graphically intensive? Probably wouldn't take too much to kick the dGPU in... and even less with a 2011 era iGPU.

 

[Stephen.R]

Literally the same, except for the few differences I noted

Judges, I'd like to nominate this phrase for oxymoron of the year.

 

[theluggage]

What? Who said anything about useless?

"some weird memory slot rather than an SD card slot" (your words) is pretty dismissive and doesn't suggest an appreciation of what the slot was for...

If they brought the machine back, it would have to differentiate itself further.

I don't think anybody is suggesting otherwise. C.f. the current models, a physically larger laptop could offer more powerful CPU/GPUs with less thermal throttling, larger batteries (the current MBPs used the improved power consumption of newer CPUs to shrink the battery rather than extend the battery life) and maybe space for more internal storage (probably not compatible with Apple's current policy).

I was referring to Thunderbolt (in general - a high bandwidth PCI port that can be adapted to multiple tasks over a cable) vs ExpressCard - cards that can be tricky to insert/remove, get stuck etc.

Seriously? I don't know how pushing an ExpressCard into a slot until it clicks (if it won't go either a: its upside down or b: its a PCMCIA card) counts as difficult (esp. considering that, as a result, its now safely tucked inside your laptop rather than hanging off on a cable).

Sure, the reversibility of the USB-C/TB3 connector is neat, but really overcompensation for the physics-defying trans-dimensional perversity of USB-A. Never met an ExpressCard or PCMCIA card that didn't just slide in label-side-up.

I found when looking for ExpressCard SSD's that a number mentioned only in the fine print, that they used the USB (2.0 I believe) connection rather than PCI

You mean like a "ready to connect to your Thunderbolt™ 3 computer" (caldigit.com) SSD that, when you read the small print, only actually uses USB 3.1? Actually, that ad is a lot clearer than some I've seen in the past, and at least its now a USB 3.1g2 drive (but there are other important practical differences, like TRIM support) - thing is, its now quite legitimate to say that anything with a USB-C plug is "thunderbolt 3 compatible" even if it only uses USB 2.0... and if you want to confuse users you can't do better than the distinctions between a TB3 connector, the TB3 protocol, USB A/B/C connectors, USB 3.0/3.1g1/3.1g2/3.2.whatever protocols, USB-C DisplayPort (and now HDMI) alt mode, DisplayPort over Thunderbolt, TB2 DisplayPort legacy mode...

I'm not suggesting that ExpressCard was somehow perfect (sure, it too combined PCIe, USB2 and USB3 in a single connector, then there were two different physical widths) or that it is anything other than obsolete in 2019. I'm just mocking the notion that the Thunderbolt 3/USB-C/USB3.x/DisplayPort stack and its combinatorial explosion of cable and adapter types is somehow "simple" just because all the plugs are the same shape.

NB: In 2011, the lack of an extra digit in the price would have been a clue that it was a glorified USB stick rather than a fast, HD-replacement SSD. I'm vaguely surprised that ExpressCard SSDs were ever a thing.

 

[jerryk]

I doubt it. I don't think the demand is there. And with more and more cloud offerings the need for corporations to have a higher powered laptops is decreasing.

 

[Stephen.R]

counts as difficult

It's not the getting in that's difficult. If I put mine in my bag and the body flexed slightly, it would sometimes get stuck, it took a lot of fidgeting to get it out again.

You mean like a "ready to connect to your Thunderbolt™ 3 computer" (caldigit.com) SSD that, when you read the small print, only actually uses USB 3.1?

Not really no - it literally says "10 GB/sec USB 3.1 Type C" in the header image, and data below about speeds on various protocols, and compatibility.


I meant the sort of sneaky little details found hidden at the bottom of items on Amazon. When I bought it - there were two variants of ExpressCard SSD. One was purely internal and uses the PCI channels. The other can work in the slot, or had a micro (or mini?) USB port on the "external" end, so it could be used with any arbitrary computer. The problem is even when using it in an ExpressCard slot it apparently used the USB channel.

if you want to confuse users you can't do better

I agree that labelling sucks on some of these products - I have a "spare" USB-C charge cable because I didn't realise it was only 2.0 speeds until after it had shipped, and it's kind of handy to have as a cable in the bag anyway. Honestly USB's plethora of pre-Type-C connectors didn't help matters.

is somehow "simple" just because all the plugs are the same shape.

Literally all I meant by "simple" was "people understand a cable". People have been using USB cables for years, and have had the wrong ones for years too. Adding a card to insert as well makes it less user-friendly for most people, that's all.

In 2011, the lack of an extra digit in the price would have been a clue that it was a glorified USB stick rather than a fast, HD-replacement SSD. I'm vaguely surprised that ExpressCard SSDs were ever a thing.

That's the kicker. The USB version was more expensive, because it had the "use on any computer" feature. It had literally the benefits you mentioned: it becomes an internal part, so nothing sticking out, nothing to leave behind, and given that I'd convinced work to pay for the factory SSD (128GB) this basically doubled the internal storage, without having to futz with replacing the internal drive/optical while it was under warranty.

 

[Ploki]

Perhaps the basic UI, but what about starting to do anything graphically intensive? Probably wouldn't take too much to kick the dGPU in... and even less with a 2011 era iGPU.

Well, it's not meant for graphically intensive applications. It's performance is somewhere in the vicinity of discrete GPU of 2012. You said iMac 4K cannot drive it's panel well... yet Mini with crappier GPU can.

Not talking about 2011s. 2012 HD 4000 could run the 15" fine, 17" would just need to kick dGPU in more often, but it could work.
But 2012 15" ran like crap on 10.7, and partially on 10.8. Took them over a year to iron out all the GUI glitches.

 

[Painter2002]

To put any doubt to rest here are the tech specs from Apple for the 2011 17 and 15 inch models. There was one 17" stock configuration at $2,499 and two 15" models, a $2,199 variant which was specced exactly the same as the 17" pro, and a cheaper $1,799 model which had lesser specs.

https://support.apple.com/kb/SP621?locale=en_GB
https://support.apple.com/kb/SP620?locale=en_GB

Overall with the 15" having much more pricing flexibility and still being considerably cheaper for the same power, it's not difficult to see why the 17" found itself limited to the niche of people who specifically wanted a larger screen. This is probably what led to it's downfall via lacklustre sales. By the time it came to 2012, with retina being the new flagship feature, they’d have probably needed a retina 4K (1920x1200 @2x) because the 15” retina can already display 1680x1050 adequately (which brings us back to the whole what’s the point of paying so much more for the 17” question).

A bit of an assumption here, but if we take the current 4K iMac as an example, it seems they can’t run it ok even given modern day integrated graphics (I assume even more than cost why the lowest end is non retina). For a desktop with a discrete GPU not really an issue, but at least a bit of an issue for a mobile computer back in 2011, even if it’s a desktop replacement that will be plugged in much of the time.

So to finally bring this back to OP's question, if they do ever make a 17" again, I would really expect it to be a sort of super halo product like the iMac pro. Probably starting at at least $3,999 quite possibly even more than that. All enterprise grade components (hence the cost) which will likely be great for many, but if your planned use is anything other than work related 3D modelling, video, coding, etc (pretty much anything you'd also consider an iMac pro for) it would likely be extremely difficult to justify for anything else.

I agree with these points, and I'd also add one other factor... changes to external computer monitors.

Most (if not all) Apple laptops back then could only drive one external monitor, and most affordable monitors in the early 2000's were small and poor resolution (compared to the Macbook Screens at least). By the 2010s, larger widescreen monitors with 1080p were becoming more mainstream and more affordable, making docking a MacBook Pro more viable. In addition MacBook Pro Retina designs of 2012 and on could support dual monitors, and 2016 MBPs and later could support dual 4k monitors with TB3.

I personally am fine with the 15" design, as it seems to be the best for portability with out being to huge, and if it saves me a few hundred dollars that can go towards a nice 2k or 4k monitor.
[doublepost=1550171477][/doublepost]

So, you consider increased screen size (so that the increased resolution is still readable), additional USB and an expansion slot that could provide future-proofing upgrades like USB3 or eSATA, could host an SSD, etc "minor details".

Clearly you never used those features if you ever had one. That's fine, not everyone uses all the features of a computer - but I really don't understand how you can claim "it had no advantage". I didn't say lots of people use those features, I didn't say they should have kept them in current models. I said, the 17" had extra features/ports not found on the 15" and to disregard them as "minor details" is frankly being ignorant about what it is being discussed.

Practically nobody had thunderbolt docks back then - people complain now about the number of USB ports a MacBook Pro has - and yet somehow having two additional expansion options - one common, low-speed and one less-common but relatively high speed.

So I think this argument is getting out of context a bit. We all know that if Apple were to make 17" MacBook Pro now, it would have the same USB-C ports as the 15" MacBook Pro. If anything the 17" might get an extra 1 or 2 USB-C ports over the 15" version, but beyond that I'd have to agree with @Falhófnir that IF Apple were to make a new 17" MacBook Pro in THESE DAYS, not considering previous generations, the primary difference would be screen real estate, and maybe a couple differences on internal chips.

Arguing the differences between 15" and 17" of an 8+ year old generation of MacBook Pros won't change the fact that in today's time the primary difference would likely be screen real estate. I do not realistically expect Apple to add a 17" MBP, just I would not expect that same 17" MBP to have any special ports over the 15" version.

 

[Falhófnir]

I agree with these points, and I'd also add one other factor... changes to external computer monitors.

Most (if not all) Apple laptops back then could only drive one external monitor, and most affordable monitors in the early 2000's were small and poor resolution (compared to the Macbook Screens at least). By the 2010s, larger widescreen monitors with 1080p were becoming more mainstream and more affordable, making docking a MacBook Pro more viable. In addition MacBook Pro Retina designs of 2012 and on could support dual monitors, and 2016 MBPs and later could support dual 4k monitors with TB3.

I personally am fine with the 15" design, as it seems to be the best for portability with out being to huge, and if it saves me a few hundred dollars that can go towards a nice 2k or 4k monitor.

Yeah I think that's a good point, attaching a monitor means you only really need the screen for when you're using it 'on the go' and 15"/ 1680x1050 is probably good enough for most such situations. If a 17" 1920x1200 screen is good, a 24" QHD is better when you want screen space (and two 27" 4Ks better still! ). Of course there will still be use cases that mean constantly moving and wanting as much space as possible, but it seems from the reality of MacBook sales this isn't enough to warrant such a machine being made.

I think I quite like the idea of a 17" 4K machine, but I also think the reality would be somewhat less appealing - for my use case the 15" is probably the sweet spot between portability/practicality and screen space. Particularly given the taller aspect ratio of Macs (definitely one thing I would miss moving to a 16:9 windows alternative).

 

[Queen6]

Personally I do think a 17" notebook has it's own merits and use a modern 17.3" W10 one daily. As for Apple most unlikely to say the least...

For me the productivity boost with a 17.3" is well worth the trade off in portability, especially as some are now only little larger than a conventional 15" notebook. Add in a full port solution, good thermals, multiple drives

Q-6

 

[Cashmonee]

The ExpressCard discussion is certainly interesting, although I am not sure of the relevance since we are talking about a 17" laptop today, not from 8 years ago. Even in 2011 ExpressCard was essentially dead, and that assumes it ever was, which I think is debatable. It was not a highly adopted feature outside of network adapters to my recollection. In 2011 the inclusion of one was not common and pretty pointless for 99% of the population. So I wouldn't look at that as some great differentiator, even at the time.

Regardless, outside of screen size, I am not sure what a 2019 17" MacBook Pro would offer over a 15". The 15" already have the fastest Core processors and I believe the fastest AMD GPU. The 17" could offer Xeon I suppose, but those aren't really faster but rather just specialized toward certain multi-core applications. There might be slightly better thermals, but for a 17" to work nowadays, the chassis couldn't be too much larger than a current 15" which means thermals would be similar. As for ports, TB3 is TB3. I mean maybe they could have 6 instead of 4, but I doubt that since it would require another PCI bus wouldn't it? What would it do to differentiate itself other than screen real estate?

To that end, I think if we see a 17" it would be a replacement for the 15". I do not think they would sell them side-by-side.

 

[Falhófnir]

To that end, I think if we see a 17" it would be a replacement for the 15". I do not think they would sell them side-by-side.

If we are talking about feasible future MacBooks, I could potentially see them splitting the difference with a custom 16 inch rounded-corner panel if they follow iPhone/ iPad aesthetics for the next redesign. Basically with that you'd get native @2x 1680x1050 resolution (3360x2100 physical pixels) and 1920x1200 might be a little bit more comfortable to use as a scaled resolution. Such a machine would have virtually the same footprint as the current 15".

 

[Cashmonee]

If we are talking about feasible future MacBooks, I could potentially see them splitting the difference with a custom 16 inch rounded-corner panel if they follow iPhone/ iPad aesthetics for the next redesign. Basically with that you'd get native @2x 1680x1050 resolution (3360x2100 physical pixels) and 1920x1200 might be a little bit more comfortable to use as a scaled resolution. Such a machine would have virtually the same footprint as the current 15".

I completely agree with this, and in fact, think it could very well happen. If they can get a screen they like, I could see the next MacBook Pros being 14" and 16" in the same footprint.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I don't believe they will.

 

[Stephen.R]

Even in 2011 ExpressCard was essentially dead, and that assumes it ever was, which I think is debatable. It was not a highly adopted feature outside of network adapters to my recollection.

You should let the current vendors know their products market was dead 8 years ago. You can buy FW800, USB3, eSATA, and even SSD's still for ExpressCard slots.

although I am not sure of the relevance since we are talking about a 17" laptop today

The "relevance" was that it was argued the 17" had no benefits over the 15" available at the same time. This was then twisted to somehow compare the pre-retina 17" to the retina 15", to justify a position of 'the 17" had no advantages'