[zippy]

Originally Posted by turtle Sure you can tether storage, but why have tethered anything. It's the idea to be wire free?

Cloud storage is the new external HDD. Not everyone is going to be a fan, but I really think that's the goal here.

[PB PM]

The cost per GB of cloud storage has to come down a lot before it replaces external HDDs.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by PB PM The cost per GB of cloud storage has to come down a lot before it replaces external HDDs.

Also the speed needs to go up, and the latency needs to come down. It's almost as if locating your data halfway across the continent and accessing it over a pipe that's shared with the entire internet affects performance.

[pscates2.0]

AppleInsider: Apple expected to launch 13" Retina MacBook Pro by early October.

According to an analyst. Now you know what most of us think about that, but check this out:

Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo of KGI shared in a note with AppleInsider on Thursday that he expects Apple to ramp up production of a 13-inch next-generation MacBook Pro with Retina display in September. That would allow the product to hit stores in early October, in time for the holiday shopping season. Kuo was the first to indicate that Apple would retire its 17-inch MacBook Pro, and that the 15-inch next-generation MacBook Pro with Retina display would be sold alongside the previous-generation MacBook Pro with lower-resolution display and thicker design. Both of those details proved true this week at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference.

So, there's that...a ring of truth/accuracy to it all.

But here's where it all starts to get goofy:

Like the next-generation Retina display MacBook Pro, the 13-inch variety is expected to lack an optical disc drive and rely solely on solid-state flash memory storage...

Yeah, too bad Apple doesn't already have a 13" notebook like this. If only.

...Kuo expects the screen to have a resolution of 2,560 by 1,600 pixels...

Which is twice that of 1280x800...which means the 13" "pro" model still doesn't/wouldn't have the 1440x900 of the 13" Air. Isn't that kinda weird? They've had, what, 2-3 revision cycles to address this, and they never have. Shouldn't the 13" Pro's resolution match that of the Air, just for the sake of appearance and common sense?

...and he said the 13-inch model will be slightly thinner than the 15-inch model, at 18 millimeters.

Damn...if only Apple had a 13" flash-based, no-optical-drive notebook at 17" millimeters!

More than ever - I'm gonna pull a Kraetos here, any minute - I do not get this model's existence or place. Other than a few hundred MHz, what, exactly, will a 18mm 13" MacBook Pro with flash storage and no optical drive have over a 17mm 13" MacBook Air with - you guessed it - flash storage and no optical drive?



Instead, why not work on putting Retina Displays into the 11" and 13" MacBook Air and just leave the next-generation pro notebook at an easy, not-too-big/not-too-small size of 15"?

How's Apple going to market/differentiate these?

"One tapers, the other one doesn't. Pro choice."



The fact that this analyst was dead-on with two things that came to be on Monday makes me think he's probably right about this.

For this new 13" Retina model to fall under the "Pro" heading, will it have the same quad-core i7 as the 15"? Will it have two Thunderbolt ports? HDMI?

Of course not. I seriously, seriously doubt it. The 13" MacBook Pro (like the 12" PowerBook G4) never does match the 15" (and 17") models, spec-for-spec. So why even bother with a "a skootch more capable than the Air, but still not quite as capable as the 15-inch Pro" model and just let those who want a 13" notebook from Apple get the MacBook Air?

In the "pro" realm, wouldn't the return of a 17" model make more sense?

I can understand there being two 13" models when they are drastically different from one another in construction, design, ports, specs, internal components (as is the case with the current 13" Air and Pro...two quite different notebooks). But once they make a next-generation 13" Pro, how does a slight body difference and 200 or so MHz make that big of a difference? Especially if the Air gets a Retina Display at some point (it will), effectively eliminating the one real difference/advantage a new 13" Pro might have?

I have a feeling the lineup, over the next 3-18 months, is about to get really stupid and convoluted, with some crazy overlap and multiple versions of the same line (Retina vs. non-Retina). You can kiss your "easy to figure out"/make a purchase matrix and product grid goodbye for a while, as Apple will probably try to do the "two at once" approach (rolling out redesigned, next-generation versions of their Macs sitting $400 or more above the current-gen, "old school" versions of the same product line). I'm already getting a headache, thinking about it.

I'd prefer they just kept what they had and updated the processors, graphics and USB another cycle or two, and then roll out new, completely redesigned "next generation" models (iMacs, MacBook Airs, Mac mini, etc.) once the prices and components are so that they can simply slide right in and be sold for the same prices the current-generation models are. An easy, 1:1 swap-out/transition. "Out with the old, here's the new, cutting edge stuff we gave you a glimpse of last year at WWDC...you're welcome!"

[Elysium]

I can see them canning the MBA 13" in favor of the MBP 13" Retina. Once the optical drive MBPs are phased out you will be left with:

- 11 inch MBA (no retina, slightly downgraded specs). (e.g. iBook, white MacBook)
- 13 and 15 inch MBP (retina) with potential for a 17 inch as the design is worked out

or by canning the 13 inch MBP you have:

- 11 and 13 inch MBAs with retina displays
- 15 and 17 inch MBPs with retina displays and better specs

[pscates2.0]

Originally Posted by Elysium - 11 and 13 inch MBAs with retina displays - 15 and 17 inch MBPs with retina displays and better specs

I much prefer this one. Four nicely-spaced, distinct sizes.

Two smaller, affordable ones for typical users, covering the $999-1,499 range.

Then (once prices get down to where they were before), two larger models aimed squarely at the design/video/music/photography/3D professionals, with faster this, bigger that, etc. for $1,799 and up.

Just makes way more sense to me. Two affordable, thin-and-light-as-possible "wedges" for the mass market, and two larger, feature-packed, higher-end models for those who need that kind of power and performance.

I don't think they'll can the 13" MacBook Air because a) it has a sexy, unique design (the streamlined taper and the whole "everything you need, nothing you don't" aspect of it).

I'd love to have a crystal ball and glimpse about 9-12 months into the future...the curiosity is gonna kill me.

This is one of those rare times where I wish Apple would just come out and say "okay, everybody STFU...here's what we've got planned for the next 12-18 months, just so you know and can plan your purchases accordingly...".

Because right now, it's a wide-open "who-the-hell-knows?!" scenario.

[Kraetos]

Overlapping 13" Pro and 13" Air is even weirder if the 13" Pro gets the same treatment the 15" just got. At that point, one of them has to go, or it's time for someone to have a serious conversation with Schiller about their product matrix...

Unless the 13" Pro gets dedicated graphics. Then it makes sense. 11/13 Air with Intel graphics, 13/15 Pro with nVidia graphics. Maybe the 17" gets mixed in there as well.

I agree with pscates. The future of Apple's notebook lineup has never been so difficult to predict. It's frustrating. I've decided I'm keeping mine until it all shakes out, as much as I want the new retina 15". It's really weird to me that Apple doesn't think that 11/13 Airs and 15/17 Pros, and nothing else, isn't the obvious solution. After the introduction of the 11" Air and the elimination of the plastic MacBook, it seemed like that's what they were driving at. At that point you could even drop the Air vs Pro distinction, and just call them MacBooks.

[chucker]

Seems pretty simple to me — a few revisions down the line, they'll be merged entirely. It won't be a matter of 13-inch MacBook Air vs. 13-inch MacBook Pro. Rather, it will be 11-inch MacBook, 13-inch MacBook, 15-inch MacBook. Because, really, what is there about the MBP-RD that you could never see being in the MBA? The Retina Display will clearly trickle down eventually, and the dedicated graphics aren't just there because they're a pro feature, but also and perhaps primarily because there's enough room for cooling (consider the 13-inch MBP's lack of them).

[pscates2.0]

I've been saying this for a good while now...as the regular notebooks adopt the things that make the MacBook Air what it is (thin, light, etc.), the "Air" part will no longer have any meaning. And, I suppose, the same could apply toward the "Pro" naming as well.

Maybe a "good" and "better" of each size, but no hang-ups on the names/descriptors. You simply buy what you can afford (or the specs/features you need) and you just have a "MacBook", period.

Although, they might want to keep MacBook Pro around, just because it pertains to machines with dedicated graphics, faster processors, etc. But once all the notebooks lose the optical drive and have Retina displays and SSD-only storage, the "Air" name may as well be dropped. Then it would be a nice, even setup: MacBook and MacBook Pro.

I just don't see them putting dedicated graphics into the 11" and 13" models, so they'd want to somehow set those apart, marketing/perception-wise, I think.

MacBook:
- 11" and 13" in the wedge style
- Integrated graphics
- Affordable, does everything most people need (surfing, Office, iLife, e-mail, etc.)

MacBook Pro:
- 15" (and 17", if it comes back? May not have to, though...)
- Dedicated graphics
- More, bigger, faster this-and-that

Pretty much what I said above, except losing the "Air" name and just having the two simple divisions.

I was thinking last night "are we sure everything will even get the Retina Display?"

We're assuming that it's coming to the entire line, but how long could that take? Especially on the iMacs and Cinema Display? Is it possible that the Retina Display is only intended for the higher-end, pro-level stuff? Or would they want to put it on all Macs? I suppose they would, should the costs all work out.

I still just can't get my head around it, or see the premium worth it. I don't see the damn pixels now, so I'm not crazy about forking over hundreds of dollars extra for something I don't even notice or appreciate. Was anyone really asking for this on the Mac, in any huge, serious numbers?

Or is this Apple just looking to score points and tie their Macs into something that has made their iOS products well-known?

Honestly, I can name 6-10 other, way-more-practical/useful improvements I'd much rather see on the Mac side of things...and that wouldn't add this sort of pricing premium to the line.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

I don't think a retina display driven by the HD4000 integrated GPU will cut it for anyone. Probably have to be the HD6000 or a CPU with 8-16GB of on-die RAM.

[screensaver400]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I still just can't get my head around it, or see the premium worth it. I don't see the damn pixels now, so I'm not crazy about forking over hundreds of dollars extra for something I don't even notice or appreciate. Was anyone really asking for this on the Mac, in any huge, serious numbers?

Just because you don't see the pixels doesn't mean a HiDPI screen isn't worthwhile. I don't think most people "saw the pixels" on their old CRT SDTV, but they still noticed the difference when they upgraded.

Just because people aren't asking for it doesn't mean it's not good.

[pscates2.0]

I don't think it's a bad thing. I just figured there were other, more noticeable things that could be done. I'm sure it's beautiful...it was just never on the list of things I ever imagined, or felt was "lacking" and needed addressing.

[screensaver400]

Like what? That's an honest question... Would, say, 16GB of RAM and the faster CPU have been better to include in the base model than the Retina display?

If this was 2005 I might agree, but I feel like we're past that now.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I was thinking last night "are we sure everything will even get the Retina Display?"

Seems like a safe bet to me. That's like going back to 2002 and saying "are we sure all cell phones will have a color display?" or going back to 1982 and asking the same question about computer monitors. Eventually they'll get cheap enough there's no reason not to. Windows 9 will add real support for HiDPI stuff and then we'll see PCs with "retina displays" as well. Then sometime in 2022 you'll dig up your old iMac from the basement, boot it up for a larf and be taken aback by how ugly the screen looks.

I think chucker has it right. Once the Air's get retina-ized, there's no reason to keep multiple models or even have the Pro/Air distinction. Just three MacBooks at 11", 13", and 15", and possibly a 4th at 17".

Of course, that does leave a huge gap between $1199 and $1799.... seems like a $1499 13" "Pro" with dedicated graphics would fit nicely right there.

[pscates2.0]

Originally Posted by screensaver400 Like what? That's an honest question... Would, say, 16GB of RAM and the faster CPU have been better to include in the base model than the Retina display? If this was 2005 I might agree, but I feel like we're past that now.

Maybe they got everything there they needed now (minimum 4GB, USB 3.0, etc.). I've just never thought my screen was lacking, I guess. Or needed that sort of bump. No, I'm not spec-whore...it's rarely about faster this and bigger that. 16GB for the base model would be overkill, I think. Actually, Apple surprised me here and didn't skimp on the RAM (going with 4GB, on the eve of Mountain Lion, on a non-upgradeable machine). I was very pleased with how they made 8GB the minimum.

I'm not knocking the machine at all. It just never crossed my mind that the resolution was something people were clamoring for, or needing. I guess it's one of those "you don't know/appreciate it until you see it" (although I've had an iPhone 4 for 18+ months and pretty everything except the display has blown me away. It looks good, sure. But they all do, to me (2007 iPhone, all iPads, etc.).

Maybe I need to get my eyes checked or something...

I'm not much of an audiophile type either, where I can get into the weeds over frequencies and can tell the differences between bit rates and whatever. I think a lot of this stuff just goes over, or around, my head. I'm easily impressed and have never been burdened with impossible-to-please, hyper-discerning eyes and ears.

A blessing and a curse, I suppose.

[Kraetos]

pscates, how is your vision? Glasses? No glasses? Contacts?

I have terrible vision so I wear glasses. Without my glasses I can't tell the difference between retina and non-retina unless I hold it right up to my face. But with my glasses, not only can I tell the difference immediately, it's also that non-retina screens look ugly to me. I can see the borders of the pixels and it bothers the shit out of me. I can't do long form reading on an iPad 2 anymore because the low image quality constantly distracts me.

But even if you can see the difference, some people don't care. My roommate just bought an iPad 2 because saving $100 was more important than the screen.

That said, if you have vision reasonably close to 20/20, at 12 inches it shouldn't be hard to tell the difference between a retina iPhone and a non-retina iPhone. Put differently, someone with 20/20 vision should be able to observe pixelation on an iPhone 3GS held within 24 inches of the eye.

[screensaver400]

Yeah, I mean, I could definitely tell the difference between an iPhone 4 and my old iPad 1, and now between my new iPad and the original. It's not so much that Retina looks good as it is that everything else looks bad after spending some time with Retina.

FWIW, Gruber commented in his latest live podcast that to him, the rMBP's screen is perceptually the sharpest, even more than the iPhone 4(s), when viewed from a typical viewing distance.

[pscates2.0]

Yeah, I'm hearing nothing but good things about it. I hope to see one in real life soon (if our local Best Buy or MacAuthority gets them in stock). I imagine they're behind the Apple Stores on the waiting list.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Yeah, I'm hearing nothing but good things about it. I hope to see one in real life soon (if our local Best Buy or MacAuthority gets them in stock). I imagine they're behind the Apple Stores on the waiting list.

Actually, people nationwide have had some good hits getting them from Best Buy. It's like CompUSA all over again where people walk in and buy them off the shelf while preorders stretch for over a month. It's like the Titanium PowerBook G4 all over again!

[pscates2.0]

Isn't that weird? I'll call Best Buy and MacAuthority tomorrow, then, to see if they have any (or at least a display model on hand). I'll probably be out in that general area late afternoon anyway...