Q: retina display for 17 inch macbook pro

How much would you be prepared to pay for it?

Csound1 wrote:

 

How much would you be prepared to pay for it?

While that is a fair response, the more realistic (and not so anecdotal) response would be:

"How much will several million Mac users be willing to pay for it?"

Apple won't spend one second caring if one guy would pay a million dollars for a 17" Retina MacBook Pro. They probably wouldn't even care if ten people would pay a million dollars for one, because that still wouldn't be worth doing. But they do care about the price at which a sustainable number of Mac users would pay for one, and that is going to be a very market driven number.

The 2% argument is rubbish.

2/%  is still A LOT OF MONEY. A company can make profit not only by selling tons& tons of the same product

Like for example, if apple releases this summer a billion iphones thinking that they will sell all of them and nobody goes out to buy these things. guess what. , they will loose big money regardless what percentage of total apple sales those things represent overall.

On the other hand If you calculate the demand correctly and put the right price-tag you can still make a big profit by simply offering a greater variety of products with fewer units and less risk of failure - that way you target a bigger audience. Not everybody is the same, remember?

nevertheless people demonstrated with the 5s vs 5c that they prefer quality - So apple better take a good lesson from that.

You can't even find people willing to sell their 17 laptops - maybe only on e-bay you can get a dodgy deal, but in general people love these things. - I am not selling mine even though I want a new one and I am not buying a 15' either because I just see it like the 5c.  Id rather pay 2000 on amazon to refurbish it till the end of times.

So ergo apple is losing money. simple as that.

I'm not sure a 17" needs to be a retina to satisfy the needs of those who require a 17" screen for their work. People I know in the post production music business using pro tools and the like aren't overly concerned about the ultra good image of the retina, more concerned about the screen real estate.  Its not like the old 17" monitors had a "bad" image either, in fact they were pretty nice. Additionally, if there is critical video work being done, they will probably have reference monitors.  I think Gavin's post above has the right idea.

While we wait and hope that Apple may perhaps bring back the 17" MacBook Pro in some way, shape, or form, I found the following article giving an account of how one 17" MacBook Pro lover updated his computer to be quite interesting.  If the next cycle of Mac laptops does not bring a new 17" MacBook Pro, I think I will follow his lead in updating my 17", which is disproportionately helpful in what I do owing to the screen real estate.  Anyone interested in seeing this--perhaps you've all already seen it and I'm simply slow!--can find it here.  Of course, the account of what he did with his laptop is surrounded by an advocacy piece arguing that the 17" should be brought back, with which I largely agree since I like on the move to have all my files with me and maximal ability to use them (which for me requires several files open at usable resolution at once).  But the upgrading of the 17" seems very smart and I hope to copy it!  I'm not too sure how he got 16 gigs of RAM into his MacBook.  I have an older one, and mine takes more according to the specs than the newer ones did, but the limit on mine is 8...  Any ideas?

Originally posted by Gavin Olukojo: 

 

If this is true this will be good news, with haswell and the fact its physically bigger the battery life should be impressive, lets hope there is an ssd option with storage greater than 500Mb even 750mb matching the iMac line capacity would be good. It may even be physically lighter too.

You mean GB, not MB, right?

http://www.change.org/petitions/apple-inc-offer-again-a-17-inch-macbook-pro

For those who use the 17" for professional editing, publishing, & translating, a Retina display would help.  I wonder if there is a way this can be an option?  Having multiple files with formatting viewable and editable, moving text/elements from one to another or simply in translating, works on the 17" and not on the 15", which can't simultaneously show the documents at a usable resolution.  So I would take the 17" even without the Retina Display.  The screen real estate is extraordinarily helpful.  But a Retina display with the 17" screen real estate would be hard to beat for work with multiple documents--editing, publishing, translating, et alia.  I'll keep using mine as long as humanly feasible until another comes out.

You are wrong. 4K at 17" is 259.17 ppi. It's reasonable ppi. I hope we see 17 inch Retina macbook soon.

Apple just released a 5k retina 27-inch iMac. If that's possible, shouldn't there be hope for the return of the 17-inch macbook pro with retina? I'll keep my hopes up for 2015.

Agreed. I have a 2009 17 inch MBP with 8gb ram and a 1tb samsung 850 pro. I use, and love, that machine more than my 2014 15 in. retina even though the retina is of course a bit prettier to look at.

It's not JUST the Retina display we require.

YES we need the 17" retina display but we also need the following because the last 17" macbook (released late 2011) doesn't have them...

* USB 3 ports

* CPU = 6 core hyper-threaded Intel i7

* RAM = max config 32GB

* Display port/Thunderbolt = 2 ports (the 2011 only had 1 and it's only Display Port version 1.1)

* HDMI = 1 port

This thread is four years old. If Apple hasn't done anything by now, I doubt they ever will.

As Apple development people don't read these forums, try this link instead:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html