17" laptops are meant to be "desktop replacements" and, with desktop sales slipping, it's no surprise their mobile counterpart is as well.

Don't care. Apple is overpriced anyway. The only think I like about Macbooks is the 16:10 screen

Well it isn't a desktop replacement. You can buy laptops with same or larger screens for a lot less money and get better performance, better specs, etc.

Fuck the 15''..!!

If they don't make a 17''..!! Im not gonna buy the bloody small 13'' or 15''..!! no way..!!

you will lose a customer for sure..!!

sirio111If they don't make a 17''..!! Im not gonna buy the bloody small 13'' or 15''..!! no way..!!

you will lose a customer for sure..!!

The idea is that they can afford to lose customers like you because its not financially viable to cater for everyone. The most of the other 17" users will most likely downgrade to 15".

apple products are not overpriced. if they were overpriced they would not be selling like hotcakes. and don't give me that nonsense about brainwashing because people's money comes long before brand loyalty. the truth is companies like sony, samsung, and hp have to keep their prices lower than apple just so they can make some decent sales!

the 17" MBP really is extremely nice, but the loss of portability and the inability of apple to keep its hardware up to snuff for a 17", it really won't hurt their sales. Especially if their hybrid ultrabook is true, That way the 15" can return to the pro model they originally used to run. Right now I'm torn between a 11/13" air, and a 15" pro again. A middle man might seal the deal.

Well looking at 2500$ for a starting price, no wonder it's low in sales.

Regardless.

Apple has a good grip on getting people to spend 300 to 1500$

But the Mac book pro 17 inch fails to deliver an appropriate amount of performance or a neccessary incentive to put a large amount of money down on a purchase, when their smaller sized/priced alternative does everything perfectly for the expecting user.

And the more expensive and classy the laptop, the more a consumer is going to check out alternatives
That ends up being a "duh" decision when they compare the Mac book pro to other products that offer the same specs for cheaper or more for the same price.

Apple products like the Mac book air and iPad tablits offer impressive quality of use and quality product for more redible and common prices 1200$ n below.

Exactly,….

The 17” Mac Book Pro entry level pricing likely isn’t in the typical realm of comfort for the majority of consumers. The ~$2500 entry level price of the Mac Book Pro is the same as the entry level price of the Mac Pro. Keep in mind that the hardware configuration options of the 17” MBP don’t dramatically improve over the 15”, whereas, the Mac Pro performance effecting options are greatly improved over something like the Mac Mini or iMac.

If Apple dropped the price of the 17” Mac Book Pro or effected price change by altering the options so that the hardware wasn’t only on the higher end of the spectrum, they might sell more.

People like options and Apple does have some options but they are fairly inflexible when it comes to the 17” Mac Book Pro.

They will alienate a big part of their installed base if they do that. Many professionals loyally plunk down big numbers for Mac Pros and Macbook pros. It will engender tremendous ill will. The good news is, that might be the incentive for competitors to step up and develop equivalent NON WINDOWS products. The pros will not run Pro Tools on Windows.

All I was suggesting was having the 17” Mac Book Pro with more options such as basically being the same internally as the 13” model. Having a 2.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 as an “option“, for example, to help lower the price shouldn’t turn the industry on its ear. This doesn’t effect the quality of the product, it only gives it more options which could lower the minimum out of pocket expense.

I’m not saying Apple should do this only that more general purpose consumers may buy the 17” MBP model if they had a base model unit or option that would lower the price by ~$300 to ~$500 USD down from the standard ~$2500.

beck24They will alienate a big part of their installed base if they do that. Many professionals loyally plunk down big numbers for Mac Pros and Macbook pros. It will engender tremendous ill will. The good news is, that might be the incentive for competitors to step up and develop equivalent NON WINDOWS products. The pros will not run Pro Tools on Windows.

This is why they're getting rid of the 17" line.

They aren't really alienating a "large" user base by any means.

100% of everyone I have ever seen with a 17" macbook pro, only has the 17" model because they weren't the ones that paid for it.

Hardware wise, the only advantage is 2" physical real estate and screen resolution. Res. can easily be fixed on the 15" line (and IMO would be nice if they did bump it up a notch.)

DippyskoodlezThis is why they're getting rid of the 17" line.

They aren't really alienating a "large" user base by any means.

100% of everyone I have ever seen with a 17" macbook pro, only has the 17" model because they weren't the ones that paid for it.

Hardware wise, the only advantage is 2" physical real estate and screen resolution. Res. can easily be fixed on the 15" line (and IMO would be nice if they did bump it up a notch.)

I respectfully disagree. power users NEED the 17 inch or the MAC PRO. If you ever have to do a recording session on a 15 inch it is painfully small. I know many many 17 inch MBP users in LA, and they paid for them themselves.

I think 15" is probably OK if with "retina" display, ie resolution of new 15" is still significantly better than the current 17". So although a smaller screen, in terms of capability, the new screen will be much better.

beck24I respectfully disagree. power users NEED the 17 inch or the MAC PRO. If you ever have to do a recording session on a 15 inch it is painfully small. I know many many 17 inch MBP users in LA, and they paid for them themselves.

If you are sitting in a studio, get an external monitor. 17" is dinky compared to 24-30" real estate if it means that much in productivity to you.

I definately consider myself a power user (I chew up screen realestate as fast as I can get it) and certainly don't enjoy doing my work on a 11-15[excluding the high res option]", but the size of a 17" is truely cumbersome compare to the little gain you get (little to no extra power, and a tiny bit more space), compared to the loss of mobility.

Take that $200-500+ saved, and just get a real monitor to dock with at your workstation and more than double your work space.

DippyskoodlezIf you are sitting in a studio, get an external monitor. 17" is dinky compared to 24-30" real estate if it means that much in productivity to you.

I definately consider myself a power user (I chew up screen realestate as fast as I can get it) and certainly don't enjoy doing my work on a 11-15[excluding the high res option]", but the size of a 17" is truely cumbersome compare to the little gain you get (little to no extra power, and a tiny bit more space), compared to the loss of mobility.

Take that $200-500+ saved, and just get a real monitor to dock with at your workstation and more than double your work space.

When one is on the road that doesn't work. 17" is a must for me and many of my associates.

beck24When one is on the road that doesn't work. 17" is a must for me and many of my associates.

well then looks like u will have to find an alternative. apple doesnt mind losing you as you account for a very small percentage.

I guess more of your associates should have bought one.

Not having an IPS screen option (particularly one that has a wide-gamut backlight and good sRGB emulation) is pretty silly for a premium Apple laptop.

I'd also like to see the newest A-MVA tech in an Apple laptop. The battery life won't be as good as with TN, but the contrast ratio and viewing angles will be much improved. OS X isn't much of a gaming platform, so the slow response time of A-MVA (although it is supposedly improved in the panels about to hit the market) isn't much of an issue. IPS still lags considerably when it comes to contrast ratio.