Steve Jobs's Smoke and Mirrors on 13" MBP's CPU

[sliem]

@teamswitcher: why are you explaining differently than Jobs? He said he wanted to keep the "profit" by not upgrading the CPU as well as the graphic and the 10hr battery life. I believe that's what he meant.

 

[cadder]

Price? Scan the net- I just did and found laptops with i3 processors for as low as $600 and i5 processors as low as $800.

OTOH 10 hours of battery life is very good for anything beyond the ultralow voltage cpu's, but you cannot characterize any MB or MBP as lightweight. They are very heavy compared to their competition. The first time I picked up my niece's whitebook I couldn't believe how heavy it was.

I'm not sure you can believe any word that comes out of Steve's mouth, unless he is saying how great he is. Everything he says is going to be selfserving for him and/or Apple.

 

[keihin]

I think the answer to the question of "why Core 2 Duo today" is more complicated than the types of answers Steve likes to give. The answer he did give is oversimplified, self-serving, and fails to satisfy, but is not patently untruthful. Here's why -

The CPU performance comparison was likely pitting the C2D parts against the new i3. And the i3 isn't that powerful. It's basically the new Celeron.

And if the Apple engineers had chosen an i3 or i5 CPU they would have been stuck with Intel's integrated graphics solution. Which isn't very powerful. They could have added another graphics chip and switching, but that require room in the cost budget, and on the motherboard, and in the power consumption budget. But the C2D parts can still use Nvidia chipsets with integrated Nvidia graphics. So, Apple had a design choice between two options: one with a new CPU marketing name, slightly better CPU performance but requiring compromises in either graphics performance or battery life (and profit margins), or another option with more balance between CPU, graphics and costs. And they chose the latter.

I understand why this is seen as "old tech" and disparaged by hardware enthusiasts who love the latest and greatest. On the other hand, if you ignore the component list and just look at the specs, Apple is delivering a beautifully designed, highly usable, software-packed system, that performs very well. And for a lot of buyers this will look good. Particularly students and field professionals who will benefit from that 10 hour battery life.

 

[godwhomismike]

[citation][nom]rhino13[/nom]Haha Apple uses an nVidia 3xx chipset!Wait isn't that the same as a...[/citation]

I think you missed the whole point. No one is complaining about the graphics this time around. They sort of got it right, and using current GPUs.

Problem is, they put in antiquated CPUs (Core 2 Duo) into the 13" version of the Macbook Pro. Everyone in the tech world thought these processors died with the end of 2009. Well, for the past 4 months everyone in the tech world has been rolling out updated laptops with shiny new Core i3, i5, and i7 processors.

Then in mid-April 2010, April rolls out very expensive 13" laptops with the antiquated Core 2 Duo processors of yesteryear (costing $1199, and $1499). Needless to say, it was a huge shock and resulted in a tremendous amount disappointment.

 

[nforce4max]

This is why I refuse to buy apple products one they are far to overpriced and made very cheaply for the except of a few examples. Second very limited third party support beyond software...

This company is like microsoft 1984 and THX1138 all rolled into one big fat cigar slapped with copyrights and all strings attached.

 

[kr33py]

Bad move on there behalf,why the wouldn't even stick an I3 in there is mind boggling.

I suppose there hoping what many mac users do already and look past the horrible specs and buy it because it is a mac.

 

[Guest]

In my experience, Apple makes high quality computers that tend to last. Gap is narrowing between Windows 7 and OSX. Apple charges a premium price which I think is on the high end. The PC market lets you save money by buying third party peripheries and updates. Smoke, mirrors, BS - DEFINITELY. Is Apple the only company that uses smoke, mirrors, and BS? Hardly, they teach these skills in business school. They even give you a sheepskin that says MBA. This is the corporate landscape. Whatever happened to Commodore, Atari...?

Apple has a lot of slime in their marketing department which has allowed them to survive in a highly competitive, cutthroat business environment. One needs to be an educated consumer when one buys a computer.

 

[The Greater Good]

Aside from the whole let-down on specs for the 13 inch MB... Steve needs to go shopping. I wonder if he opens his 20 foot long closet and has dozens of the same black turtle neck shirts and one pair of jeans.

 

[itadakimasu]

when i see 13'' I think Netbook... I think $200-250 tiny, eye squinting net book.

 

[TEAMSWITCHER]

@sliem - Jobs never said that it was about profit margin, that was the suggestion made by the articles author. He also suggested, in the same sentence, that size might have been a factor as well. In this case - it was obviously the size of the chassis, and the need for a decent GPU that forced this decision.

Everybody wants a killer 13" - 15: notebook with a fast Core i7 processor, and the very best nvidia graphics in an SLI configuration, with long battery life. The problem is that no-one will buy a "Laptop" that is 2 inches thick and weighs 16 pounds.

 

[gpace]

If you take a look at the Core 2 Duo specs and the i5 and i7 specs, you'll see that the current MacBook Pro 13 will have either a 25w or 35w TDP CPU. The i7 also has 25 and 35w TDP processors and the i5 has 35w TDP processors, so heat and runtime is probably not a problem. The i5s and i7s do have a lower clock speed, with in most of the targeted customer people's mind is bad thing.

Also, if you look at the 9400m and Intel GMA HD benchmarks, you'll see that the numbers are very similar (with the 9400m having the small lead).

In the end, it's probably yo keep the profit margin for the MacBook.

 

[kdashjl]

with some bad lucky next time they will sell g5's again

 

[Guest]

Why don't you people get mad at Intel for forcing Nvidia to stop working on Integrated graphics chips for the Nehalem processors? If they were allowed, then the 13in macbooks would have an i3 processors with integrated nvidia graphics. If I had the choice between i3 process with integrated intel graphics and a core 2 duo with nvidia graphics, there is no question I would take the core 2 duo.

This sounds exactly like the trade off jobs was making:
"Far faster graphics and 10 hour battery trump 10-20% faster CPU," Jobs responded.

Checkout the lawsuit written about on Tom's Hardware. Why wasn't this mentioned in the article?
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-atom-cpu-nvidia-ion,7043.html

 

[foxalopex]

[citation][nom]TEAMSWITCHER[/nom]Stop all the bitch'n about the 13" MacBook Pro. The 13" model needs a much smaller circuit board to fit in the smaller unibody chassis. There simply is not enough room on the circuit board for the CPU, the South Bridge, and a discrete GPU. To use only the integrated Intel HD graphics would cause several benchmarks to fall off ridiculously. Yes Intel HD graphics really are that bad.So Apple had to punt on this one, and decided that sticking with the (tried and true) Core 2 Duo wasn't all that bad of a tradeoff. Product design is never easy, and when you are dealing with 1" thick notebooks, the trade-offs can be aggravating at times.I think that Apple made the right decision, given the circumstances.[/citation]

[citation][nom]keihin[/nom]And if the Apple engineers had chosen an i3 or i5 CPU they would have been stuck with Intel's integrated graphics solution. Which isn't very powerful. They could have added another graphics chip and switching, but that require room in the cost budget, and on the motherboard, and in the power consumption budget. But the C2D parts can still use Nvidia chipsets with integrated Nvidia graphics.[/citation]

Umm both you guys are dead wrong here. Sony actually has some of the most advanced laptops after checking against many manufacturers. The Z series will pretty much lay waste to any 13 inch Apple has now. I recently purchased one for about $2000. Take a look at their newly released and very expensive VPC-Z1 series laptop:

1600x900 LED backlit display 13 inch
*(A 1920x1080 panel is available but too expensive IMO)
Intel i7-620M
Geforce 330M / 1 GB Vram
4GB RAM
128 GB Solid State Drive (up to 512GB)
About 5-6 hours battery life on standard battery, more on extended battery.
DVD-Burner
(Blue-Ray is available too but too expensive IMO)
3.04 lb with standard battery! (So this weights as much as Macbook Air!)
Aluminum / Carbon Fiber + Plastic composite construction
Illuminated Backlit Keyboard with Ambient Light Sensor
3 USB ports, 1 34mm Expressport, HDMI, VGA, Gigabit Ethernet, Wireless N, Bluetooth

So what were you guys saying about not being able to stuff this into a 13 inch that weights about the same as a MacBook Air? Not so impossible after all isn't it? Oh and in case you didn't know this laptop uses both Nvidia and Intel graphics cards. There's a hardware switch to toggle between them depending on whether you feel it's worth it to save power or game away. The only thing Apple has to match this laptop are it's upcoming 15 and 17 inch laptops which are larger and heavier.

 

[radguy]

so 10hr batt life does that mean I'll get ~6hrs running window7 cause osx and me really don't get along

 

[danimal_the_animal]

Steve needs to wear a FREAKIN BELT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SO TACKY!!!!!

 

[Guest]

Remember that the entire macbook pro 13 is simply a rebranded 13-inch macbook (not pro). It has an improved screen and metal casing but that is about it. TO support the more adavanced chips I am certain the whole systems needs to be redesigned whereas the REAL pro models only needed tweaks.

However, I agree with Jobs. The only people complaining about technology and the model number or the small size of their penises are the geeks who always need the latest but then point at all the people with the latest gadgets they don't like as slaves. Those are the people who choose what they like based on usage and not on specs. The REALITY is that professionals (specially graphic professionals) do not generally work on a 13-inch screen. Heavy spreadsheet users wouldn't like working on a 13-inch screen. It is a pain. The 13-inch is more for those that do heavy traveling, need e-mail, and word or for non-professional users who like the aluminum look. Just because you bunch of geeky retards don't understand the point of market segments and only focus on horsepower you shouldn't be crying about your HATE for a company... a thing... so ridiculous. BTW, 13-inch macbooks are sold out already. Haters.

 

[emtownsend]

Put some i3 sweetness in there if he wants to keep battery life.

 

[emtownsend]

Seems counter-productive. This is not typical Apple cutting edge.
Combine an i3 with onboard graphics and nVidia discrete graphics and STILL keep the great battery life.
Folks, I believe this is Apple's last shot to remain "premium". I am betting on deep price cuts in summer to remain competitive. Right now, the Apple value is gone. The Apple experience is still strong though and maybe that is what Steve is banking on.

 

[emtownsend]

Also, I think he is making a statement about the masses telling him what technology should be. It is up to Apple to make these choices not public opinion. However... public opinion goes a long way for sales!

 

[Kryan]

"lauds the massive gains in the 15- and 17-inchers."

yeah...that's what every woman says to me strangely???

on a serious note, i think Jobs is a good guy, there, i said it. HOWEVER, he is only a good guy when compared to bosses who run Enron and Shell and the likes...and let's be honest...how hard is it to be "better" than those guys, except at making greedy profit?

and this is where Jobs shines! oh the man knows how to twist, squeeze and milk EVERY SINGLE cent out of every product they release. iAnything = HUGE profits for Apple. and before some1 comes with their: "oh but the quality is so much better" ...please? have u had a decent laptop from sony or HP in your hands? how much more quality to u want in a thing ur going to replace in 1-3 years?

 

[rf88he102]

i would take the "PRO" labeling on the 13 inch, I don't see anything PRO on it....

 

[Godfail]

Apple designs its products with a purpose and a goal. Sometimes that means older technology and sometimes it means cutting edge technology. If you can't see the big picture with something like this laptop, you just don't get what they were going for...and therefore make a fool of yourself when you pretend you know more than engineers who work closely with the same processor vendors you are referring to.

 

[Drag0nR1der]

I dont really understand the point of a 'pro' 13" laptop anyway... aren't the 'pro' macbooks meant to be for people who need to do some pretty strenuous work on them? If so, who would want to do that on a 13" laptop?

 

[Guest]

People seem to like to say it's about margin? Think about it for a minute. The Price of the I3 is probably pretty close to the same as the Core2Duo, with volume discounts it's probably very minor. Why appear to be our of step if there isn't a good reason? They probably had to do a redesign of the inside to accommodate in the same shell. Also being more power hungry and with the user experience of being a travel tote computer, they probably won't need it for heavy crunching, makes more sense that way if they had to do a redesign of the inside. (Heat can also be an issue) Why not take it at face value and try to understand its probably a complex problem. Not as easy as saying "OMG .... its got to be Apple trying to rip people off more"