New Slim 12" MacBook and MacBook Air Updates Soon

[DudeBigalo]

Possible lineup?
12" screen in 11" footprint - MBA with IGP or Iris gfx
14" screen in 13" footprint - MBP with Iris or Iris Pro gfx
16" screen in 15" footprint - MBP with Iris Pro or dGPU

If Apple is planning to merge the MBA with the MBP lines, then it would hopefully look more like:

13" screen in 12" footprint
15" screen in 14" footprint
17" screen in 16" footprint

Maybe even nearly same specs in each. Imagine how much more simple it would be for Apple to produce one line of laptops with nearly identical parts.

 

[iRun26.2]

It sounds like such a machine, at launch, would not right for you just as the first x86 macs were not right for many users. An ARM laptop would compliment instead of replace existing options. Apple does this often.

Yes, I would be interested in such a laptop eventually but at the moment I don't need ANY laptop so pointing to me is probably not a good way of making a point about broader appeal. My needs are very particular. I am not making these predictions on what I want. I am using observation, critical reasoning, and logic.

You sound a bit defensive about what you do and how you perceive the importance of how YOU use a computer (vs. others). I get this to a degree since I spend almost all my time using mid/high end media apps. However a fanless laptop running a 5W processor is not going to be geared towards my/your needs in 2014. That doesn't mean it won't work with native apps (excuse me for using that abbreviation APPLICATIONS) just that you might not be the target user regardless of wether my prediction is correct.

All current evidence suggests that ARM processors are as good or better when wattage and die size are taken into account. Apple designs some of the best ARM processors and their foundry partners about to bring facilities online that will rival Intel's capabilities.

The iPad is wildly popular. I'm sorry you don't like it and you feel slighted by its popularity. But it seems reasonable and logical that compatibility with an iPad would be selling point for a lot of people who would be happy with the form factor and performance of a ultra light notebook.

I'm guessing that I am one of many who use a MBA to run sophisticated x86 software. Even if they don't use it as their main machine, I'm sure many use it as their' traveling machine' for presentations yet still use an iMac at the office. Who knows when you need to change a presentation slide at the last minute (for example).

One piece of vital visuLization software I use (MATLAB) costs me (actually my employer) $580.00 per year. I don't see any iPad user paying that much for software throughout the entirety of owning their device. You can't do the same thing on an iPad (yet, that is).

Note that I have nothing against iPads. You just can't expect that platform, in the next two years, to get support for some deeply entrenched applications. There are so many, especially in the Window's x86 world. Note, too, that I do expect to get an iPad for my young daughter.

I guess I am defensive about how I use my MBA. I feel like my use of classic x86 code may be squelched by an ARM based MBA. As I've said before, then I'll be in the same boat as the disappointed 17" MBP users who long for Apple to make what they want again.

I just find it hard to believe that Apple thinks the transition to ARM would be similar as it was to Intel. I bet Intel has a few years left. Additionally, if Intel is willing to almost buy themselves into the tablet world (by paying people to use their chips) how could they possibly not be putting all they have into their most important x86 customer (Apple).

 

[proline]

some mathematics
11.6^2=134.6 sq. in.
13.3 =176.9
15.4 =237.2
17.7 =313.3

~12^2 ≈140-160 sq. in.

A seventeen'r is not just 2" bigger than a fifteen, its almost a whopping 30% bigger. If http://cdn.macrumors.com/vb/images/smilies/blackapple.gif were to say perhaps elimiate the speaker grilles, there'd probably be sufficient space for a full numeric keypad, an optional BluRay super drive on a built to order machine and some other goodies. The last 17 in MBP had specs that were not dramatically different from a brand-new fully spec'd 21 in iMac other that screen dimension and resolution and there is no good reason that the specs wouldn't have been bumped along to be at least commeasurate with the best 15 MBPr. The concept of a portable desktop machine, which I suspect was the way that many of the 17s are still used, is one that is not at all without merit.

Nowhere did I say 2" was trivial. What I said was that 2" alone does not turn a machine into a desktop replacement. The 17" MBP was not a desktop replacement and was never sold as such. It was a 15" MBP with a bigger screen. Nothing more.

 

[iRun26.2]

...
I've enjoyed this discussion but I think I've made my point and I think those who really don't see it won't ever see it.

I guess that's me.

I'm done too. What a tremendous waste of time this has been. I'm a special case user and not a concern for Apple (nor do I really know that much).

I'm going to get back to work and plan on buying a Windows machine in June.

 

[melendezest]

Nowhere did I say 2" was trivial. What I said was that 2" alone does not turn a machine into a desktop replacement. The 17" MBP was not a desktop replacement and was never sold as such. It was a 15" MBP with a bigger screen. Nothing more.

And people said that an iPad was nothing but a big iPod Touch. We see what we want to see, I guess.

No one is saying that the 17" was positioned (by Apple or anyone) to be a desktop replacement. The other guy made a fair point (which you cleverly ignored): 17"MBPs were not much different (in specs) than an iMac, except in portable form. While you are right that it was a larger 15", the fact that it contained a "whopping 30%" increase in real estate meant that it was a viable desktop replacement, and was possibly used as such.

That certainly is true in my case, as I have my iMac and 17" synced to the point where if something happens to my iMac I can contunue, comfortably unhindered, in my 17". And as a matter of fact, the MBP is actually my primary machine, while the family uses the iMac. There is a marked difference in user experience between MBPs (I've owned all three MBP sizes, in relatively rapid, sequential succession). The 17" provided me the best "feel" of the three.

Either way, and at least in my (apparently minority) household, the 17" and the iMac are interchangeable. Thus proving the theory (at least once) that the 17"MBP is in fact a desktop replacement.

But we've beaten this (literally) dead horse enough. The 17"s are gone. And Apple could very well lose customers over it (myself included), unnecessarily.

Whether this will or will not have a significant impact remains to be seen.

Maybe Apple is doing me a favor, since I expect OSX to take more and more visual cues from iOS 7, which I abhor.

 

[jger77]

And people said that an iPad was nothing but a big iPod Touch. We see what we want to see, I guess.

No one is saying that the 17" was positioned (by Apple or anyone) to be a desktop replacement. The other guy made a fair point (which you cleverly ignored): 17"MBPs were not much different (in specs) than an iMac, except in portable form. While you are right that it was a larger 15", the fact that it contained a "whopping 30%" increase in real estate meant that it was a viable desktop replacement, and was possibly used as such.

That certainly is true in my case, as I have my iMac and 17" synced to the point where if something happens to my iMac I can contunue, comfortably unhindered, in my 17". And as a matter of fact, the MBP is actually my primary machine, while the family uses the iMac. There is a marked difference in user experience between MBPs (I've owned all three MBP sizes, in relatively rapid, sequential succession). The 17" provided me the best "feel" of the three.

Either way, and at least in my (apparently minority) household, the 17" and the iMac are interchangeable. Thus proving the theory (at least once) that the 17"MBP is in fact a desktop replacement.

But we've beaten this (literally) dead horse enough. The 17"s are gone. And Apple could very well lose customers over it (myself included), unnecessarily.

Whether this will or will not have a significant impact remains to be seen.

Maybe Apple is doing me a favor, since I expect OSX to take more and more visual cues from iOS 7, which I abhor.

Consider the following:

I have no doubt that other than the 13 in MBP classic the entire MB lineup is going 220 ppi.

When the 15 in MBPr was introduced, it retailed around $ 3k with respectalbe specs.
A 17 in machine would have traded around $4k, and BTO easily pushed into $5k territory. -That would have been a real tough sell.-

Today, there are still brand new 17 in MBP trading through resellers for around $3k and that's with antiquated USB2 & WiFi n connectivity. Furthermore, used 17s carry a considerable premium over any other model.

There has been a downward trend in the prices(both retail and wholesale) of both SSD storage and ultra high res screen tech.

There are obviously people out there that value the XL notebook format, and its now doable around $3k, with respectable specs. Considering that today a 15 in with a video card grabs about $2700 an XL machine would be a worthy introduction.

 

[nduru]

small is ok, but bring on the cutting edge big portable

I love my 17 " mac book pro. but it is now 4 years old, which is 80 in computer years. I would have upgraded 18 months ago, but I still can't find anything that would be an improvement.

At home and work I use it with a 1920 x 1280 monitor so I have two screens The screen size of my MBP is only just bearable, a 15" would be useless, even if it had better resolution, as I would have to increase the font size. A 19" MBP would be much better. The only upward size limit is what will fit in both cabin baggage and a back pack.

However, large laptop format is not really what I want. It is just the best current compromise. I never use the built in keyboard or trackpad. I don't care that much about the battery life, to me mostly it is a UPS, so I am proof against short term power interruptions. Even weight is not that big an issue, my previous laptop was 17" but much fatter and 3 times the weight of the MBP, I carried that everywhere.

How about a portable 19" twin screen iMac equivalent, (intel, large ram, battery), with magic keyboard and mouse that all clip neatly together.

 

[jger77]

How about a portable 19" twin screen iMac equivalent, (intel, large ram, battery), with magic keyboard and mouse that all clip neatly together.

Ah the Apple II c

I don't think it'll happen

 

[Zeov]

how can they make something lighter than air?

Helium.

Try to keep up.

 

[melendezest]

Consider the following:

I have no doubt that other than the 13 in MBP classic the entire MB lineup is going 220 ppi.

When the 15 in MBPr was introduced, it retailed around $ 3k with respectalbe specs.
A 17 in machine would have traded around $4k, and BTO easily pushed into $5k territory. -That would have been a real tough sell.-

Today, there are still brand new 17 in MBP trading through resellers for around $3k and that's with antiquated USB2 & WiFi n connectivity. Furthermore, used 17s carry a considerable premium over any other model.

There has been a downward trend in the prices(both retail and wholesale) of both SSD storage and ultra high res screen tech.

There are obviously people out there that value the XL notebook format, and its now doable around $3k, with respectable specs. Considering that today a 15 in with a video card grabs about $2700 an XL machine would be a worthy introduction.

Agreed. I've been looking for an additional one, just in case mine dies.

I also agree that a 17" Retina could've been a tough-sell at the time. This is why I still have a glimmer of hope, that as costs are driven down, we'll see it again. I reeeally do. not. want. to. go. back. to. Windows. Linux would be the alternative, but it is still not ready for prime-time (sorry Linux fans).

Still, I see no reason why I can't wait this out. USB2 aside, my the 17" is still powerful and highly expandable/configurable, due to the Expresscard (I have an esata card) & TB ports, optical drive (mine's replaced with another HDD in RAID 0) and non-soldered RAM. And I baby it.

The retina screen on the 15"/13" really doesn't blow my skirt up, either, comparatively speaking. The screen on the 17 is really, really good.

So, at least for now, I'm good. Hopefully Apple brings it back when my 2011 starts to show it's age. But that may be a (long) while...

 

[Cheffy Dave]

Since you quoted my post ....

I do think Apple could retain the Retina Hi-Res screens while preserving battery life, especially if (1) Broadwell proves to be as efficient as Intel has announced and (2) Apple incorporates IGZO technology (likely at some point). I highly doubt Apple has introduced hi-resolution screens just to rescind them; rather, the next frontier for Apple will be screens with a 4k resolution. The only question is, when?

4K 2-3 years, IGZO next (for the power savings,along with Broadwell, will be amazing), and probably will be used across the line, with 4K the next big thing

 

[tongxinshe]

Well, it's not only the profit on the hardware, but also a completely lost customers if we switch (back) to Windows. Which means a lost customer of OS X software.

Comparing with keeping its always-high profit margin, obviously Apple care much less about losing customers to other platforms, otherwise it would have not become a niche player in the personal computer market in the very beginning (from a player owned almost 100% market share), similarly otherwise it would have not sit there watching Android command the overwhelming 80% smartphone market share.

 

[LordQ]

I hope they also release a 14" Air with Retina Display, that I'd get on the very first day!

 

[Gudi]

That is my point: I'm disappointed that Apple is now (apparently) all about money, and not about producing excellent computing products.

Apple couldn't sell computers at premium prices, if consumers wouldn't regard them to be excellent. For most people 17" doesn't equal excellence, Retina does.

I understand why they did it. I just don't like it, as I am left to look for non-existent alternatives.

That is exactly how I feel about iOS 7.

So Apple, in their quest for money, "focus" and the "sweet-spot", is actually eliminating customers from their portfolio.

Customers aren't simply 17-inch customers. One single spec can't define a use case and doesn't define a device. If screen size is your only complaint about the 15" rMBP, than you're still in the market.

I wonder what would happen to Ford if they stopped selling cars because their trucks are what sells more.

More like General Motors closed Hummer, still building smaller trucks.

Only time will tell if this strategy will pay off in the long term, as they continue to "focus".

Mac sales 20% up.

 

[melendezest]

Apple couldn't sell computers at premium prices, if costumers wouldn't regard them to be excellent. For most people 17" doesn't equal excellence, Retina does.
That is exactly how I feel about iOS 7.
Customers aren't simply 17-inch customers. One single spec can't define a use case and doesn't define a device. If screen size is your only complaint about the 15" rMBP, than you're still in the market.
More like General Motors closed Hummer, still building smaller trucks.
Mac sales 20% up.

Mac sales are up now.

My concern is that, as the competition catches up with (and possibly surpasses) Apple's offerings, an exodus may begin. Thankfully for Apple, Microsoft dropped the ball with Windows 8 and there are really no viable alternatives (Chrome, Linux) unless you're more tech savvy than average. For now.

If a competitor offers a comparable 17" laptop, and I concede there isn't one (for me at least), Apple will lose me as a customer and I won't be in their market. If I buy a used 17", I'll still won't be in their market, as they will not see a dime from that sale (although I'll still be in their ecosystem).

Keep in mind, I'm using my personal experience here and that is not to say that it should be used as a trend. But I disagree that the 17" was just one-spec over the R15": 2 inches/30% more screen real estate, the ability to have 2-4TB internally in any SSD/HD combination, connect to Ethernet and other (not so old) legacy systems/peripherals without dongles, and non-soldered RAM, definitely makes it a different use case (in other words, a portable iMac).

The 2 inches is just my main gripe with the transition. Apple eliminated that use case (desktop replacement) completely with the Retina "upgrade", just to make it (a bit) lighter. Then again, Apple's externalizing everything, just look at the Mac Pro. In that sense, the rMBP keeps with their philosophy. It just puts them in contravention to mine.

In my view, the RMBP is an inferior product, particularly when the device is meant to be set down to use. This is much longer than the time it is carried, which makes the loss of weight a crappy trade-off for something I can use all the time. Trading weight for capability makes sense in an iPad (handheld), not a laptop.

All that said, basically it boils down to: it sucks to be me. I fell into "outlier" territory when it comes to Apple's decision-making.

Still, it's difficult to say the customer prefers Retina (as a spec) over the 17" when they discontinue the product. It's like saying people prefer iOS 7 over iOS6 when Apple forces you to upgrade, and prevents you from going back.

Personally, I think a 17" Retina would've been too expensive for even Apple to sell, so I kinda understand the economics of it all. I suspect this is also the reason for the delay in a Retina iMac/TB Display.

Perhaps someone here can do the PPi math and correct me if I'm wrong to hypothesize this.

And I agree with you on iOS 7. For me and Apple, the 17" MBP axe was strike 1. That's strike 2. Waiting on the next OS X, hoping it's not strike 3.

 

[Gudi]

1) I did not infer that everyidea Steve had is good. I posited that the idea he had on 3 choices was great, as it covered more use cases without going overboard. It worked for them all this time, why abandon it now?

Your real complaint isn't about number of choices, but screen size of the biggest model. A third 14" option wouldn't make you any happier. And you would probably be fine, if the only two sizes of rMBP would be 13" and 17".

Apple did something similar with the iMac, it went from 17", 20", 24" to 21", 27". And those people who always want the biggest screen had no reason to complain. So why didn't Apple do the same with the rMBP? Because much more people care for the 15" than for the 17".

Now, at the height of their success, Apple is still cutting back. Why? They have more than enough money. Why not expand their business? Hell, why not keep the formula that brought them great success in the first place?

Because focusing isn't the same as cutting back and the new 2-choices formula is even more successful than the old 3-choices formula.

I believe the overuse of this philosophy led to Android's success in the market.

Apple is offering more choice where it seas a benefit. Two choices of iPhone in eight different colors instead of one iPhone in two colors.

Apple left money on the table (and missed out on customers) by not expanding to other carriers. By not offering a smaller iPad, by not offering a larger iPhone, by letting their competitors offer features and products that they don't.

All wrong! Apple makes more profit than anyone else, only because they do not offer everything possible. Quality over Quantity.

Yes, Apple is still successful. But I believe ...

No no no, they are not still successful. They are more successful than ever. And more successful than any other company has ever been in history of mankind.

But it's troubling (and baffling) to see Apple say "I don't need you, I got the masses and their money" to many of their long-time customers, particularly by eliminating products that serve as a backbone to what they depend on.

Buy a stupid Thunderbolt Display for gods sake!

Their competition is catching up.

Falling behind. The Mac market share is rising.

It's hard to argue this when Apple is at its peak. But for some reason, it feels like 1984 all over again.

Hard as a ****. You're feeling it wrong.

 

[melendezest]

Your real complaint isn't about number of choices, but screen size of the biggest model. A third 14" option wouldn't make you any happier. And you would probably be fine, if the only two sizes of rMBP would be 13" and 17". Yep, but why limit themselves by not playing in a space?

Apple did something similar with the iMac, it went from 17", 20", 24" to 21", 27". And those people who always want the biggest screen had no reason to complain. So why didn't Apple do the same with the rMBP? Because much more people care for the 15" than for the 17". That is an assumption. The 17" was on sale for a looong time, despite the fact that the 13 and 15 sold more. I feel its elimination is more attributable to the cost of bringing a retina 17 to market, and them not wanting to keep the cMBPs around. Your theory is as good as mine here, unless you work at Apple.

Because focusing isn't the same as cutting back and the new 2-choices formula is even more successful than the old 3-choices formula. How is it more successful, because they are selling more? This could be attributed to other factors, like the halo effect the iPhone and iPad have had and their status as entry point into the Apple ecosystem. Or to the "disaster" that is Windows 8.

Apple is offering more choice where it sees a benefit. Two choices of iPhone in eight different colors instead of one iPhone in two colors. Agreed. They're free to do so and it has brought them success. But it is impossible to compare it to something they haven't done, which is expand the iPhone size. So again, an assumption.

All wrong! Apple makes more profit than anyone else, only because they do not offer everything possible. Quality over Quantity. Please. It could be just because they simply offer great quality in whatever they release. Your argument was used as a case against releasing the iPad mini. How'd that turn out? Apple expanding it's lineup, against existing internal policy, worked big time.


No no no, they are not still successful. They are more successful than ever. And more successful than any other company has ever been in history of mankind. Agreed. And they were greatly successful in 1984 before Windows humbled them. Even the Roman Empire, with all its might and power, fell.

Buy a stupid Thunderbolt Display for gods sake! Really? I'm arguing my position regarding a portable device, and that's your solution? Now your pom-poms are starting to show dude.

Falling behind. The Mac market share is rising. Yep, for now, and given that it is still comparatively way down there, there's nowhere else to go. I give Microsoft half-credit for that one.

Hard as a ****. You're feeling it wrong. Nope, I'm feeling it alright, just on the wrong end now. Which is why, increasingly, I'm looking to pull it out.

 

[Gudi]

This could be attributed to other factors, like the halo effect the iPhone and iPad have had and their status as entry point into the Apple ecosystem.

Samsung offers smartphones, tablets and notebooks as well. And there isn't the same halo effect.

But it is impossible to compare it to something they haven't done, which is expand the iPhone size. So again, an assumption.

All we can say is, Samsung offers all kinds of smartphone screen sizes and makes less profit.

It could be just because they simply offer great quality in whatever they release.

Quality needs time. The more products you offer, the less time you have for each product to bring it to quality.

Your argument was used as a case against releasing the iPad mini. How'd that turn out? Apple expanding it's lineup, against existing internal policy, worked big time.

Still only 2-choices of iPads, a small one and a big one. A third 12" iPad Pro only exists as a rumor. Like on Noahs ark, two of every kind, not one and not three.

Even the Roman Empire, with all its might and power, fell.

Everything ends and even Apple will fall some day, but not because of lack of 17" notebooks. This isn't an issue to anyone but you.

I'm arguing my position regarding a portable device, and that's your solution?

A 17" notebook isn't very portable. If two more inches are so important to you, how could you deny having another ten more inches available? You have to understand your priorities. If you prefer mobility, than 15" is your maximum. If you prefer screen size, than mobility simply isn't an option. You can't have your cake and eat it. Portable devices, notebooks as well as smartphones, will always be limited to some maximum screen size. We could argue forever if legal age should be 18 or 21. The matter is, there needs to be a limit and you have to accept it. Period.

 

[Gudi]

If we do get a 12" rMBA that is ulta-slim fanless, has retina display, etc. I would be very skeptical about the battery life of this notebook, and I don't see apple releasing a new notebook with less than 7/8 hours of battery life.

Why so skeptical? A CPU that can be cooled without a fan, is a CPU that generates less heat, because it draws much less energy and can spare some power for a better screen. The current 13" MBA has up to 12 hours of battery life, Retina won't reduce that to less than 9 hours.

 

[melendezest]

Samsung offers smartphones, tablets and notebooks as well. And there isn't the same halo effect.
All we can say is, Samsung offers all kinds of smartphone screen sizes and makes less profit.
Quality needs time. The more products you offer, the less time you have for each product to bring it to quality.
Still only 2-choices of iPads, a small one and a big one. A third 12" iPad Pro only exists as a rumor. Like on Noahs ark, two of every kind, not one and not three.
Everything ends and even Apple will fall some day, but not because of lack of 17" notebooks. This isn't an issue to anyone but you.
A 17" notebook isn't very portable. If two more inches are so important to you, how could you deny having another ten more inches available? You have to understand your priorities. If you prefer mobility, than 15" is your maximum. If you prefer screen size, than mobility simply isn't an option. You can't have your cake and eat it. Portable devices, notebooks as well as smartphones, will always be limited to some maximum screen size. We could argue forever if legal age should be 18 or 21. The matter is, there needs to be a limit and you have to accept it. Period.

OK, dude, I give up.

Apparently, I'm the only one who like's 17"s, everyone is a weakling (and cannot carry 6.6 lbs), Apple will never fail and is always right in their decision-making, and if anyone attempts to exceed the maximum established screen size of 15" for a laptop then they'll explode.

Whatever. Have another sip, bro. Enjoy.

 

[Menneisyys2]

OK, dude, I give up.

Apparently, I'm the only one who like's 17"s, everyone is a weakling (and cannot carry 6.6 lbs), Apple will never fail and is always right in their decision-making, and if anyone attempts to exceed the maximum established screen size of 15" for a laptop then they'll explode.

Whatever. Have another sip, bro. Enjoy.

Of course a lot of us 17" fans are silently following this discussion.

BTW, today, I've checked out the InsanelyMac HW-related forums ( http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/forum/213-notebooks/ ). OSx86 seems to be pretty well supported even on the Surface Pro 2 (with Win / OSx86 / Android multiboot), except for the Wi-Fi unit. Hope it'll also be hacked on something bigger-screen and of similar (very good) build quality.

----------

A 17" notebook isn't very portable. If two more inches are so important to you, how could you deny having another ten more inches available? You have to understand your priorities. If you prefer mobility, than 15" is your maximum. If you prefer screen size, than mobility simply isn't an option. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Again: there are cases when you simply cannot use external monitors, no matter what you do, and all you can depend on is the built-in screen of your notebook. Think of being in an almost completely electricity-less place. Like, from any electricity lines, a very distant summer cottage in the mists of a forest - like my summer cottage in northern Finland, where I spend 1+ months a year.

----------

Everything ends and even Apple will fall some day, but not because of lack of 17" notebooks. This isn't an issue to anyone but you.

Lolz, even in this very thread there have been several 17" fans posting (incl. me) so he is certainly not alone. Not even here.

----------

Falling behind. The Mac market share is rising.

Still much smaller than those of PC's. And don't let the hipster folks' (who always go with the latest fashion; in this case, Macs) in cafes preferring Macs mislead you - they in no way represent the usual emplyer's work environment. Which is 90% PC's.

 

[Renzatic]

No no no, they are not still successful. They are more successful than ever. And more successful than any other company has ever been in history of mankind.

The history of mankind, you say? That's a big claim to make. I mean comeon. The East India Company once got almost the entire nation of China hooked on opium, then turned around and sold them more.

If there's one thing that'll sell more than iPhones to Apple fans, it's smack to smackheads. I bet they made tons more money.

edit: You made me look this up. Apple's in the top 10, but they're pretty far from the top.

 

[jger77]

Still only 2-choices of iPads, a small one and a big one. A third 12" iPad Pro only exists as a rumor. Like on Noahs ark, two of every kind, not one and not three.

A 17" notebook isn't very portable. If two more inches are so important to you, how could you deny having another ten more inches available? You have to understand your priorities.

Portable devices, notebooks as well as smartphones, will always be limited to some maximum screen size. We could argue forever if legal age should be 18 or 21. The matter is, there needs to be a limit and you have to accept it. Period.

A ~12+ iPad Pro-very unlikely. As much as Ives wants to do away with skuemorphism, the trade paperback & glossy mag form factors are what tablets are ment to emulate. These are tested and true, easy to handle. Other form factors for literature don't lend themselves to portable devices. I simply can't see iBroadsheets and iTabloids. They'd quite frankly suck.

17.7 inches squared is about 76 additional sq. in. more than 15.4"^2
313 vs. 237

Eliminate most of the moving parts, (optical drive, HD) & slim it down a bit, It won't weigh 6.6 lbs

15in MBPr dimensions ~9.75 by ~14.25

17in MBP ~10.5 by ~15.5

The two machines do fit(for the most part) in the same backpacks/briefcases etc. And, they both are most likely to travel substantial distances on the floor of the backseat of a car anyways, and then be put on a table, and plugged in for use.


Neither machine offers the portabilty of an 11 or even 13 in MBa, which both fit in document sleeves meant for magazines and 8.5by11 sheets of paper. Neither machine was meant to be that portable.

Of the 2 machines, the 15, which I acutually find less way comfortable to write on that my old 13 in, the 15 is more of a compromise than a 17.

With respect to the pricing for pixles/inch, I don't really have enough Info to speculate, but the proverbial genie is out of the bottle.
Any manufacturer of (mobile) screen tech is going to invest in tooling to build 4k and 8k screens alongside their HD and HD+(oddball aspect ratios).

 

[Renzatic]

A ~12+ iPad Pro-very unlikely. As much as Ives wants to do away with skuemorphism, the trade paperback & glossy mag form factors are what tablets are ment to emulate. These are tested and true, easy to handle. Other form factors for literature don't lend themselves to portable devices. I simply can't see iBroadsheets and iTabloids. They'd quite frankly suck.

If you think of tablets as simply media consumption devices, you're right. But I'm thinking we're gonna see them become more and more capable as time goes on. It's only a matter of time before the iPad encroachs on the MBA in terms of functionality and performance. And it's not way out of the realm of possibility to assume that there will come a time when we use our tablets for tasks normally associated with iMacs and MBPs.

...and for those tasks, you'll want a bigger screen.

 

[Mattsasa]

Why so skeptical? A CPU that can be cooled without a fan, is a CPU that generates less heat, because it draws much less energy and can spare some power for a better screen. The current 13" MBA has up to 12 hours of battery life, Retina won't reduce that to less than 9 hours.

So say the retina brings it down to 9 hours.
But the actual size of battery will go down from what they could fit in a thicker 13" notebook down to a thinner 12inch notebook.