Apple reveals thinner MacBook Pro, new MacBook models at WWDC

As previously rumored, Apple unveiled a new Macbook Pro featuring a thinner design and Retina display. At its WWDC event today, Apple revealed the new MacBook Pro, as well as updates to its current MacBook Air and MacBook Pro models. The new MacBook models feature Intel's Ivy Bridge processor and support for USB 3.0. All the new models are available today.

The new 15.4-inch MacBook Pro, which Apple called its "next-generation" model, is a mere 0.71-inches thin, making it nearly as thin as the company's MacBook Air ultraportable laptops, which are 0.65-inches thin. Additionally, the new MacBook Pro is Apple's lightest MacBook Pro model yet, weighing just 4.46 lbs. The company is also including a 2800x1800-resolution Retina display the new laptop, making it the highest-resolution notebook display on the market.

In addition to the new design, the MacBook Pro will feature powerful hardware. The base model, which starts at $2,199, will feature a 2.3GHz quad-core Intel i7 processor, NVIDIA's 1GB Kepler-based GeForce GT 650M GPU, 8GM of RAM and 256GB of flash storage. The laptop eschews traditional hard drives entirely, instead only offering flash storage of up to 768GB. USB 3.0 is included in the new model, as is Apple's typical Thunderbolt support.

Developers will have to update their programs to support the full resolution of the display. At the unveiling of the new MacBook Pro at WWDC, Apple announced it was working with software developers such as Adobe and Blizzard to take advantage of the increased resolution and showed examples of Adobe Photoshop and Diablo III running on the higher-resolution display.

In addition to its new MacBook Pro model, Apple also refreshed its current MacBook Air and MacBook Pro models. The new models were updated to feature Ivy Bridge processors and support USB 3.0. Apple's MacBook Pro line will also include NVIDIA's GeForce GT 650M graphics card. 

The refreshed MacBook Air also saw a slight price drop, with the 11-inch model now starting at $999 and the 13-inch model beginning at $1,099. 

Source: The Verge | Images via The Verge

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Verizon, AT&T deny free 50 GB Dropbox for Galaxy S III buyers

Next Story

OS X Mountain Lion coming in July; $19.99

94 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Wow, once again Apple dumps in a mid range GPU in a their top of line MacBook Pro.

Really? And Why?

Their top of like MacBook Pro with this great screen has a GPU in it that is slower than the average $1000 PC Notebook purchased LAST YEAR. In 'this year' PC technology, it is almost


Big screen + slow GPU = Horrible performance or a lot of scaling to trick people. (See new iPad)

With the choice of 'any' technologies, why does Apple continue to dump slow GPUs in their 'high end' notebooks?

They have done this for over 10 years, and nobody calls them on it.

If you are doing Photoshop or playing Diablo as the article suggests, this would NOT be a laptop you would want to be using. Just the assisted GPU acceleration in Photoshop alone would be painfully different than a PC Notebook that is 1/2 the cost.

Can we finally kill the myth that Macs are good for graphics? They haven't been competitive with PCs for graphics since around 1989, as the IBM 8514 and ATI Vantage 2D acceleration cards were providing higher resolutions, more colors and 20 to 30 times the performance of the top Mac at the time.

This didn't change during the 90s with 3D gaming becoming standard in PCs by 2000 and even through the OS X years, Apple providing low to mid range GPU technology and even moving to SSE to help with visual effects and animations as the GPU technology was low end crap that couldn't even turn on GPU assisted acceleration in most Macs (and still can't to this day) for most of the Apple frameworks.

In 1991 when producing complex graphical content on a Windows 3.0 system with Pagemaker, we could NOT just hand the Pagemaker files over to our sister shops or even dedicated printers that used Macs, as they couldn't even display or print the 'complexity'. Even when they could 'display' the work, complex things that took 20sec to draw on a 286 Windows machine with 2mb of RAM would take over 5 minutes to fully draw on the much 'newer' Macs.

This myth crap needs to finally go away... When Apple makes ANY Mac that can outperform a PC graphically, they can have the title back.


(This is why Game developers AVOID Macs, and will keep avoiding them. Although I'm sure a 2005 title like WoW will run great on these Macs. *geesh*)

thenetavenger said,
Wow, once again Apple dumps in a mid range GPU in a their top of line MacBook Pro.

Really? And Why?

Their top of like MacBook Pro with this great screen has a GPU in it that is slower than the average $1000 PC Notebook purchased LAST YEAR. In 'this year' PC technology, it is almost


Big screen + slow GPU = Horrible performance or a lot of scaling to trick people. (See new iPad)

With the choice of 'any' technologies, why does Apple continue to dump slow GPUs in their 'high end' notebooks?

They have done this for over 10 years, and nobody calls them on it.

If you are doing Photoshop or playing Diablo as the article suggests, this would NOT be a laptop you would want to be using. Just the assisted GPU acceleration in Photoshop alone would be painfully different than a PC Notebook that is 1/2 the cost.

Can we finally kill the myth that Macs are good for graphics? They haven't been competitive with PCs for graphics since around 1989, as the IBM 8514 and ATI Vantage 2D acceleration cards were providing higher resolutions, more colors and 20 to 30 times the performance of the top Mac at the time.

This didn't change during the 90s with 3D gaming becoming standard in PCs by 2000 and even through the OS X years, Apple providing low to mid range GPU technology and even moving to SSE to help with visual effects and animations as the GPU technology was low end crap that couldn't even turn on GPU assisted acceleration in most Macs (and still can't to this day) for most of the Apple frameworks.

In 1991 when producing complex graphical content on a Windows 3.0 system with Pagemaker, we could NOT just hand the Pagemaker files over to our sister shops or even dedicated printers that used Macs, as they couldn't even display or print the 'complexity'. Even when they could 'display' the work, complex things that took 20sec to draw on a 286 Windows machine with 2mb of RAM would take over 5 minutes to fully draw on the much 'newer' Macs.

This myth crap needs to finally go away... When Apple makes ANY Mac that can outperform a PC graphically, they can have the title back.


(This is why Game developers AVOID Macs, and will keep avoiding them. Although I'm sure a 2005 title like WoW will run great on these Macs. *geesh*)

Well thought out post, but the laptop is 0.71", if it was more thicker like alienware laptops are, then I'm sure they've could've put a better graphics card in there. I wouldn't say gamers would aim to buy a MacBook at all, rather it's used as a media production tool, there's just tools that you can't use on other computers that's available for the mac, and that's the main point of why someone would get a machine. For example, Web developers might use coda, video editors use final cut pro and photographers might use Apeture. You could use alternatives but that's not the argument.

What apple has done is allowed some users to do some light gaming, not hardcore, as I'm sure gamers would have a proper desktop, rather then having a laptop for gaming. But at the same price point they would get an alienware or some other game laptop.

The only reason why most people get a mac, is for there software. You can argue that there's better, but it's all about user preferences, and I don't see why people would argue against someone's choice and money.

What Mac has been overhyped for is due to the iMac screen, which is 27 in and for ~ 1600 you *used* to get a somewhat decent machine with an incredible res screen.

But yes, I hate the paradigm crap that says that Mac are for designers and high end productivity Windows is for gamers or lowly based tasks. You can build a more powerful Windows designing machine that you can on Mac.
Video Cards:
Taking for example the Nvidia Quadro Video Cards, which are only available up to the 4000 series on Mac, and up to the 6000 series on Windows PCs. It is true that you need to pay an eye for getting one of those, but if you really need power and it will pay by itself you would chose the most powerful solution.
Programs:
“No, that program is only available to Mac”. False. Windows possess more than 90% of worldwide marketshare, and has been developed very thoroughly. The decade of the 90s is far way gone, when people needed to use Mac to design Windows products because of the very incomplete OS. Hell, there were even Microsoft's Mac exclusives such as Microsoft Excel.

AFAIK, The top-notch designing programs which are commonly used are available in both platforms:
Adobe Suite: The complete suite of Adobe, which is highly acclaimed is available for both: Windows and Mac users.
Sony Vegas Pro: One of the best video editing tools are available for both platforms.
Autodesk products: AutoCAD anyone? The Gazillions of products Autodesk have are available for both: Windows and Mac users.

If the above is false, then please provide me with Mac exclusives which can surpass or does not include the features the programs above possess?

I am a MS fanboy. . . but this lappy just blows anything away!
THE DISPLAY!! GOD THE DISPLAY!!

I want a Windows laptop with such a display!! COME ON ALREADY 2012 coming to an end and nobody really working on Retina displays at these sizes!

Zain Adeel said,
I am a MS fanboy. . . but this lappy just blows anything away!
THE DISPLAY!! GOD THE DISPLAY!!

I want a Windows laptop with such a display!! COME ON ALREADY 2012 coming to an end and nobody really working on Retina displays at these sizes!

Yes they are out there, and with demand will appear.

Toshiba has been sitting on 2K and 4K notebook class displays since 2008, but there has been no market for them, as all HD content stops at 1920x1080. (Even though in 2005 1920x1200 was a common notebook resolution in the PC world. Apple made fun of them on 17" notebooks calling them 'crude' and gaudy back then. Funny they don't say that about their displays.)

Also 'Retina displays' are NOT the best color reproduction technology or best technology.

Apple's Retina display:
8ms response - 8bit - 700:1 contrast - 150° view angle
Toshiba and Others (currently on market)
2/4ms response - 10/12bit - 1000:1/1500:1 contrast - 180° view angle

Notice the Apple Retina displays are slower, have less color (which doesn't matter as OS X is limited to 8bit color), mediocre contrast ratio, and an ok viewing angle.

They get good press, and Apple will tell you they are the best EVER!!! However, in reality, they have a good ppi in a production product, and that is it.

There are far higher ppi display technologies as well, again when hitting 290-300ppi this is where color anti-aliasing shoves displays beyond what a human eye can see at 20/20 vision.

So even the iPhone4S is pushing a higher ppi than a 'color/grayscale' display would need if it does anti-aliasing properly.

Microsoft's goals for the Windows 8 generation is hitting 290ppi, and the way Windows handles pixels and can output 10,12,16bit color, this is giving the world displays that are sharper than a high quality photo print and far beyond a 300lpi or 600lpi magazine.

its comical, the same people that are saying "its stupid to have that kind of screen" are the same people that were saying they wanted it last year. (and if it was from any company other than apple they would all be singing praises for it!). The only reason you don't want it now is because its from a company you don't like. You should re-evaluate your wants/needs based on whats available and not who its from.

The problem people have with it is that the GPU is crap for that kindoff resolution. So games will end up looking like ****, movies will become stretched out (especially DVDs, BRs not so much but then it doesn't have an optical drive soo thats another bad thing). Yes I get that people use their laptops for more than just playing games, but you don't need a 2800x1800 screen to browse the web.

The other thing is, Intels new chips are coming out now...Apple should have waited a little bit.

hotdog963al said,
Hence the up-coming twitter integration and all *snigger*

Hey, don't you dare forget about the Facebook integration!

kraized said,
Who said anything about just surfing the web on a $2000 laptop?

Have you seen the php coding programs on mac? My blumentals minimal view is what your advanced view looks like. ^

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Have you seen the php coding programs on mac? My blumentals minimal view is what your advanced view looks like. ^

Vim or go home.

what's funny to me is, people will spend $2200 on a laptop to surf the web, when you can go to walmart and buy one for $400 and do the same thing

I've been waiting for an optical drive-less MBP with high-res screen for ages so I am definitely getting one. Now, who wants to buy my late-2008 15-inch MBP which has been fully loaded. 2.53GHz C2D, 8GB RAM (yes it runs 8GB fine, despite what Apple said in 2008), 512GB Crucial M4 SSD etc, OSX Lion etc... Fully working and great condition (apart from a slight scratch to the lid near the base). Cmon, who wants it?

For a minute there I thought Apple was going to show some respect for their customers and lower their profit margins. Whewww.... that was close.

Ok MS and OEMs, lets "pretend" to make some hardware that actually will look cheap at under $1000 and offer all the stability, speed, and multitasking power we have FINALLY come to expect.

jimmyfal said,
For a minute there I thought Apple was going to show some respect for their customers and lower their profit margins. Whewww.... that was close.

Ok MS and OEMs, lets "pretend" to make some hardware that actually will look cheap at under $1000 and offer all the stability, speed, and multitasking power we have FINALLY come to expect.

They sell. Why should they lower the price? What message would it send? "We have problems selling our Macbook, we must lower the price".

Apple has an "image de marque" and this image is "we sell high-quality / high-end computers"... if they start selling 500$ PC, they hurt their branding.

myxomatosis said,

if they start selling 500$ PC, they hurt their branding.

I think it would hurt the profit margins a LOT more than it would hurt the brand. Your pain is our gain. Love that.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
Who the hell would buy a laptop for that kind of money? o.O

Does this question need to be answered

For 2199.00 you would think it would have a good optical drive, wait it doesnt have an optical drive. Are you telling me you are paying basically for the aluminum and screen?

shadodemon said,
For 2199.00 you would think it would have a good optical drive, wait it doesnt have an optical drive. Are you telling me you are paying basically for the aluminum and screen?

It's 2012 buddy. 2002 is calling you back

shadodemon said,
For 2199.00 you would think it would have a good optical drive, wait it doesnt have an optical drive. Are you telling me you are paying basically for the aluminum and screen?

Why would you want an optical drive? I'd rather use that space for batter in a machine of this form factor.

They still sell the old form factor 15" Macbook Pro with updated specs for less money if you want that.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Because no-one wants to watch a movie from a DVD or BR disk right? Fail.

I must be the only one, I hate watching movies on a 15" display... I got a TV for that.


No optical drive = thinner machine.

I'd rather rip my movies in MP4 and have a thinner and lighter computer... than carry a thicker and louder computer (and DVDs/BRDs), just to have an optical drive I will use ~2 times a month.

The optical drive era is over.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Because no-one wants to watch a movie from a DVD or BR disk right? Fail.

If you are still watching DVDs then odds are you aren't the type to buy a $2,200 laptop in the first place. DVDs on a screen that high res would look like crap. LOL

SHoTTa35 said,

If you are still watching DVDs then odds are you aren't the type to buy a $2,200 laptop in the first place. DVDs on a screen that high res would look like crap. LOL

Sure as hell won't pay that money for those specs.

I don't need an optical drive in my laptop every time I use my PC, but when I do I plug in a USB 2.0 Blu-ray drive. That frees up a drive bay for an extra hard drive which I DO use every time.

Oh wait. I forgot that Apple still doesn't support Blu-ray. Well I suppose iTunes video and audio they pack into 8GB is almost as good as the same movie off of a Blu-ray disc.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Sure as hell won't pay that money for those specs.

What's wrong with the specs? It's not like they are so "outdated" or whatever. They are current gen stuff and even the GPU and SSDs are top speeds and LARGE.

SHoTTa35 said,

What's wrong with the specs? It's not like they are so "outdated" or whatever. They are current gen stuff and even the GPU and SSDs are top speeds and LARGE.

You are delusional, not going to even argue with you.

2100 what? Shut up! And take my... oh wait I don't have that money, I'll wait for an ultrabook with Windows 8 for 500-800$ less

PsYcHoKiLLa said,
8 GigaMegs of Ram?! WOW!!! Would make a great laptop, just strip that awful software off and put Windows 8 on Wonder if the mousepad works well with Windows 8 out of interest.

You mean this ugly multicolored tiles OS made for children and old people?

There's no cons... the screen will be super sharp and precise when you browse, read emails, etc., yet, the 1440x900 resolution will be usable in demanding 3D games without producing blurry graphics cuz the downscaling is based on a 2:1 ratio.

myxomatosis said,
There's no cons...

Of course there are - your effective screen real estate is the same as a 1440x900 screen. That means menus, buttons, etc are physically larger than on than previous 1680x1050 screen. At 100% zoom, less content will be presented. For an application where you can zoom out, you face all the non-integer scaling problems again.

But it will look prettier.

You know what's so cool about the 2880x1800 resolution?

All games will be playable at 1440x900 without being blurry. They chose this resolution for a reason: 2880x1800 = 1440x900 /2


The 650M can handle 1440x900 resolution quite well!

8 GigaMegs of Ram?! WOW!!! Would make a great laptop, just strip that awful software off and put Windows 8 on Wonder if the mousepad works well with Windows 8 out of interest.

Yea, cause a modest game like D3 is going to look so much better at that res. /s

Speaking of res, what an odd size they came up with. That isn't a 16:10 or 16:9 aspect so what exactly is their game?

I also understand that this won't increase screen real estate at all so I'm not sure how the cons outweigh the pros, yet.

Dashel said,
Yea, cause a modest game like D3 is going to look so much better at that res. /s

Speaking of res, what an odd size they came up with. That isn't a 16:10 or 16:9 aspect so what exactly is their game?

I also understand that this won't increase screen real estate at all so I'm not sure how the cons outweigh the pros, yet.

2880x1800 is 16:9. It's double the pixel density of a 1440x900 display.

Stetson said,

2880x1800 is 16:9. It's double the pixel density of a 1440x900 display.

2880x1800 or 1440x900 is 16:10, not 16:9. It should have been 3200x1800 or 1600x900 for that.

Dashel said,
Sorry, the typo in the article got me..I was calculating off 2800x1800. For the record thats 16:10 though...

Yep, this place is full of typos today!

ahhell said,
I'd rather have a fast SSD any day. You don't need a TB drive in a bloody laptop.

YOU don't perhaps, but those of us who do more than browse the web with our laptops like having the extra drive space, thank you very much. 8)

excalpius said,

YOU don't perhaps, but those of us who do more than browse the web with our laptops like having the extra drive space, thank you very much. 8)

What exactly are you doing that would require more than a 256GB drive?

Brandon said,
LOL 256GB. Give me a HDD any day

They dont even have a second drive bay. I wanted a retina display laptop pretty bad, but on a 13" model and a regular HDD. At 1200-1600 you can get a quad core gaming laptop from ASUS anyways thats a 1080p screen.

Oh well..

Overpriced? Sure. But I haven't seen one single ultra-book which can compete with MacBook Air in terms of design, portability, features overall usability (personal opinion, obviously).

Breach said,
Overpriced? Sure. But I haven't seen one single ultra-book which can compete with MacBook Air in terms of design, portability, features overall usability (personal opinion, obviously).

If they do not compete in terms of design, then why are some people yelling that all the other companies stole the Air design?

nohone said,

If they do not compete in terms of design, then why are some people yelling that all the other companies stole the Air design?

Well, I don't know about that - I'm speaking from the position of an end-users. As far as Apple is concerned - I think what they do is that they innovate and then try to maintain monopoly as much as possible. Whilst others catch up they have something new up their sleeve. The patents game is sick, but I guess that's how it goes in big IT - everyone does it, don't they?

I'm curious, how is an ultra-book with the same size screen as a Mac Air less portable? Pretty much all the Ivy Bridge ultra-books have crazy long battery life, so how are they not as portable?

Breach said,
Overpriced? Sure. But I haven't seen one single ultra-book which can compete with MacBook Air in terms of design, portability, features overall usability (personal opinion, obviously).

WTF? Hardly any Ultrabooks are even available for purchase yet.

Samsung, HP, ASUS, and Dell all have models that are as good, if not better, than the Air in the ultrabook/mobility space. (Air still doesn't have a cellular option for example among others)

Breach said,
Overpriced? Sure. But I haven't seen one single ultra-book which can compete with MacBook Air in terms of design, portability, features overall usability (personal opinion, obviously).

You haven't even searched modern laptops have you? They are ALL a better value. They are ALL just as "portable". Design is a personal choice (and some of the higher end ones make the Air look dated). And, unlike the Air, they can ALL run every modern PC application including games, major business software, etc. Which the entire Apple line cannot.

excalpius said,

You haven't even searched modern laptops have you? They are ALL a better value. They are ALL just as "portable". Design is a personal choice (and some of the higher end ones make the Air look dated). And, unlike the Air, they can ALL run every modern PC application including games, major business software, etc. Which the entire Apple line cannot.

I don't know, maybe things have changed drastically. I got my 11" Air in July 2011 - it has just come out. It's my first (and last for now) Apple product. Back then (at least) there was practically no competition - I looked at ASUS, Acer, Sony, Dell - not even close. To each their own - I wanted a light-weight, portable, quality, fast computer for work (read: Office), Internet and movies. Zero buyer's regret so far. But again, maybe the landscape has changed drastically since. I last saw a video of ASUS' equivalent - Zen something? And it looked... well, clunky.

Breach said,
Overpriced? Sure. But I haven't seen one single ultra-book which can compete with MacBook Air in terms of design, portability, features overall usability (personal opinion, obviously).

If they do compete in design, Apples Sues the **** out of them!

Breach said,

I don't know, maybe things have changed drastically. I got my 11" Air in July 2011 - it has just come out. It's my first (and last for now) Apple product. Back then (at least) there was practically no competition - I looked at ASUS, Acer, Sony, Dell - not even close. To each their own - I wanted a light-weight, portable, quality, fast computer for work (read: Office), Internet and movies. Zero buyer's regret so far. But again, maybe the landscape has changed drastically since. I last saw a video of ASUS' equivalent - Zen something? And it looked... well, clunky.


Well the computer market change a lot in 10 months. Nowadays the MBP is only
unique by the resolution and the design. Air on the other hand is only unique by the design tans the hardware in both is quite weak tbh.
I own both Apple and Microsoft stuffs, I am not a fanboy to any of them.

DrakeN2k said,
enjoy your super small text due to that stupid res

It works the same way as it does on the iPhone. UI elements are displayed with four times the number of pixels, so that they are shown at the same size as if the resolution was 1400x900

Dashel said,
ie. no increase in usable 'space'

on Windows if you up the res the more usable space you get.
I assumed GUI will not scale.

DrakeN2k said,

on Windows if you up the res the more usable space you get.
I assumed GUI will not scale.

You will get to choose on the new MacBook Pro. You can choose to have more usable space, sharper UI, or a mix of the two. Best of all worlds.

Maybe now other OEMs will stop shipping craptastic 1366x768 on 15" displays.

And on an unrelated note, this has to be the poorest proofreading I've seen on this site.

Memnochxx said,
Maybe now other OEMs will stop shipping craptastic 1366x768 on 15" displays.

And on an unrelated note, this has to be the poorest proofreading I've seen on this site.


Please report any errors via the "Report a problem with article" link. It's not helpful when you say there's an issue and don't even tell us what the issue is.

$2199 and not even using the top laptop GPU, of course it will be an overpriced upgrade or will allow Apple to release the next generation quicker by intentionally using new but only medium speed tech.

Gaffney said,
$2199 and not even using the top laptop GPU, of course it will be an overpriced upgrade or will allow Apple to release the next generation quicker by intentionally using new but only medium speed tech.

LOL.... Dude, nothing you can buy will compare to this so stop your whining. Pathetic.

The $2199 MBP is a decent price. Having worked with Optics in the military and as a home theater geek, retina displays while technically sound aren't worth the bang for the buck or battery hit for that matter. Yes, more pixels can make images and video look better, but if you can't tell the difference how can you justify the extra cost. Other than for bragging rights that is.

Gaffney said,
$2199 and not even using the top laptop GPU, of course it will be an overpriced upgrade or will allow Apple to release the next generation quicker by intentionally using new but only medium speed tech.

Microsoft and Apple Fanboys please move on. Thank you very much.

webdev511 said,
The $2199 MBP is a decent price. Having worked with Optics in the military and as a home theater geek, retina displays while technically sound aren't worth the bang for the buck or battery hit for that matter. Yes, more pixels can make images and video look better, but if you can't tell the difference how can you justify the extra cost. Other than for bragging rights that is.

You realise the design allows it not to take any appreciable hit on the battery right? There is a lot of juice in that thing. I can tell the difference, so worth the cost. Not that my wife will understand it so probably holding off for a while

sviola said,
Wow... 8 GM of RAM and USB 8.0! Now Apple can claim to be on the cutting edge of technology...

USB 8.0 sounds pretty cutting edge to me..

sviola said,
Wow... 8 GM of RAM and USB 8.0! Now Apple can claim to be on the cutting edge of technology...

USB 8.0? Did they get first dibs?

sviola said,
Wow... 8 GM of RAM and USB 8.0! Now Apple can claim to be on the cutting edge of technology...

lol, I hope you guys are being sarcastic. Cause it's USB 3.0.