The New MacBook Pro: Unfixable, Unhackable, Untenable

In two years, the architecture will be through another full cycle (Haswell in 2013, Broadwell 2014).

On top of that, both SSD's and Retina-display will be cheaper. This is compared to recent upgrades where really the only marked difference between lines from a consumer perspective was quad-core vs dual core and the video cards.

And you can theoretically upgrade the current Ivy Bridge MBP and Sandy Bridge early-2011 MBP to 32 GB of RAM using dual 16 GB sticks (not produced now for laptops, but could be in two years time). You can't get that same versatility with the Retina MBP because of the soldered RAM. So assuming that 32 GB becomes the upper-limit and 8 to 16 becomes the standard, one won't be able to customize the Retina in a way that's more beastly or on pace with the current product that will be available in two years. Whereas you could you do aftermarket upgrades to drive up the cost of your laptop, you really can't do much with the Retina version. Cost of replacing the battery is higher than older MBP's, and so is upgrading the hard drive as OWC is I think the only aftermarket manufacturer. Keeping pace spec-wise is thus more costly.

Barring huge innovations that might drive up the cost like the Retina has to this generation, I think the 2014 MBP's would likely come down in price and by doing so drive down the value of 2nd-hand 2012 MBP Retinas. A new MBPR (512 GB, 16 GB RAM, 2.6) costs around $3000. 70% would be $2100. In two years, I figure that Apple would have a new 15-inch Retina laptop with faster processor on new architecture, better video card, 512 SSD (by default), 8GB on a fresh battery around $2300. Obviously that would increase with RAM upgrades.

My point is I'm not sure I'd spend even $2000 on a computer that's already two generations behind and doesn't have much capability to upgrade to higher capacities.

Most "refurb" units are just bought-and-returned products. There's nothing wrong with them. If there is something wrong, it was a problem with a new unit (either broken at purchase or soon thereafter), someone bought it assuming "new" better than "refurb" and got a lemon; the problem is easily identified and replaced with a working part. If something's gonna break, it's gonna break very near the time of acquisition (or near predicted end-of-life); few breakages happen during the middle 80-90% of product life.

New machines are cranked out in a factory en mass. Refurbs, most of which are either undamaged/new or lightly/obviously broken, are individually inspected with the keen awareness that this particular unit may very well have a particular problem. They receive more attention from better trained inspectors, and with more...domestic sensibilities. Then they're put thru the same, if not greater, QA testing as the factory provides.

So, at the risk of the occasional abused machine with deeper chronic problems, most refurbs are in effect (if not actuality) new units with an added layer of real-world testing, individualized attention/correction, comprehensive re-testing, all done within local cultural norms. And you get all of that not at added cost, but at a discount off the original price.

So the theory concludes (again, just hypothesizing with little knowledge of what really happens) that the refurbs are the most reliable and/or best value.

http://www.lenovo.com/products/us/laptop/thinkpad/t-series/