Can somebody please explain to me how the entry level MacBook Air can possibly be more expensive than the MacBook?
How can REMOVING components ADD to the cost of the unit?
My hunch is that Apple views the Air as the beginning of a whole new category and doesn't consider the price to be related to the MacBook at all. Expect to see a smaller footprint Book as well as more accessories to join the Air line in the future.
I'm just not convinced that it costs extra to remove components. I guess we'll see when someone reverse engineers an Air and provides an estimate of the cost to manufacture one of these machines. I suspect it will set a new record.
As seems to need explaining every time one of those tear-downs appears, they attempt to account only for the cost of components, not the cost of manufacture, development, support or any other misc. costs.
Yes, the cost of components in the MacBook Air is probably slightly less than that of the MacBook (no optical drive, one less USB port, no firewire, no audio in, no optical audio out, no ethernet. Most of those save Apple about $1 - $2, except the optical drive which presumably saves them about $40 - 50, and the firewire which saves them about $5. Counter-balancing that is a more expensive screen (backlight and glass both pricier), keyboard and casework. The screen is probably about $20 more, the keyboard and casework I've got no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if together they account for $20 - 30.)
But, to properly compare the profit margin of MacBook Vs. MacBook Air, you have to account for the much higher manufacturing cost - precision work on aluminium etc. and the fact that high development costs (2 years of R&D) have to be spread across fewer machines (because this is a niche machine, and will sell way fewer units than the MacBook).
I have no doubt that the profit margin of the MacBook Air is higher than that of the MacBook. However, I'm also sure that the difference is nowhere near as big as many people seem to think it is.
Very well-articulated post. I had similar thoughts while watching the Keynote.
As others have said, when this price point was set, I realized how much of a steal the regular MacBook looks right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah
I think you guys are confusing miniaturization with reduction.
There's a very big difference. If Apple had managed to shoe-horn a fully featured MacBook in to that size of enclosure then yes that would have been a feat of miniaturization, and yes that would have cost money. But that is not what Apple has done, they've simply removed components, and it doesn't cost money to remove components.
Underclocking the processor doesn't cost money. Stripping out the USB and Firewire ports doesn't cost money. Stripping out the SuperDrive doesn't cost money. Stripping out the Ethernet doesn't cost money. Stripping out the upgradeable DIMM slots doesn't cost money.
The use of aluminium over plastic can only cost pennies. Likewise, does the cost of a 1.8" drive over a 2.5" drive really justify what Apple's asking?
The standard MacBook's motherboard isn't that much smaller than the MacBook Air's. All they've really done is remove several components, or substitute an internal battery for a replaceable one, in order to meet their self-imposed volume requirements.
As for the Intel processor being 'custom' that remains to be seen. AFAIK, all SJ said was that they 'asked' Intel to shrink the size of the CPU ? there may have been other manufacturers asking the same thing and we may well see other manufacturers using the same part.
If Apple released a cut-down version of the Mac Pro, with one underclocked processor, memory soldered on to the motherboard, one 80GB hard disk, no PCI, no FireWire, one USB, no Ethernet, integrated graphics ? would you pay more than a Mac Pro because it came in a smaller enclosure?
If you believe that miniaturization costs money, then the 17" MacBook Pro should be the cheapest machine in the range and the iPod Shuffle should cost more than an iPod Nano.
The MacBook Air is nothing more than 'Executive Jewellery' and it's going to bomb worst than the Cube.
And for the last time, I don't care what Apple's competitors charge for their executive jewellery ? they aren't selling product either!
Comments
Can somebody please explain to me how the entry level MacBook Air can possibly be more expensive than the MacBook?
How can REMOVING components ADD to the cost of the unit?
My hunch is that Apple views the Air as the beginning of a whole new category and doesn't consider the price to be related to the MacBook at all. Expect to see a smaller footprint Book as well as more accessories to join the Air line in the future.
I'm just not convinced that it costs extra to remove components. I guess we'll see when someone reverse engineers an Air and provides an estimate of the cost to manufacture one of these machines. I suspect it will set a new record.
As seems to need explaining every time one of those tear-downs appears, they attempt to account only for the cost of components, not the cost of manufacture, development, support or any other misc. costs.
Yes, the cost of components in the MacBook Air is probably slightly less than that of the MacBook (no optical drive, one less USB port, no firewire, no audio in, no optical audio out, no ethernet. Most of those save Apple about $1 - $2, except the optical drive which presumably saves them about $40 - 50, and the firewire which saves them about $5. Counter-balancing that is a more expensive screen (backlight and glass both pricier), keyboard and casework. The screen is probably about $20 more, the keyboard and casework I've got no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if together they account for $20 - 30.)
But, to properly compare the profit margin of MacBook Vs. MacBook Air, you have to account for the much higher manufacturing cost - precision work on aluminium etc. and the fact that high development costs (2 years of R&D) have to be spread across fewer machines (because this is a niche machine, and will sell way fewer units than the MacBook).
I have no doubt that the profit margin of the MacBook Air is higher than that of the MacBook. However, I'm also sure that the difference is nowhere near as big as many people seem to think it is.
As others have said, when this price point was set, I realized how much of a steal the regular MacBook looks right now.
I think you guys are confusing miniaturization with reduction.
There's a very big difference. If Apple had managed to shoe-horn a fully featured MacBook in to that size of enclosure then yes that would have been a feat of miniaturization, and yes that would have cost money. But that is not what Apple has done, they've simply removed components, and it doesn't cost money to remove components.
Underclocking the processor doesn't cost money. Stripping out the USB and Firewire ports doesn't cost money. Stripping out the SuperDrive doesn't cost money. Stripping out the Ethernet doesn't cost money. Stripping out the upgradeable DIMM slots doesn't cost money.
The use of aluminium over plastic can only cost pennies. Likewise, does the cost of a 1.8" drive over a 2.5" drive really justify what Apple's asking?
The standard MacBook's motherboard isn't that much smaller than the MacBook Air's. All they've really done is remove several components, or substitute an internal battery for a replaceable one, in order to meet their self-imposed volume requirements.
As for the Intel processor being 'custom' that remains to be seen. AFAIK, all SJ said was that they 'asked' Intel to shrink the size of the CPU ? there may have been other manufacturers asking the same thing and we may well see other manufacturers using the same part.
If Apple released a cut-down version of the Mac Pro, with one underclocked processor, memory soldered on to the motherboard, one 80GB hard disk, no PCI, no FireWire, one USB, no Ethernet, integrated graphics ? would you pay more than a Mac Pro because it came in a smaller enclosure?
If you believe that miniaturization costs money, then the 17" MacBook Pro should be the cheapest machine in the range and the iPod Shuffle should cost more than an iPod Nano.
The MacBook Air is nothing more than 'Executive Jewellery' and it's going to bomb worst than the Cube.
And for the last time, I don't care what Apple's competitors charge for their executive jewellery ? they aren't selling product either!