But none of that is being overpriced if you are selling as many as you can make. You have to assume Apple is pretty good at estimating how many units they can make and how many they can sell. Based on how quickly and how long they are backlogged there is an argument for their products being underpriced.

I have no idea how you've come to a conclusion that Retina displays shouldn't cost anymore than the previous displays. We're talking 4x as many pixels in the same display area. With the iPod Touch and Mac notebooks we're also talking about going from TN to IPS panels. How would these not cost more? Eventually the cost will come down but you have make and sell enough of them for that to happen.

Frankly, I think the cost of the Retina MBPs are amazingly low. Apple seems very aggressive to make them look more attractive than the previous style MBPs they did a spec bump on.

I agree. great time to be in the market for one. I didn't know you could replace the SSD on that one. Even better for down the road!

 

Make up your mind. Either Apple charges out the ear for off the shelf components or "most of their components" are proprietary.

 

You have to have one angle for your spin, otherwise ships can't take off from the surface.

I guess we will have to disagree on this one.   I believe it is Apples intention to make Retina mainstream on its laptops.   However they simply don't have the capacity to do that yet, thus the high price on retina machines.   The high price and alternative machines help to control demand.  

The huge price differential you often see in IPS screens/monitors is artificial as the actual screens are not that much more expensive to make.   If you don't believe that then explain iPad.    IPS screens have been around for awhile now with the resultant lowering in cost to produce the screens.    Retina density screens reset the formula a bit which is more or less the point I'm making.   As production capacity catches up even retina screens will see mainstream pricing.  

Hmmm.
'Recordbreaking' = 'lackluster'?

Even proprietary doesn't mean expensive.   Take SSDs for example, Apple purchased Anobit awhile back and could be incorporating some of their tech into controllers for SSDs.  Such a controller doesn't have to be more expensive than one sourced elsewhere, in fact it could be cheaper.   In the end proprietary or not it doesn't matter Apple charges way too much for their SSDs.  

1) I think it's conjecture to say that going from a about 120 PPI TN panel to a 240 PPI IPS panel is "not that much more expensive." If that is the case then why has Apple been the first in these areas. Even the Retina iPhone in 2010 wasn't matched until 2012 on a device shipping in quantity. It appears to me that Apple has invested heavily into this tech and is now reaping the rewards of getting access to this tech before others. Surely it's not the $500 or more premium (see HP EliteBook) we saw with the few standard resolution IPS displays that were on PCs from various vendors but there is an investment from R&D that will cut into the starting price of a new tech.

2) If putting a 264 or 326 PPI IPS display on the iMac isn't that hard to do and with so little extra cost then why hasn't it been done yet? Surely Apple knows they can boost their PC sale significantly buy using a higher resolution display. The only reasonable solution is that it's not ready for that. The size of the display is an issue here which is a strong candidate as to why Apple is having trouble producing enough iMacs. Even on the smaller size it's only since the MBP refreshes have we had IPS and Retina on those machines. That was last year. Last year! And the MBAs still aren't IPS or Retina. On top of that the iPod Touch is IPS for the first time ever just last Autumn. I guess you can say Apple has just been cheap all these years but the reality is that IPS and high PPI displays have only started pushing into the mainstream recently and very quickly because of Apple considering when the iPhone first received it and where it is now with Mac notebooks.

3) Your statement "The high price and alternative machines help to control demand." is proof that they are not overpricing their products. Again, if the price was too high there wouldn't be enough demand to meet the supply. Anything else falls under what an individual feels is too high to suit their interests, which is not the same as being too high for a given market.



edit: Because I have doubts you'll believe me here is what an IPS upgrade from HP cost back in December 2010 (and who knows how much longer after that): http://www.anandtech.com/show/4049/hp-elitebook-8740w-ips-on-the-go/6 If you go to the first page you can see the $2000 laptop came out to over $6000 after being "configured."

 

The OWC isn't an "official" upgrade, but they have been making replacement SSDs for MacBook Airs for quite a while, and recently released SSDs for the rMBP. 

 

In my case, I lost my MacBook Air shortly before Christmas while traveling, and decided to upgrade to the 13" rMBP. While I got what was a good price at the time from MacMall (256GB version), I'd rather have lost the MBA this month (if I had to lose it at all - fortunately I had insurance, but I'd rather not be making $1800 claims regularly).

 

 

On the plus side typography is sharp. But I wouldn't recommend the current 13-inch model to anyone. Integrated graphics makes this a vacuous, non-product designed only to occupy a price point.

Edited by Dunks - 2/10/13 at 10:25pm

 

Hardly.

That's why I'm waiting on the 2nd gen rMBP. Let's get some GPUs actually built for such ridiculous resolution, instead of relying on the drivers and scalers Apple had to write themselves to make the current hardware usable.

I think you meant quarter-over-quarter decline.

 

 

 

Given the actual discount of $200, that's hyperbole.  This is underscored by the fact that certified refurbished Macs are generally similarly discounted, and critics still suggests Macs are too expensive.

 

These are new. Those aren't. Not comparable.

 

Apple's one day a year sale and sales like this are comparable. If the scale there warrants "fire", that's a different story.

 

These are the people who were never going to buy a Mac in the first place because they're paid not to, refuse to comprehend them, or just don't care.

@tallestskil: "These are new. Those aren't. Not comparable"

 

Look up the word "hyperbole", which I used and you didn't include in your quotation, and the comparison to Apple refurbished products will make sense.

 

Nope. Your implication was that the use of "fire sale" to describe this discount of new products is too overemphatic a descriptive phrase (and here's the important part) GIVEN that Apple has similar discounts on refurbished products.

 

 

The only comparison that can discount the use of 'fire sale' is one of new machines against new machines.

 

I actually agree with you; I don't think 'fire sale' really applies, since many third-party resellers have had similar discounts at various times through the year. But if you compare it against the once-yearly sale by Apple, the phrase could have merit.

Apple has now announced the price drops as official:

 

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/02/13Apple-Updates-Processors-Prices-of-MacBook-Pro-with-Retina-Display.html