Apple updates processors and drops prices of MacBook Pro with Retina Display [u] - Page 3

Or maybe it's simply process improvements and lower prices for the SAME technology. You can't rule that out on the basis of what's known.

 

We need something on these. "/s", "¡"… something. 

Many years ago, my parents had a Dell with soldered RAM, but it still had a slot to add more. I think it was manufactured 1999 or so. The ultraportable market pre MacBook Air might have had a lot of them, I don't know.

The problem, it sure looked like uneducated, self-entitled whining. "Overpriced" isn't a statement of fact, it's an opinion. I've also pointed out that Apple isn't the only tech company that charges an early adopter premium, only him "stating" (complaining) that about Apple doing it sounds pretty selective to me.

 

And there's a huge difference in stating "Macs are overpriced" and "This specific model of Mac with an integrated GPU is overpriced".

There were, I had an Asus M2 laptop in 2002. It was a super-thin laptop by the standards at the time. It has 128 MB soldered onto the mobo, and a slot to add more RAM later.

 

I'm pretty sure I had a Toshiba laptop with soldered RAM at one point, too. However, it was somewhat different - a base level of RAM soldered onto the board (maybe 1 MB way back then) and then a single slot so you could add more.

It's a process change, which is what I stated, then it is DIFFERENT technology to make that change. I made no comment about the NAND being different in any other way expect the lithography. As for the price, it could be cheaper it could be more expensive or it could be exactly the same. I made no comment on that except to say around the same price.

I completely agree with you, which is why I opted for the 15" when I would have preferred a 13" form-factor - at the time.  I am so glad I did.  The 15" is the same weight as my old 13" and is only a few mm deeper, front to back, meaning it still fits my carry-on.  A brilliant, though expensive, bit of gear.

 

As for the update, wow, 2.3 to 2.4 ghz - wish I had waited!.....not.

Quicker price drop from initial release of Macbook Air (took a couple years to drop price on them).

That being said, $200 is not much of a drop...I suppose for Apple it is.

 

I just bought a refurb (July 2012 model) MBP 13" 2.9-i7 with 750 ODD & 8gb RAM.  So the extra $1330 i could have spent on this isn't much to change my mind.

 

What Apple needs to do is drop the prices of SDD upgrades...then perhaps the sales will go up.  Charging $300 & $700 extra for the added SDD is robbery.  Especially if you can't later-on upgrade yourself.  My MBP is upgradable to Fusion Drive (should i drop my DVD drive) and RAM upgrades to 16gb (of which is not configurable in the Apple custom build section).  And actually, I really wanted the MB Air with the same specs, but the refurb page didn't offer one in 512gb SDD and a brand new one was $800 more than mine.

 

So no, I don't regret a single thing.  $1,269 (mine) VS. $2,599 (price drop Retina with same specs)...not a tough choice here.  I land live without Retina and mine can be converted to Fusion Drive for about $300.

Says who? Perhaps they've simply gotten more efficient. Maybe you haven't noticed, but semiconductor prices drop - even when nothing else changes. An Intel i7 Sandy bridge today is far less expensive than it was last year. The price of RAM has been dropping for years - even if you look at identical RAM. NAND has been dropping for years - even looking at exactly the same part.

EVEN IF there are no changes in the SSD (same process, same size, same design, same packaging), the price this year is likely to be lower than the price last year.

Maybe, but based on Apple's pricing history and the other factors mentioned I don't think a potential price drop in Intel's Core processors is the reason for any of this.

And I have no idea what your "Says who?" means. Clearly these are my words about how I think the change has happened, unless you are referring to the process change which is a change and therefore inherently different.

 

It took years for the MBA's price to drop, not months.

I was referring to your repeated assertion that a lower price means that the process has changed - and your claim that there's no other explanation.

Clearly, prices can drop even for the same product WITHOUT any product or process change, so your statement is obviously false.

Yes, my assertion is what I think and you've done nothing to change my mind by presenting other evidence that would make me see it differently. Instead you seem trying to say I'm not allowed to think that as if I've stated it as an undeniable fact.

They can but based on all the info previously presented I don't think that is even close to the most likely reason.

Wrong. You said that there was no other explanation.

I gave an alternative explanation.

Ergo, you were wrong.

 

I ran back through the quotes to see where he said that, and I found "I don't see any other explanation". That doesn't sound like "is no other explanation".

I can't find me writing "no other explanation" once in this thread or making any comparable statement that would exclude anyone else from having an opinion or asserting my opinion as an incontrovertible truth

Shall we examine the post you decided to jump on?

Apple seems to be doing minor tweaks to products early year then the new ones in mid to late year(Jan-iPad,FEB.-MacBook pro/aie

 

The full context is that you wrote in response to this statement:

 

"Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like they have cut SSD prices across the board.  For all MBPs and MBAs."

 

"If that's the case then I don't see any other conclusion than the are now using a smaller node process to double the NAND density."

 

So the full statement is:

 

If they have cut SSD prices across the board then I don't see any other conclusion than they are now using a smaller process node to double the NAND density.

 

The IF portion of your statement does not imply any leeway as to the reason of the change.  Just that if the change in price occurred then no other conclusion is possible than Apple is using NAND made using a smaller process node.  The "assume" in your statement has zero to do with your assertion that the only possible way that an across the board SSD price cut can happen is a process node change.

 

Whatever you meant to say this was what you ended up saying.  Yes, you did assert that conclusion as an inconvertible truth (in your opinion anyway) when you stated you couldn't see any other conclusion.

 

Of course there several ways Apple could achieve an across the board SSD price cut without moving to a new process node.  They could have a new supplier at the same process node that charges less.  They could have moved to TLC vs MLC NAND at the same process node.  They could simply be passing along the cost savings in the reduced pricing for older NAND.  They could even, horror of horrors, be making less margin on SSD upgrades.

 

Is moving to NAND made with a new process node even the most likely reason for enabling lower SSD pricing?  I'm thinking not.  The Samsung 830 used a 27nm 2 bpc MLC NAND and the new Samsung 840 Pro is a 21nm 2 bpc MLC NAND selling at around the same price or higher.  It's just faster.  The Samsung 840 using 21nm 3 bpc TLC NAND is cheaper than the older 830 but the primary cost reduction comes from it being TLC, not the process node improvement.  27nm TLC NAND would have been cheaper than 27nm MLC NAND last year as well.

 

LATER this year 21nm MLC NAND will become cheaper than last years 27nm MLC NAND.  Right now Samsung can and must command a premium to pay for the process node change and performance increase.  TODAY 27nm MLC NAND is cheaper than it was this time last year.

 

So any price reduction in SSD pricing right now is far more likely the result of either a move to lower quality TLC NAND or reduced pricing on the older process node NAND from last year.  It is not as likely the result of using new process node NAND in the product but given the volume that Apple purchases NAND it is possible.  On the other hand, that volume discount should apply equally well to older process NAND.

Oh by the way...going from 27nm to 21nm doesn't actually double your NAND density...

I don't see how anyone can misunderstand the words I don't see with there is no other possible answer that anyone could ever come up with. See what I did there? I made a statement about my inability to perceive something that clearly existed prior to this post. I honestly can't see how you or anyone can take a clear qualifier and conditional clauses clearly referring to the self and change them to assert it as something else.

I'll let you in on a little secret. When I know something is the truth I will 1) state it as the such with no qualifers or conditional clauses that would allow for the statement to be read as a supposition, and 2) I will adduce the **** out of it because without the ability to provide evidence all you have is your opinion.

nht explained it very well.

However, I'll accept that you're now saying that your problem is that you have no imagination, no understanding of industry dynamics, and can't see anything that's not right under your nose.

1) No, he didn't. Both of you decided to not comprehend what was clearly written for a reasonable person to read.

2) I freely admitted in my original post that I unable to reach no other valid conclusion based on the evidence which you are now saying means I have no imagination, as in none at all, as opposed to a limited one.

3) I will agree your imagination is much more developed than mine. How else can one misread something and then stick to it despite all verifiably evidence pointing out you were wrong. We all misread things at times but most of it own up to it when we do.

4) Speaking of no imagination you just used a clichéd idiom. Can you see under your nose?

 

Well, I find it really funny that you can't see how  "I don't see any other conclusion" is equivalent to "I don't see any other explanation".

 

In fact he's been arguing that your perception (or lack thereof) is wrong this entire time does not mean you haven't claimed that you did not think there was any other conclusion.  Which is a pretty dumb assed statement to make in the first place.

 

I'll let you in on a little secret:  Your command of conditional qualifiers isn't very good. 

 

Neither is your ability to accept when you are wrong.  At no point thus far have you admitted that he was right and you were wrong about the possible reasons for SSD price reduction.  Whether you could see any other conclusions when you first wrote your post is of far less amusement than your attempt to defend a poorly thought out assertion.

 

He didn't even say you were wrong about your assertion just that:

 

Where exactly did I write "I don't see any other explanation"? That's right, I didn't. This is just more jackassery to assert that I assert something I didn't instead of admitted you didn't read correctly. Perhaps you're still confused by the obvious differences in saying "no/none/zero/zilch/nada" as opposed to saying that one can't see. This is stuff you should have learn at a young age.

Here's an example: I don't see how you two can have IQs over 80. Now did I say you two didn't have IQs over 80? Did I say that it was impossible for you two to have IQs over 80? No.I simply said I'm not able to see it.

And no, you were all over the place trying to "prove" I was not allowed to come to my conclusion that you ended up just throwing out figures with absolutely no support or cohesive argument to back it up. Again, if you have actual "proof" then go ahead and present it, but that would be impossible unless you access to Apple's records so you'll just have to continue to post your opinion whilst claiming I'm not entitled to mine.


PS: If you want to continue jacking the thread and making up stuff go write ahead but I've given the both of far too much attention and respect already. I can address every idiotic comment where someone refuses to comprehend what they write or admit when they misread something.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/13/13 at 4:10pm

Not entirely. In February 2008, the model with a 64GB SSD was $2999. I took a pass. In November 2008, I bought mine with a 128GB SSD for $2499 (actually $2399 from MacMall but I'm comparing MSRP).

Discreet? Yes, I do hate those thoughtless and uncaring indiscreet GPUs.

There is no such thing as a "Windows computer". Windows is software, so there are only computers that run Windows. Macs are among those.

 

Yeah, I see elsewhere in the thread how you use a passive-agressive form of "opinion" to sanitize your criticisms of other people's needs, wants and opinions. I like this new tactic though -- changing the subject and shifting the focus to attacking others to divert attention from what you wrote is a refreshing change for you.

 

The fact is that saying that you see no need for a decent GPU because YOU'VE never needed one is ridiculous.

 

Your posturing as a misunderstood literati appears to be making others wonder if you're actually just an asshole. Note that I didn't SAY you're an asshole, so if that's what you read into it then you're misreading me, and only an asshole would do that.

Now I'm claiming no need for a "decent GPU"? What the **** are you people smoking?
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/13/13 at 5:03pm

Can anyone explain to me the difference between the 13" rmbp 2.6 GHz intel i5 vs the 3.0 GHz intel i7 ??
Is it worth the difference in price? It's about $200 more for the 3.0 Ghz model.

I don't know. What are you planning to do with it?

If you're doing heavy scientific computing and/or things that will heavily stress the CPU, it might well be worth the price difference. The i7 has some performance advantages even beyond the clock speed difference.

OTOH, if you're using your computer solely for browsing the web, sending emails, and running Microsoft Office, save your money.

Is it worth it? That's debatable. What kind of usage do you expect? What are you coming from? I personally just bought a new Mac and took the high-end model of the Core-i5 but didn't splurge on the Core-i7. My usage needs don't current warrant it but I know plenty of people that need as much CPU performance as possible and think $200 is worth saving a few seconds here and there over a several years.


Here is a comparison of the two processors listed above: http://ark.intel.com/compare/72056,71255

Most of the pricing adjustments could be accounted for by a small change to their gross margins. We know their margins lowered overall at the last financial report.

They said that gross margins last year were 44.7% and prices didn't drop since then.

There seems to be around $200-300 off each model. With the base model, the new gross margin would be:

0.553 x $1699 = ~$940. (1499 - 940)/1499 = 37%.

With the 2nd model, the 2.6GHz CPU costs the same so we get:

0.553 x $1999 = ~$1105. (1699-1105)/1699 = 35%.

The exact margins won't be entirely accurate as the numbers they report include everything they sell but the supply cost can stay the same or be slightly lower and they can make up some of the lost margin in increased volume.

Like I said in previous threads, they could actually knock $200 average off every Mac in their lineup (the higher amounts going to the expensive models) and if they didn't increase volume, they'd only lose $1b out of the $13b per quarter they make. But of course they will increase shipment volume quite a bit knocking that much off so everybody wins: Apple increases shipment volume, customers get lower prices and more Macs sold means higher software sales through the App Stores and potentially more peripheral devices sold too.

I was surprised at the price cut so early on as I expected this to happen with the Haswell launch but I think they might be trying to make up for the iMac delays that caused a drop in shipment volume of over 1 million units vs last year.

I'd be very surprised if they managed to eliminate the old model entirely at the Haswell launch but it depends really on how much more it actually costs to build the Retina model vs the old model.

Once they drop the price of the 15" models, there's also a question of whether they will bring the 17" back to fill the higher price point or just keep adding more storage. I was going to say it would be better having the $2799 model lower but you can spec the lower one up with the 2.7GHz CPU and 16GB RAM for $300 to get $2499 with 256GB storage.

Given Haswell's GPU boost, perhaps that entry 15" model can be Retina but just a dual-core i5/i7 with IGP and 256GB storage at the $1799 price - possibly the removal of the dedicated GPU and $150 cheaper CPU can justify the $400 lower price.

I just bought a 13" 128GB MBA last Thursday and was considering a retina MBP. :-(

I considered upgrading when I read about the price drop this morning. The Apple store had the 256GB retina MBP at $1,599, not the $1,699 reported here and on Apple's Store app.

 

Well, call Apple and get a credit for the difference.

 

LOL...you're all upset because he replace "conclusion" with "explanation"?   Really?

 

 

Fine...you wrote "I don't see any other conclusion".

 

LOL...man that's hilarious.

 

 

"I don't see any other conclusion" is equally assertive as "I don't see any other explanation".  

 

Unless the presumption is that the declarant is an idiot (probably not an assumption you prefer) then the statement "I don't see" presumes some level of intelligence on the part of the person making the assertion and therefore functionally equivalent to "I believe there is no other conclusion...". 

 

A "conditional" statement would be "I believe the most likely conclusion is..."

 

 

 

I don't see how you think that avoids the rule against insulting other members of the forum unless you think the mods are idiots...or favor you...or both.

 

Does this passive aggressive thing work for you in real life?  Because here on the internet the natural response is:  u mad bro?

 

 

 

The prices of the Samsung 830, 840 and 840 Pro are well established and can be seen by looking at Amazon price histories.  The fact is that the MLC NAND used in this generation is made using a smaller Samsung process node (21nm) than MLC NAND used in prior SSDs (27nm) and are not double the density nor are cheaper.

 

Two facts that directly contradict two incorrect assertion of yours (that NAND densities doubled or that smaller process nodes means lower pricing) used to make your statement.

 

 

 

If you don't like getting nailed for dumb assertions the best solution is to stop making dumb assertions and then doubling down on them.

 

Obviously with the number of posts you've had on your two accounts you have more than enough time to address every comment in these forums...probably two or three times.

 

It depends. If you bought a MacBook Pro Retina and you were willing to spend what it used to cost to get it, you obviously thought it was worth the money, so why would you be pissed? You got a great computer, right?

 

It strikes me that higher yields on the retina panels and lower component costs are more likely than Apple willing to take an unnecessary margin and ASP hit on their top laptop lines.  There's no indication that they aren't selling as well as Apple might have hoped.

 

 

 

LOL...only lose a $1B.

 

 

 

I do not believe that Apple MBP customers are that price sensitive.  I would think that if they were willing to take a new $1B/qtr hit they would MOST likely do so on the iPad Mini instead of the MBP line.

 

 

 

As much as it pains me the return of the 17" looks unlikely at this stage.

 

While the entry level 15" COULD go with IGP (even today) that would simply drive up the minimum price for anyone wishing to have a dedicated GPU.  That's probably unwise.  While I believe that most MBP buyers are relatively price intolerant there's always a point too far.

 

It strikes me that Apple likes using the dedicated GPU as the differentiating point between lines.  Mac Mini vs iMac.  13" MBP/MBA to the 15" MBP.