Apple unveils Intel-based MacBook notebooks - Page 8

My blackbook just shipped from macmall today, I'll have it on friday nice surprise!

although gotta pick up some ram faster than i expected,

Look at it the other way. The company chose to sell to nine customers instead of one. They didn't look at market share, they looked at how many customers there were.

When I come out with a new product I look at how many I can sell, not how much market share I can grab. How many I can sell determines the price or even if the product is viable. Market share as a metric is dot-com madness. It also only gives you a handle on existing markets and not new markets. When Apple came out with the iPod I'm sure they didn't look at market share as a metric, they looked at how many customers they could sell to.

When you're talking about millions of potential buyers, most products are viable. Market share is irrelevant.

Apple are right to concentrate on the product and their margin and not market share because their market is certainly large enough to sustain their products and continuing existence.



I DID. There are enough that the Mac is a viable choice for the market Apple operate in. I gave a list even to Mr. H.



Every? No they don't. Only the mainstream do. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Not everyone thinks that way. Some people 'Think Different'.

You don't have to slavishly follow that path. Prime example would be Delicious Monster or Omni...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...licious13.html

If you're going off of analysts and 'market share' then I'd read some different analysis. Look at Profitability and sales instead.


Not these days. I can walk in to a garage about 25 miles from here and buy an Aston there and then.

However, that's not what I meant. Aston have their product lines and making a £5000 city car just isn't them. Making a $500 laptop isn't Apple. Do you see people on Aston forums complaining that Aston don't do a city car or even just a £20,000 family car? No. So why Apple should do a $500 laptop is beyond me and just shows that some people just don't understand Apple at all. Or they're just cheap bastards.

Both. They were different points.

At some point a product is viable. That's got nothing to do with market share.

Take melgross' example earlier.

There's ten customers. Nine on Windows, One on a Mac. A product is viable if 5 people buy it. Therefore you create a Windows product. Mac isn't viable.

Now expand that market to 50 customers. Same market share - 45 windows, 5 Mac. But the product still only needs to sell 5 copies. The Mac market is then viable.

Now say there's 4 competitors doing Windows software already since they've seen the 90% market share figure. Now the Windows market is less attractive - you've got to out market your competitors and probably spend a lot of time matching them feature for feature. The Mac market looks a lot more attractive since you've no competition.

Scale the figures up and when you get to millions of customers it quite often doesn't matter either way which you develop for. Do what makes you happy.

Even Apple do that, otherwise they'd be writing Windows software and totally give up on MacOS.



Because the number of Windows users with card slots is much higher than Mac users. If you notice, ALL of the Mac solutions are USB.


You're getting there. Sensible businesses look at unit sales. ie. customers, not market share and if your product isn't viable to a market of N million Mac users then you must be doing something wrong or operating in a small niche. Windows has more niches and larger niches which is why there's a larger more diverse set of products for it. It's got nothing to do with the 97%/3% market share split and everything to do with customer base.

The MacBooks are flying off the shelves. Obviously the whingers needs to get a life. Jobs & Company seem to be doing just fine.

Look, will you please stop with the damn car analogy? It doesn't work. Aston customers aren't suggesting Aston make a city car because they don't think Aston's market share or indeed, just unit volume, is important.

I take offence at both suggestions that I misunderstand Apple and/or am a cheap bastard. I advocate Apple selling cheaper models in addition to the ones that they already sell for the good of the platform as a whole. I love the Apple platform and want to see it thrive. I suggest that Apple produce these machines because I think it makes business sense. Not only do I think that such machines will increase market share (which you say is not important, and that's fair enough. I don't think we need to discuss that any more), but they would also significantly increase the number of computers that Apple sells and hence vastly increase their revenues and profits.

You were the one who introduced the "$500 laptop" motif. I was talking about laptops less than $1099. You are also the one who refuses to acknowledge that there is a vast range of price points between $500 and $1099, and also refuse to acknowledge that Apple could produce less expensive machines without sacrificing margins or design aesthetics, by removing some features and using less expensive components (especially when it comes to the processor).


Good grief! Did I say, anywhere, that I thought the MacBook would be a poor seller? No. I just think Apple could sell significantly more (and that is a bad thing how exactly?) if the range started at a lower price.


edit: corrected a spelling mistake

Except that they do look at marketshare. They also look at total sales. I've agreed to that. but there is a combination of the two that is the "bingo" point. From what I gather, you are a small developer. Not putting that down, I have software from many small developers. But, as a small developer, the marketshare problem just doesn't apply very much. But a company developing a larger product has to weigh those development costs against the return. Since developing for the Mac costs about the same as it does for Windows, that will have a major effect on the decision. Years ago, Symantic came to a meeting at my usergroup. At the dinner afterwards, I asked the rep why we didn't get the 175 page manual that the Windows users got, in addition to the one on the cd. His answer was tyhat as the Mac was such a small market compared to the Windows one, it would wipe out their profit. When I pointed out that Mac only companies didn't have that problem, they said that they charged more for it, and that Symantic couldn't do that because they had to maintain the same price.

I found that to be interesting. When talking to some Mac only developers, they seconded that.

So, it seems that both total sales, and marketshare come into play, as I've been saying. I see no reason to believe anything else. It's a choice a company makes. If the Mac were the only market for a product, then it wouldn't matter that their sales were far smaller, but when they are not, then it does. It's called, the easy road to profitability.


Again, with you, I can't argue that. And, I am quite sure that some small companies will look at the Mac market and try their hand their, at least at first. But, you might also notice that many Mac only companies do, after a while, also go after the far larger Windows market. Very often they are then found to be letting their Mac customers languish.


Again. Sometimes. If a program costs a million bucks to develop, it's far more likely it will be developed for windows.


We don't know if that is true, or if Apple is simply making another mistake. They could be easily thinking that they are so hot as a company, that it won't matter.




Yes, I did see that list, but it is just a fraction of the choices Windows users have. Sure, id a very few cases, we may even have more chioces, but it's rare. You talked about graphics cards after I mentioned them. You said that we have Nvidia and ATI. I beg to disagree. We have no ATI for the current machines, and only a poor sub-grouping of Nvidia cards, at inflated prices, supporting less featurers, at least for the consumer versions. We have NO high-end gaming card, just a middling mid rantge GT, that is now a generation behind. Only what Apple chooses to offer. A sad choice.

The same is true for other cards.




Big deal. Those aren't considered to b important enough to pay attention to. Sorry, if you like them.


I'm not interested in those sites that no one pays attention to. All of the "mainstream" analysts pay strict attention to margin, sales, and profits, as you well know.



I don't know where you live, but you can't even do that here in New York.


You might also notice that most of these small very high end auto manufactirers are now owned by those large auto manufacturers that you dispise, like ford, and Gm. Why? Because they didn't have enough money to survive.

I don't think that Apple needs a $500 dollar laptop. But, a more stripped down model for maybe $899, that could be upgraded, would be nice.

You're missing the entire discussion here, and the entire point to it.

No one is arguing that these won't sell well. Read what we've been saying.

I'm not making ANY car analogy. I'm not saying selling laptops is the same as selling cars or that Apple = Ferrari or Apple = Aston or even Apple = Ford. I've explicitly said that multiple times already. I'm sorry I even used a car company as an example of another company that has it's own market segmentation and is happy to not sell to the mainstream market because reading comprehension seems to go out the window as soon as anyone suggests a car company as an example. Next time I'll use Gaggia coffee makers instead of Morphy Richards Kettles ok?



I'm sure they DO think unit volume is important, otherwise their cars would be as expensive as Morgans and they'd be waiting 5 years+.



Then you should take offence because Apple doesn't want to sell cheaper models. That's patently clear. They've got closer than ever recently with the Mini but still they don't what to compromise what makes Apple, Apple.

Or you can just chill out and quit whinging.


I disagree. Competing on price is ALWAYS a bad idea. It's business 101. All you end up doing is driving down profit margins. In order to compete with the $300 Dells and even cheaper beige BYO boxes, Apple would have to not be Apple. They'd have to ditch R&D, ditch their expensive design, ditch features they consider important, whether you do or not. They'd cheapen the brand and lose much of the caché of having an Apple. Margins would have to tumble.


I didn't, but I used it as an example because people do buy them only to find out later what's not included. Apple has already come down market more than I thought it would and more than most people realise. Just compare how cheap looking the last of the iBooks were compared to the first G3 Icebooks in 2001. The MacBooks are bargains and the new features create a wow factor above the competitors and beyond the actual value of those extra features. They'll sell loads of them.



Because the lower the price, the less the profit. The lower spec the computer, the less effective the computer experience. If they were going for market share then it'd be a good thing but they obviously aren't. They're going for quality sales. Sales that are likely to turn into software sales too. When you've a premium product that is selling on being a premium product. you don't cheapen the brand by selling crap.

I'm not talking about competing on price (presumably, by this, you mean offering machines with equal capabilities to your competitors, but at a lower price?).

The laptops that Dell make that are actually equivalent to the laptops that Apple make, cost the same. Apple is able to match Dell's prices for equally-specified laptops, whilst offering better design aesthetics and presumably having higher margins.


What is your obsession with quoting these ridiculous bargain-basement prices? It is not what I am talking about.

I'll say it again. Perhaps with fewer words in my post you'll get it this time:


Not all people are idiots. Many people really do know that they don't want certain things in their computers, and don't want to pay extra for things they don't want.


edit: edited for grammar

even tho my macbook wasn't supposed to ship from apple until the 23rd, just got email saying it will ship TODAY! hooray!!!!!

okay, and is it just me or is all of this market share talk making your head spin?

Which one did you get?

If it's the white one, can you post pictures when it arrives?

And that makes me think:

Why are Apple's product photos always so useless? Their machines have all these wonderful little design features and then they completely fail to show said features off on their website. What's that all about?

I posted this before, but I think it got lost in the late hour, and between out overly long posts, but it's worth posting again.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2397

Because ultimately that's where it ends up.

If you came out with a $999 MacBook, someone will always point out the $899 Dell. If you came out with an $899 MacBook, someone will point out the $799 Acer. If you came out with a $799 MacBook, someone will point out the $599 YangLiHo....

Your argument is that Apple should go out and out for market share in the lower end of the market. That's where it will end up. It's the reverse of what Dell, HP and the other big manufacturers are trying to do and they don't even have a premium brand image to protect or Apple's R&D costs.

A while back a bike shop owner told me he refuses to sell mountain bikes that cost less than £250. Ostensibly he could sell bikes called 'Mountain bikes' that cost £100. He certainly had customers coming in asking for them and Toys R Us sold them by the truck load.

He refused still. Why?

Because if people used them as 'mountain bikes' they'd fall apart in no time at all and he'd have a lot of returns. The low margin would be eaten up in no time. Plus, he didn't want the hassle and well, he's a cyclist so thinks that selling people 45lb lumps of badly crafted steel will put people off bikes and they'd not be back for better ones later. If he was selling £100 bikes he'd have to sell a lot more of them and not mind pissing off customers when their pile of junk fell apart.

Apple is that bike shop owner. Dell is Toys R Us.

Is that a better analogy for you?

Oh dear. So they're painted matt black not moulded that way?

I never looked it at that way you've proposed. Nice catch.
And, heck, it is absolutely true. Perhaps it is just me, but if you
want to get good long lasting design, you almost always have
to pay the difference. And that is okay for me. At least.

If i am gonna asked, why the hell do you pay a premium price
for a certain luster, i reply: This piece is a beauty of its
own class, i want to pay the extra, to get the extra.
Bad design just makes me sick. It harms me physically.

Another example: If you are in the market for a new, say, refrigerator
or a washing machine you can get a very cheapo poorly designed
machine. The machine likely will perform all tasks as advertised. Sure.
But the overall aesthetic of said machine just doesn't make you
happy. You feel sick whenever you see this bulk, whenever you
touch this piece of electronic. The very moment you unwrap the
new machine, you wanna get rid of this ugly thing. Because it
disturbs you so much. Perhaps it is just me...

cheers

Reposted from another thread:

Hey guys, I hope all of you are doing just fine. It has been a long time since my last post but I wanted to see if anyone else is in the same situation as myself...

I am a University student looking to buy an Apple laptop with a total cost of under $2000 Canadian.

When Apple released the new MacBook, I was stoked! It looks amazing and seems to incorporate every feature that I could want except... Duh duh duh...

INTEGRATED GRAPHICS.

Yes, yes, you knew it was coming. I don't want to come off as more whiny than I have to, but when I buy a notebook computer this summer, I want to make sure that I will still be satisfied with it in 3 years to come.

The problem that arises is that, I want to be able to play some games (like WoW with at least the level of performance of my old 9800 Pro), dabble in photoshop (image manipulation etc.) as well as other media style apps and I am worried that in the long run IG won't cut it.

The perplexing thing to me is that while looking at intel specifications on its GMA 950 chipset (found here: http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950), it looks to be more than capable of decent hardware acceleration. It supposedly has specs almost on par with my radeon 9800 pro (without the dedicated VRAM and 4 pixel pipes instead of 8 on the 9800 Pro) currently residing in my 6 year old G4 tower.

It seems to me that the problem isn't necessarily hardware limitations but more so inefficient drivers. While reading more about Intel's stance on their IG chipsets they seem to have a set it and forget it attitude, unlike Nvidia and Ati that routinely optimize their drivers for even older hardware (I have seen steady improvements in performance every time Ati, through Apple updates my video drivers).

Now, let's say I want some kind of dedicated graphics card, I have to turn to the MacBook Pro which after AppleCare and taxes comes to approximately 2620 Canadian dollars. In comparison, the high-end white MacBook with AppleCare and taxes comes to about 1830 Canadian. This is a difference of almost 800 dollars! It isn't that the price difference is not justified, but I love the 13.3 inch form-factor.

I simply wish that on the high end MacBook they could have included even something as low as an Ati X300. Better yet an Nvidia 6200 Turbocache. These bottom of the barrel, el cheapo chips totally humiliate the GMA 950 in all tasks... AND THEY ARE INTEGRATED CHIPSETS!!! Check out http://www.anandtech.com/video/show...?i=2427&p=5 for their article comparing various integrated graphics solutions. Another thing to note... The above article is from almost a year ago. What does that tell you?

In other words, it isn't so much the IG that I am not liking it is the fact that for just a miniscule cost to apple (probably in the <$10 range considering the large quantities) we could have had a much better chipset, albeit integrated running in the MacBook. Even a BTO option would have been nice.

There would have been no clash between Pro and consumer lines, and many consumers would have been willing to pay even $100 extra on top of the Black MacBook's (already inflated) price to get that feature... I know I would.

It just surprised me that Apple could not think just a little differently in this regard and gave us top notch value/performance in every other area...

Another way that I might be convinced to buy a MacBook would be if some hack came out that allowed you to set the amount of shared ram to 224MB (the maximum allowed by the GMA 950 chipset). It might have enough of an effect to sway me.

Lastly, I just hope that those MacBook gamer rumours are true because if not, I will have to wait until some MacBook whatever iteration comes along with a better graphics solution, even if it is still IG.

Any thoughts?

Heck, this isn't true, is it?\

Just buy the MacBook. As a student, you're not going to game. Trust me, it's bad for your grades.

This demonstrates that you do not understand what I am talking about.


You don't have to explain to me why Apple should keep out of the low end. I agree. Apple shouldn't go there.

You just seem to be in denial about the realities of the PC market. The MacBook is an Upper Mid-Range machine, or perhaps even Lower High-End. I think Apple is only addressing about 20% of the market, and that is not a good business decision.

here is a quote from my first post in this thread:


Increased market share was one of the benefits that I think would result from such a strategy. This is also directly related to selling more units and therefore making more money. This is a bad thing, how exactly?

Perhaps you do not think there is much demand for a laptop with 15.4" widescreen (or 13" or 14" widescreen, for less money), no iSight, no Front Row, and a Pentium-M Celeron (This is not a low-end machine)? Go and look at Dell's, HP's, Acer's, Toshiba's, and Sony's (who together account for at least 70% of the market) product line-ups, and at the best seller list at Amazon, and you will find that you are mistaken.

Does that include Apple's higher-education discounts? In the UK, 3 year warranty (not full Apple Care) is standard (at no extra cost) for higher-education purchasers (makes the MacBooks and MacBook Pros a really sweet deal: can get the 1.83 GHz White with 1 gig of RAM and 3 year warranty for £703.30, or a 2 GHz MBpro with 1 gig RAM for £1,247.84)


Your link doesn't work. I didn't think the 950 was that bad a performer.


What makes you so sure that Apple could fit a dedicated GPU into the MacBook? Have you seen the take-apart photos? It's pretty tight in there. Also, there is the heat factor to take into account. Most reports I've seen state that the MacBook runs really hot as it is.

I think you should just save for longer and get a MacBook Pro.

Even if that turned out to be the case, you think all those users are just going to buy the cheapest machine they can find?

And I think more and more people are getting interested in watching video, editing it, making dvd's, and doing audio/video chat. Multimedia is a hog, and it's probably growing more than anything else right now. Once the bare minimum PC can handle video easily, people will start looking at HD.

Really, it's just all speculation without any real numbers. What really matters is, what percentage of the market is $599 laptops versus $1099 laptops? I know a year or two ago there was a ton of hubbub over $399 pcs...but hardly any of them were being sold.


So what do you consider the cut off point that apple needs to get up to?


I don't think anyone would disagree that additional models would sell. But the question is how many? You say "significantly" more. But we don't know that, with apple's limited resources, it may make more sense for them to focus their resources on the key products that are highest in demand and really nail them.


In the short term, they'll likely sell these as fast as they can build them. Having a cheaper model would likely increase demand, but if they're exceeding supply already, that just causes longer waits.



I think that's where your argument falls apart. I think apple is addressing probably 80% of the laptop market. Without any numbers, it's just dueling speculation.


There's only demand for those if the price is considerably less. You are assuming that cutting all those features would have a large difference in price. If the price difference isn't that much, I think most consumers would pay a little more for the extras. Apple obviously wants the selling point of their machines to be that they are the *best*. If apple sells machines with less features and low performance, they're turning the machine into a commodity. The arguements for buying the machine are stripped away leaving only the price as a selling point (and that's one they'll likely never win).


One point that everyone seems to keep ignoring: Why is everyone so sure that this line will remain forever? As far as I'm concerned, it makes the most sense for Apple to make the transition to intel as quickly and simply as possible. Put out the machines that will sell the most quickly and relieve the pent up demand, and keep market share up. Once the transition is finished, apple can easily add more models, configurations, and options to the product line. After all, it's much easier to take a limited product line and gradually expand it than to create a broad, complex product line from scratch on day one of release.

Why is such a notion seen as so outlandish?

They don't need to introduce a new line of macs to sell a sub $1000 Macbook. Core solo, a smaller hard drive and there you go. A celeron m and the above probably gets you to $899. Apple can do it without cutting margins but they choose not to. That's what puzzles some of us.

Although, they may have leaned a lesson from Dell and have chosen to maintain the image of being a step-above PC makers. Part of such a marketing strategy would be pricing, and the cache associated with owning something more expensive.

Because you've not demonstrated at all that it will net Apple any more money. How do you know selling low end computers won't cannibalise sales of higher end computers? And more than that, why do they have to? They're more profitable than Dell now. Using Dell's tactics won't make them more profitable, it'll make them less profitable.


You think a Celeron-M laptop isn't low end?

And you think iSight and FrontRow account for more than say $10 on the BOM to Apple?

I'll have what you're smoking.

I never said they need a different line. Simply that they have a lot on their plate just getting intel macs out the door, they can always add more configs later (look at the MPB's, they've already made improvements). You see it as choosing not to, I see it as choosing not to start with it.

Celeron is a different socket, using it would require a different motherboard from any of the Core machines.

That's a good question, isn't it? With plastic having the ability to take on any surface pattern from the mold, and the ability to take a "through" color, if the company uses the right material, and if this is still polycarbonate, or ABS, for that matter, there would be no reason for them not to do it that way.

But, if it's really peeling off already, that is not a good sign. Sometimes it's difficult to understand how they QC these products.

When we built something, we went and abused it. If the finish is arriving from the factory in a sub par manner, then someone is messing up badly.

But I question the wisdom of using a finish that can be seperated. I wish I could be there when they evaluate these things.

Dell loses money on their low price offerings not because they are low priced, but because they are always giving out those half (or less) price coupons. They would make money on their $500 units if they didn't sell so many at $250!

Apple doesn't have dozens of white box companies to compete with as Dell does. They also don't have an hp breathing down their neck, or a Lenovo, or a (heavens forbid) Gateway.

Offering a machine for, say, $899, without an iSight, a slower cpu, no Gigabit ethernet, no Wifi or Bluetooth, a smaller HD, but that could be upgraded to them, would not exactly be competing on the low end. It would be the same machine. Just let people decide if they want to go all the way, or stop somewhere else.

The Macworld article;

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/05...dson/index.php

Apple doesn't have to start that low, if they think that it will spoil their image, but there is no reason why the same principal concept can't apply. After all, Apple does build to order now. This would just give people more options.

This is really for those who are on the fence, and who have their Windows using friends co-workers, and relatives, trying to convince them that a $1100 computer costs too much. This levels the field somewhat.

When they see the options, they may get most of them anyway, but they will have the feeling that it is they who are making the choices to spend more, not that they are being forced into doing it.

A good point.

Actually it's comming today,

Not when it has a widescreen display, at least 512 MB of RAM, 80 + GB HD, and DVD burner, no.


iSight requires the camera, cable and connector on the MB. Front Row requires the IR receiver assembly, cable and MB connector, and remote control (with battery).

Yes, I do think those things contribute more than $10 to the BOM.


I never said they would.


No, the important question is what percentage of the market is 13 or 14 inch widescreens at under $1099 + 15.4 inch widescreens at under $1999? I suggest that it is much, much bigger than you think. Have you gone and looked at Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Sony and Amazon best-selling list as I suggested?


I think if they can get to 10%, things start to get very interesting.


I agree. It is impossible to know how many such machines Apple would sell without making them and finding out. I believe Apple need to be a lot more agressive, and expand their resources.


On this point, we must agree to disagree.


I think that the fact Apple can match PC manufacturers on price with machines that match the MacBook and MacBook Pro specs, they could offer machines such as the ones I suggest at similar prices to their competitors.


It is not outlandish. I hope you are right. Apple's campus consolidation (which will help improve resources for developing and supporting an expanded product range) cannot come soon enough.

You are seriously saying, that in less than a year, iSight, Front Row and Core Duo performance have become an absolute necessity for the "Mac experience", and that without them, a Mac is worthless and you might as well use Windows?

Removing iSight, Front Row and Core Duo does not remove what really makes a Mac a Mac: OS X, iLife and industry-leading industrial design.

And we don't know the answer to that question. And even if PC makers are selling machines at $999, or whatever number you consider a little less than apple's price, I think many users will see the advantages of the MB and be willing to pay a little more for it. I just don't buy that $999 for a pretty good computer will sell a ton better than $1099 for a great one.


I didn't say that at all. I'm just saying that those features are all great selling points for the mac, and that it makes sense for ALL macs to have those features. They just reinforce the message that mac equals quality and features.

It doesn't have to sell a ton better. Look at iPod. Great design, easy intuitive user interface, models in all price points (and competitve with other MP3 players). I believe iPod has 75% of the MP3 player market. The shuffle is offered to give consumers an entry point into iPods. It may not sell the most and certainly isn't the most 'advanced' iPod but it completes the product lineup.

I used to feel much like you do but Mr. H and others have convinced me that Apple could do better. Heck with the success of the iPod I wonder if arguments inside Apple are similar to the ones we have here.

From Amazon:

Top Seller:

Toshiba Satellite A105-S2716 15.4" Notebook PC (Intel Pentium M Processor 740 (Centrino), 1024 MB RAM, 100 GB Hard Drive, DVD SuperMulti Drive). Price $944.99

Number 4:

Acer Aspire 3004WLCi 15.4" Notebook PC (Mobile AMD Sempron 3100+, 512 MB RAM, 60 GB Hard Drive, CD-RW/DVD-ROM Combo Drive). Price $599.99

Apple doesn't even have a 15.4" MacBook model. The cheapest 15.4" Apple laptop you can buy is $1999.

I am not saying that Apple's laptops aren't worth it. They have much better specs than the machines above. But most people aren't buying them. They are buying 15.4" widescreen laptops with less powerful processors. Apple should not ignore this section of the market.



And anyone who doesn't want them should just get stuffed and buy a PC?

Even the Yonah based Celeron-M 4xx series ?

I've not seen a socket description for the new Celeron-M but I'd be surprised if it's not the same socket as the Core.

No, I'm saying that in broad pricing categories there are laptops in the >2K region, around $1K region and the around $500 region.

The number of customers shopping in the around $1K region that will not buy a $1099 ($999 w/discount) vs $999 ($899-$950 w/discount) is small.

The around $500 market is not one that Apple is likely to compete well in as its not oriented around style or performance but lowest price.


And Apple is a high end manufacturer. You want them to be something else. Which is okay but I wouldn't hold my breath or expect much support from folks that like the brand as marketed today.


Every analogy has areas where it breaks down. However, with the Ferrari example while the roads, gas, etc are common many things about the car is not. An example is their gas caps are machined out of aluminium.

With respect to developers, one of the brightest moves is to keep some level of compatibility with FreeBSD and to have Darwin. So long as Safari can mimic the same capabilities of say, FireFox, fewer and fewer websites will be inaccessible.


If it was trivial and had a high ROI I think that Apple would do it. Beating Dell in the pricing game at the volumes you want IS hard or Dell wouldn't be #1.


That comment makes no sense. New markets don't have a dominant player even if some competitors will have major advantages. Its MP3 players vs VCRs.

It means going after say the media center PC market vs the general PC market. Where Microsoft might dominate but the market is small enough that Apple with the right product can pull an iPod.

Investing R&D and money in some media appliance/PC has far more potential for explosive growth than trying to butt heads with Dell.


No offense but I'm glad neither you or I are in charge of Apple. In any case, cheaper models cheapens the brands and cannibalizes higher end sales.

Vinea

I am so sick of people on this forum making suggestions like this. Maybe you don't have the ability to be able to go to school and still have a bit of entertainment in your day. Hell I bet you took 20 credits a semester and lived in a library. I know plenty of people that have great GPA's and they have jobs, they party, and they game.

Don't just assume that because someone is in school that is their entire life. It's not. For most people they have jobs and schoolwork, and it is nice to be able to relax with a casual game.

The fact that this is a consumer notebook, and consumers play games, and there is no BTO option to upgrade the graphics card is just plain sad. I will say it again Apple left a gap in their line due to their unwillingness to make an adequate replacement for the 12-inch Powerbook. The Macbook is not a replacement for a 12-inch PB, and it never will be if Apple keeps up their attitude with integrated graphics.

I can't remember which site I read it on but there was a complaint that the Macbooks suffer when running Aperture, and an Apple employee suggested a MBP. Not everyone wants a 15 inch laptop, and please don't suggest having a desktop to game on, many people have a desktop, and some want a laptop that can do even a decent job at gaming. I am not talking about an x1600 but an x300 or a 6200 turbo cache would of greatly increased the performance for little cost.

Then they couldn't meet what appears to be their design goals for their products. Back to the car analogy its like saying Ferrari could make cheaper cars by putting in 4 cyl engines.

Uh yah...but those cars wouldn't meet the desired market segment and tarnish the brand. In this case, Apple projects the image that they make the best user experience in a combination of hardware and software. They have deemed for whatever reason that solid HD playback, iSight, etc are part of that experience moving forward.

If you don't have those things then you are competing on price because its a commodity market...where share is very important because the bigger the share the bigger the discounts you get on component purchases.

I also don't expect Apple machines to continue to be value leaders...have you considered that some of the current aggressive pricing while keeping 25% margins may be part of some sweetheart deal from Intel for the transition period?

Vinea

What makes you think current MBPs are 'value' machines? The Macbooks are a good value but MBPs are considerably higher than a similarly speced Dell inspiron, by about $800. If Apple get's less competitve with pricing going forward that will be a bad turn of events IMO.