Next-gen MacBook shipments begin ahead of 'sharp ramp' - Page 5

Emphasis on UBER UGLY!

Yes, the ExpressCard slot would be an awesome addition to the MacBook. I'm thinking they wont though.

The next MB will not be any cheaper but is likely to be made of aluminium, faster for the same price and based on the old inspirons we have will have a higher build quality.

Even now the current base macbook is $1009 after rebate on Amazon vs $973 for the Inspiron 13 (w/BT, camera, 802.11N, 56Whr batter). Yes, there's an annoying rebate and the drive is smaller but it's not 50% more expensive either. It is $36 more expensive. Likewise the 2.4 Ghz MacBook is $1,203.98 (after rebate) vs $1,073. $130 more expensive.

The clearance on the M1330 is a better deal than either and red is a nice color.

That you can even compare Apple pricing to Dell like this indicates that there is no real Apple tax. Just that Dell does closeout sales and Apple doesn't. Don't buy Apple products when they get near replacement and do buy Dell products when they offer them for $500+ off list.

Or wait a couple months and get the new versions of both lineups for about the same price. Except one runs OSX and the other runs Windows.

I think they are overpriced. Updating once a year when incremental price drops are passed on by all other vendors is hair pullingly annoying.

Mac Pro? Insane £1450 approx. Quad core. Stingy ram. Out of date/sucky gpu? OVerclockers.co.uk? Quad cores, with Sli/crossfire gpus? £600-£1200.

Macbook? £799. Geeze. There's a boat load of laptops that offer the same or more for much less.

Yeesh. I think Corey has bitch-slapped enough people with logic and links. But most Apple users on this board are just in denial at even basic facts.

Heck, even when Apple IS user older chipsets, they don't lower the price. They're very rigid. The Mac Mini is a £400 computer with old cpu/chipset and crap inte graphics. No k/b. No monitor. You can get a 'decent' laptop for that.

Be within 10-20% of a given PC market equivalent. That covers the OS and the design.

Ram. HD. GPU. These things are dirt cheap these days.

iMac. Quad cores are out there in abundance in desktops. Get with the consumer tower already.

Bah. These are old arguments. But if Apple wants to get past the consumer slow down and credit crunch they've got to wake up, start focusing on Macs again. After the iPhone and iPod stuff. I'm bored. There 'core business' looks what it is. Stale. Overpriced.

At least Corey can see it. He's clearly of sound mind and body.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I suspect the "sound mind and body" of Apple bashers that spend their time on Apple forums.

Apple has been at the forefront of significant improvements in Intel chips and chipsets. Often getting the best chips first. Over the past few months things haven't changed all that much. Montevina doesn't offer a huge boost in performance. The next big update will really come with Core i7 and Nelehem.

Given time the other OEM balance performance and cost. I imagine Apple will push beyond again with its next update. If history is followed Apple may be the first OEM with Core i7 technology.

Actually, the only thing that Corey has done is make up numbers and figures. I still don't know where I can get laptops with the MacBook's specs for $500 less (without looking at ridiculous clearance, blow-out sales).

Is anyone claiming that Apple specs are always top of the line and competitive with PCs? No, the extra few hundred that you pay for a Mac is in the software. You don't buy a Mac just for its hardware.

And for the l33tness

(but actually, lower total sales will make for increased margins)

You are entitled to your opinion. I'm not sure that someone pulling figures out of thin air is 'of sound mind and body' either. vinea showed that the price/spec difference is nowhere near as great as what CB claims.


The parts in bold are things that unfortunately doesn't have price tags, but - for example - working in video these things matter. As a previous poster said, no-one ever claimed that apple offered to top of the line spec across every component - but I won't find as reliable an environment to work in (nor with as good a UI) for the same price in the pc world.

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB...mco=MTUzMzk5Nw

Are you going to make a point with that link?

first of all, apples prices are higher because they sell less computers and in order to compete must make enough money to come up with new and innovative technology. they are not ripping you off. they are what is called a "boutique" manufacturer. you pay the premium so they can stay in the forefront of the technology race. if more people switched, the prices would drop, and everyone would be happy with their supierior well priced products.

secondly, i for one actually LIKE the fact that apple doesnt revise thier product lines every quarter. when i buy a new mac, i am comfortable with the feeling that for at least the next year, my computer will not become obsolete. as a biochemist, i use macs at work because they are better. at home, they make organizing my massive porn collection a breeze!

Well, there is that.

No. There's a few things wrong with Apple's approach. I can't say many people on these boards would deny Apple's 'good things'. (And you'd need more fingers on hands and toes on feet to count them all...)

However, there are things that Apple could fix.

For example. 'WHEN' they come out. Apple's kit is near enough within a certain % competitive. Eg the Mac Pro's with all Octo line up. Cheaper than the nearest Dell equivalent by a mile.

But here's the rub. Apple waits for nearly a year for an update...or longer(!) And then the tower (or anything else in its line up...) ends up looking ridiculously overpriced. The Octo line up? Great. Xeons. But the GPU is now ridiculous! 2600 XT. Compare that to www.overclockers.com where you can get a x2 dual GPU Radeon chip with 2 GIGS of RAM! on the card...in a rig costing £1000 with 4 gigs of ram. Heh. You can get a PC rig with as much ram on the gpu as Apple's 'workstation' has system ram! Apple does this great big thing...and sits on it...too long patting themselves on the back...but PC land to its credit doesn't sit still.

www.overclockers.com If Apple offered the quad mid-tower with 4 gigs of ram and a 4800 x2 with 2 gigs of ram for a £1000? I'd be all over it.

Plain and simple. Apple doesn't offer incremental updates. And how difficult is that for something like the Mac Pro? The 7600GT stuck like sh*T with the Mac Pro for ages. As did the Radeon 1900. That was poor! It shouldn't be like this with a system starting at £1450 for a quad version. And you get stingy ram, hd drive and crap gpu.

In short, Apple takes the p*ss over ram prices, standard gpus always being underpowered for the supposed 'Pro' systems...and add insult to injury you have to pay EVEN more to get a decent one.

You can get PC laptops with far cheaper and with bigger screens. It's about time we had a 'Mac book Pro' breaking the £1000 barrier. And a Mid-tower for between £799 and £1200 with a decent gpu. It's brain gawkingly obvious. Again. I can't see any reason why we can't have a Mac Book starting at £500. I can't see why we can't have the Mac Mini at £199 inc Vat. It's far too pricey. No kb, no monitor, no mouse. And whither an iMac for a couple of hundred cheaper. Yeesh.

There's a bright spot. Apple's iMac does well compared to any PC all-in-one...but the lack of mid-tower only serves to make the Mac Pro look more ridiculous than it is towards the end of it's product cycle.

I can't understand why Apple doesn't bump the ram/hd or the GPU. Where are the 4800 series GPUs? Do they have to wait ages to update the tower 'skin'? Do they have to offer out of date monitors with outrageous prices when you can get non-Apple brand monitors with higher size and spec for less money? The five year up date cycle for monitors just about sums up the 'bad' side of Apple.

No. I guess they aren't perfect, eh?

Point is. For me, leastways. Apple aren't going to get a much better window of opportunity to 'do' Microsoft. Vista is getting hammered in the press. They have Balmer leading them for now. Aging monopolies. Their browsers are getting basted on all sides. Apple are hammering Windows Mobile with iPhone OS X and Apple's 'cool' ads have got Bill Gates storming out of tv studios. Clearly. Microsoft are concerned now. Apple are at 10% plus US marketshare. Now is the time to execute the doomsday machine. Get more aggressive. Really aggressive. If Apple can do in Mac market what they did in the iPod, iPhone markets then it's game on for 'critical' mass for Mac computers.

They've moved to Intel CPUs. They have a pretty good line-up of computer. They've got iPod and iPhone leading traffic for hands on experience of Macs in Apple stores, they have mountains of good press, OS X is miles ahead of Vista and importantly allowed people to protect their software investment with Boot Camp. What's left?

The 'price' for the 'rest of us' Mac computer. AND to fill the 'one or two' holes in their desktop and laptop computer range.

This means. (For me, I guess...) A cheaper £1000 mid-tower (With Radeon 4800!) to restore sanity (puh-lease, prices starting at £1700 and you don't even get the out of date GT as standard...2 piffals of ram and a diabetic hd...) and an upsale, jaw dropping entry level Macbook starting at £500 to really give switchers no more excuses.

Apple have a chance to reach more people, drive down quality into the 'lower' markets like they did when they brought out an 'iPod Mini' to compliment the more expensive iPod of the time. But they haven't quite executed that strategy in their Mac market. This doesn't have to mean cheapest but perhaps 'cheaper'. But they definitely could squeeze their margins to put pressure on HP and Dell who probably have much lower margins and have to do much more volume to match Apple's profits. Which would leave many PC vendors with no place to go but out of business. This period is Apple's best opportunity to chase some marketshare as ever more Apple stores are opened. And they need to introduce some 'ticket' price Macs for skinflints and it produces benefits of upsale. Apple have 3 times market growth momentum. But with the credit crunch and other factors...how long until this momentum slows? A really aggressively priced entry level laptop and mid-tower could only bolster that momentum. Yes. prices trimmed across the board. The PPC days are over. Apple has to compete these days. They're doing pretty good. But there are areas which infuriate me and others.

Score card? B. Good. But no A grade yet...

Lemon Bon Bon.

PS. Apple are on for a historic 3 million sales this quarter. At 3 times growth, next year that could turn into a 4.5 million Mac sale quarter. Think about the numbers they could do if they got REALLY aggressive on price...AND when iPhone 'Halos' and Snow Leopard opens Macs into Business with the Exchange move. Personally. I can see a tipping point as a bright light now. At the end of the tunnel.

So much typing, yet no relevant or accurate content.

Yep, Apple is running the way that he would like it too. I wonder if he knows that it isn't his company?

The nay sayers can sod off; I think Lemon Bon Bon paints a succinct picture of where Apple is and where they should be headed…

I agree.

I don't....they are making plenty of money the way it is.

really?

He's right on one point for sure though: now is as good a time as any to really try to attack Microsoft with all the negative press that will eventually wash away, and with their dumping of money around, their image will turn around and their products will improve.

So aggressive pricing and better included specs would attend to that, as well as possibly account for the cryptic "lower margins" talk.

You're nearly at 6000 posts. With no relevant or accurate content you'll soon blitz that and be on your way to 10,000 posts. Your succinct approach is a clear winner.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Ultimately the problem with your screed is its limited point of view. You are looking at Apple strictly from the view of techie spec sheets and benchmarks. A business is run from the point of view of sales, revenues, and profits.

You miss that connection. How would these incremental updates improve sales, revenues, and profits. In light of Apples stellar year over year growth. Its difficult to prove incremental updates would have made much difference.

How would incremental updates offer much overall improvement to OS X or the Mac itself. How has these updates helped Vista?

I agree, Lemon, who is the naysayer here, can sod off. However, I disagree that he is succinct given he spends several paragraphs to essentially say: Apple should make an xMac and update video cards more often.

MS is simply an easy target at the moment for ads. But Apple isn't seeking os market share at any cost but rather increasing share on its own terms. Those terms are highly profitable and elegant systems...not something you get from overclockers.com.

Really!

Ease up on LBB. He's right on the money. Apple's Mac portfolio is too rigid and has gaps that you could drive an 18 wheeler through. Low end tower is necessary; more frequent updates on graphics to keep systems fresh. C'mon, why is Apple so stubborn to be a little more flexible in their computing line? They have a wide variety of iPods for every need...

Why do I need to spend $1,999 for a 15" laptop screen? Why is Apple the only manufacturer that penalizes customers based on screen size? Give me a break!

Why? It's more of the same. The lineup is too expensive so make it cheaper.

Yes, he makes points that everyone can agree on (update vid cards more often, etc) but his recommended significant changes to Apple's line up is primarily to reduce price.

Yes, it's too bad you need to pay $1999 to get a 15" display and a dedicated GPU in a laptop. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the lineup or that compared to other $2K laptops the MacBook Pro is an exceedingly bad deal.

Same thing with the xMac. Folks want a cheaper Mac Pro.

Can Apple add more variation in their lineup? Sure. Will they? Doubtful.

But EVEN if they did it likely wouldn't be a game changer except that their profits go down. They simply don't care enough about share to reduce their prices or offer up other types of machines. THEY AREN'T OUT TO KILL MICROSOFT. Just ridicule it a bit and sell a few more highly profitable machines while MS makes a lot more cash for a whole lot more work to meet the commodity OS market of high volume and low margins.

Apple makes zero desktops. They make a SFF computer, an AIO computer and a Workstation. The make 2 models of laptops. Expensive and More Expensive.

Would I like that "Mini Pro" in that other thread? Sure. Do I expect it? Nah. Any mini rev will be fine by me at this point.

Again think about it from a business perspective and not a "gotta always have the latest tech" perspective.

Dell and HP are able to gain better economy of scale than Apple with computer component purchases.
Dell and HP buy far larger bulk of components than Apple does. Which means they can buy larger orders at a cheaper cost. Apple has figured out a way to make this work in their favor since the switch to Intel.

When a new updated Mac is introduced it is using the latest (most expensive) processors and chipsets available at the time. Generally using good if not the best of other components. To make using these expensive components work with making a healthy profit. Apple uses this same computer configuration for 6 to 8 months. Its very likely Apple is able to lock in a price for a bulk rate over that 6 to 8 months. By the end of that 6 to 8 months the components Apple is using are no longer the newest/expensive and the price has gone down.

At the end of the 6 to 8 months Apple has redesigned new machines that will again use the newest and most expensive processors and chip sets available from Intel. Newer GPU, HDD, RAM, etc.

The various computer components are always being improved and updated. If Apple were to change its manufacturing line everytime a new GPU or chipset, or whatever came up. That would prove disruptive to its scale of economy discounts. This would be far more expensive for Apple than it would be for Dell or HP.

We've had the low end tower debate for a couple of years now. I can see the usefulness of a low end tower but the current computer market does not support the absolute need for a low end tower. Notebook sales are the real growth in worldwide computer market. Desktop growth is slowing and some degree becoming flat. That disparity is growing wider every year. People seem to ignore this fact.


From what Apple says they base their notbeook configurations on what the majority of the consumer and professional markets want most. Apple's current notebook line up has been extremely successful. So I think they are doing something right.

How could Apple strip $350 to $400 out of a MacBook?
- Apple will not switch from LED-backlit to cheaper florescent-backlit LCDs.
- Apple will not drop the minimum RAM from 1GB to 512MB. The cost savings would be too small (roughly abou t $20) to justify the performance hit. Apple have almost completed the transition to 2GB as the minimum memory configuration offered.
- Apple could save about $30 or so by offering a slower processor.
- Most of the other features are integrated with the chipset, so there would be little savings in dropping support for USB, Ethernet, WiFi, etc. Dropping FireWire is conceivable.
- The biggest potential savings would come from dropping the internal optical drive.

My bet is that Apple will drop the internal optical drive and reduce prices by $100.

As far as increasing market share, I don't think anyone has mentioned the difference in gross margins between hardware/computer and software manufacturers(ie: Microsoft).

Microsoft's gross margins are in the 35% range consistently, which is the upper end of Apple's range. Dell's and HP's gross margins are currently in the 10% range.

Question is, how many more high margin sales of Mac OS X will be obtained for each 1% increase in market share? It's a balancing act for Apple who happens to be in the unique position to sell both the hardware and software.

Me personally, I'd like to see Apple to aggressively go after market share in order to capture higher Mac OS X sales with the higher margins that Microsoft enjoys. With iLife, Final Cut Express, Final Cut Pro, etc. etc. the effect IMHO would be startling. But since I don't run the company, I don't have to put my but on the line executing such a plan.

The most obvious, like the post above me mentioned, is to cut the margins.

I'm not sure how Apple can do that and still make money on their products. even if they had HP's worldwide marketshare of 22% that would still mean that MS would have almost 4x the OS marketshare that Apple has.

I think Apple is doing great acquiring the higher-end market of consumer PC users, but they are reaching a saturation point as they have about 70% of the >$1000 PC market, and that is with the cheapest MB starting at $1099. I think that we will see a $999 MB coming next month with a DL-DVD burner (finally).

70% of the $1000 PC market. I hadn't heard that statistic, where is it from? That's pretty hard to believe.

It's for the US, not the world, but sicne Apple doesn't even sell Macs in most countries I didn't think to include that qualifier.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ales_fall.html

OK that makes more sense. Still seems a bit high to me though.

I can see Apple having 70% of the $1000 PC market in New York and California. I walk into my local cafe in Fort Green Brooklyn nearly every notebook using the free WiFi is an Apple. Anecdotally I've found Mac use to drop extremely in other parts of the country. I know people in the fly over states who could afford a Mac but are still uncertain about pulling the trigger because most people around them use the PC.

It's also only for RETAIL sales...but it sure does show that their strategy is working.

Apple is coming up to 10% in the US for all PC sales, which include all those cheap HP and Dells (notebooks for $400 and desktops for under $300) and all of the business sector, so it doesn't seem far fetched to me at all. Plus, the average non-Mac PC sale is around $800, compared to the Mac's $1500, so that shows at least a mean sales average under a $1000 for non-Macs.

Just wondering if I can get someones opinion...

I am debating purchasing a refurb macbook or waiting for the new ones to come out. The refurb price is attractive and I have had very good luck with refurbs in the past. Are the supposed macbook upgrades worth delaying my purchase, especially considering the price (about $1000) for a refurb.

Any opinion would be appreciated... Thanks!

At this point it is best to wait if you can. Even if you want to go with a refurbished after the new MacBooks come out in a few weeks you can get a refurbished one from the current lineup released in February 2008, not one that was first introduced a year ago in November 2007.

There is rumour of a price cut or lowered base model which may force Apple to lower the refurb models a little more, but there also may be new innovations that will may the additional $200 worth it.

Here is my list of what we can expect from a chip-over-chip update if we go by Intel's price sheet. The red triangle is an an unknown variable, but one that I assume Apple probably won't use.

MacBook
Montevina (35mm)
Model. . .Speed . . .\tFSB . . .L2 . . TDP \t. .Price
P8600. .\t2.40GHz\t. .1066MHz. .\t3MB\t. .25W. .\t$241
P8400. .\t2.26GHz\t. .1066MHz. .\t3MB\t. .25W. .\t$209

Montevina (22mm)
Model. . .Speed . . .\tFSB . . .L2 . . TDP \t. .Price
SP9400. .2.40GHz. .\t1066MHz\t. .6MB\t. .25W\t. .$316 ∆
SP9300. .2.26GHz. .\t1066MHz. .\t6MB. .\t25W\t. .$284 ∆

Santa Rosa (35mm)
Model. . .Speed . . .\tFSB . . .L2 . . TDP \t. .Price
T8300\t. .2.40GHz\t. . 800MHz\t. .3MB\t. .35W\t. .$241
T8100\t. .2.10GHz. . .800MHz\t. .3MB. .\t35W\t. .$209 As you can see, the lower-end, which I think you were buying is getting a nice speed boot, and both chips will at least get a nice reduction of wattage used, a better integrated GPU, and faster FSB.


The other chip-over-chip comparisons...

MacBook Pro (35mm)
Montevina
Model. . .Speed . . .\tFSB . . .L2 . . TDP \t. .Price
T9600\t. .2.80GHz\t. .1066MHz\t. .6MB\t. .35W\t. .$530
T9400\t. .2.53GHz. .\t1066MHz. .\t6MB\t. .35W\t. .$316
P9500. .\t2.53GHz\t. .1066MHz\t. .6MB\t. .25W. .\t$348 ∆
P8600\t. .2.40GHz. .\t1066MHz. .\t3MB\t. .25W. .\t$241

Santa Rosa
Model. . .Speed . . .\tFSB . . .L2 . . TDP \t. .Price
T9500. .\t2.60GHz. . .800MHz\t. .6MB. .\t35W\t. .$530
T9300. .\t2.50GHz\t. . 800MHz. .\t6MB. .\t35W\t. .$316
T8300. .\t2.40GHz. . .800MHz. .\t3MB. .\t35W\t. .$241


MacBook Air (22mm)
Montevina
Model. . .Speed . . .\tFSB . . .L2 . . TDP \t. .Price
SL9400. .1.86GHz\t. .1066MHz. .\t6MB\t. .17W. .\t$316
SL9300. .1.60GHz\t. .1066MHz. . 6MB . .17W. .\t$284

Santa Rosa
Model. . .Speed . . . \tFSB . . .L2 . . TDP \t. .Price
L770\t. . 1.80GHz\t. . 800MHz\t. .4MB\t. .20W. .\t?
L7500\t. .1.60GHz\t. . 800MHz\t. .4MB. .\t20W. .\t?

One of the biggest Macbook rumors is that the thing will get a price cut. If that happens, the refurbished models will also go down in price... so I'd say it's worth waiting even if you decide not to get a new one.

I beg to differ. Apple is like the 4th or 5th biggest computer builder in the world, hardly a "boutique" shop as somebody claimed here. Also, when you compare how small the number of configurations is, I think the bulk sizes of Apple approach if not exceed those of Dell and HP.

Dell has what, 15 different laptops? Apple has 4. You can put pretty much any processor, hard drive or graphics card available in a Dell laptop. With Apple, they just order a whole lot of 2,1 and 2,4 GHz C2D's and put them in their MacBooks. I'm pretty confident no PC manufacturer in the world orders more 2,4GHz C2D's like the ones in the MacBook than Apple does. I'm fairly confident that in terms of order quantities, Apple is in just as good a position to negotiate as Dell, HP or Acer

1) Boutique doesn't necessarily mean small, it can mean a specialized clientele, which OS X and Macs do cater to. Which is the whole point of the "I'm a Mac" ads. Macs are PCs, but they are so much more, too.

2) Worldwide, Macs are not in the top five, and since Toshiba at #5 is at 4.4% we know that Apple is somewhere below that. In the US Apple was #3, but they have since moved to #4 as Acquisition of Gateway and Packard Bell by Acer (I think I have that in right) has made them larger than Apple, but they still dropping marketshare so that lead won't last forever, unless they keep wasting money on buying other sinking ships.

3) Dell has a lot more than 15 laptops if you consider the models and the processor types for each, they use more than 15 processors, too, because they sell most of their machines using older chips, while Apple only uses the latest, top end Intel chips. Even at the same speed, Dell et all. will use current chips with lower FSB and L2 to sell medium grade machines for a little more money. Buyer beware.

4) It seems obvious that Apple is the single largest procurer from Intel for the few select chips that they use. This has to be a growing issue for Apple as they aren't going to continue to sell the old chips while advertising the new Intel chips as BTO option. They change their product line at once and they are usually in the store that day for demo and purchasing. Since they are growing so fast, they will have to continually wait for Intel to ramp up production while the HP, Sony, and Dell can advertise, like they are now, that they have Montevina/Penryn available for purchase. I think Apple is going to have to increase their product line in order to cope with this issue or they will have to continue to wait for Intel production to get going. I suppose they could get with Intel and prohibit the sale of the new chips until they are ready to supply to Apple, but that is not a viable business option for Intel.

5) As for negotiating, they are Intel's best friend. When it comes to unique products who else is better equipped to showcase a new chip than Apple. Pop one in MBA or Mac Pro and you have instant coverage across every tech site within an hour.