NO feature spec is worth more than $700. For just a few hundred more you can get a Macbook for crying out loud.
Is there a real gap that this would fill that can be worth more than $700?
REMEMBER THE NEWTON and how it flopped almost exclusively because of price.
For three hundred more you can get a MacBook.
My take on the price of this mythical beast is that the base model will come in exactly halfway between the top end iPod touch ($399) and the lowest end MacBook ($999) ... so the sweet spot of $700 (aka $699) seems right to me. That will be the base model ... the smallest storage (32 not unlikely but 64GB more likely). There might be a second model offered up at $799 (even $849) or so that offers a seemingly better storage option but not much more bells and whistles.
Why so close to a MacBook in price? Because it's not a MacBook and it's not intended to replace a laptop in any way/shape or form. It's not even an extension of a touch ... it's an entirely new category of product (or, at least, will be sold that way) that the masses don't even know they really "want" yet. And since we're talking Apple here, I wouldn't be surprised as several posters have said that it could be even $100 more for the base model (if there are even two) ... $799. They will, over time, come down in price naturally, to maybe even $599?
But again, it's Apple. "High end specs" are not the focus ... it's the integration and seamless design and whole package we buy as Apple users. They may surprise, they may (version 1) disappoint next week, but we'll all still oh, ah, and complain when they show us what they have got.
PS. It will be offered in a range of colours ... the iPod nano colours. It's a consumer device after all and that will allow people to "customize" their iThingy even if the v1 specs and price isn't that great.
if they're going to price is 200-300 shy of the macbook (white), then i would buy the macbook.
Because (1.) it's not only "what" it will do, but "how" it will do it.. and (2.) It may do things that the MacBook won't or vice versa.
A cheap $400 windows machine will pretty much do the same things as a $1000 MacBook.. They both do email, internet, movies, photos, music, office productivity etc. etc.. The key difference is "how" the MacBook does them.. The Mac is (arguably) a better user experience all around, that's what people will pay for.
It's the same idea behind a MacBook and MacBook touch.. Assuming they do similar functions, the difference is how they accomplish those functions.. And the perceived value of doing those functions in a more intuitive (multi-touch) way will determine how much people will pay for it.. I guess well have to wait and see..
But the argument of "why would I pay $xx.xx for the tablet when a MacBook costs $xx.xx" is a moot point until we see how this new device works and accomplishes certain tasks.
Who is gonna buy a 500-700 dollar giant iPod Touch? Im all for screen size but when im on the go i dont want a 10 inch screen tagging along with me. Maybe if i was like 14 and carried a backpack and still sitting in the backseat of my moms car id be interested in such a thing. It would be great on flights assuming it has ample storage to handle atleast 720p movies (for a device of this magnitude id expect nothing less).
It has to be more than an iPod/iPhone in features because if one can access nearly everything on this new tablet that you can on the aforementioned devices then why would you buy a tablet?
To enjoy the activities that the Touch is used for that much more. Watching movies on a bigger screen is always an enhancement. Playing games using a larger screen, well, why wouldn't you want to? Browsing with a bigger screen? We'd all like to have that. Reading is better on a bigger screen, is it not?
If your overall experience is enhanced, how is that not something people would pay a little more to get their hands on?
Fact is that the Touch evolved out of a device that started off mainly as a music player. Screen real estate wasn't an issue per se. But then all sorts of activities that benefit from the largest screen possible were added to the mix. To my way of thinking, upping screen real estate on the iPod Touch is simply the logical next step in the device's evolution.
Really, when you think about it, isn't it rather absurd to suggest that a device that can only browse, be a gaming platform, serve as an organizer, serve as a media player, and run an assortment of handy, inexpensive apps, would be a device that has no market?
By your logic, what's the point of offering 50-inch TVs, when there are lots of 27-inch models available. I mean, can't you watch video on a 27-inch set and if so, what possible use could you have for a 50-inch screen?
NO feature spec is worth more than $700. For just a few hundred more you can get a Macbook for crying out loud.
Exactly!
The device would have to be far less than $1000 dollars for people to justify. I'm really thinking the base model has to come in at well under $500. A base model being a Wifi only device with limited RAM and SSD compared to the $700 model.
Quote:
Is there a real gap that this would fill that can be worth more than $700?
Actually I think the answer to that is yes. But such a high end model will not drive success of the platform. The plus $700 device might have an OLED display and a maxed out memory allotment. Maybe quad core too. The problem is I believe most people will have a hard time justifying such a high priced machine.
That has nothing to do with the economy by the way. It is just that filling a gap between the iPhone and a laptop with such a device means that people have to figure out if it is justified. many will simply say no because the iPhone and the laptop can both be leveraged to fill needs in between.
Quote:
REMEMBER THE NEWTON and how it flopped almost exclusively because of price.
Ah this here bothered me. Newton did not fail because of a high price. It was sacrificed to save the company. But your point is worth consideration because things like the CUBE and AIR are certainly acceptable examples of Apple hardware priced to damn high.
Nothing would be wrong with a touch that has a larger screen. The downside I guess it depends on what you wanted it to do. If all you wanted was a Touch then that would be fine but for those that want it to have a version of SL and run a new UI, running a version of iLife and iWorks then those will will be rather disappointed.
Sure they would be disappointed but the problem is that to make a device that does certain functions well, you have to build something that leaps up to a price point that the average consumer isn't prepared to go to, especially if we're talking about a machine that is significantly less capable in some key respects to units costing about the same if not less.
If you can run iLife and iWork rather well on a MacBook, what's the point of trying to do it with a tablet that by its very nature is not well-suited to those applications. No matter what Apple comes up with, I highly doubt video editing and the like would be a good thing to be attempting on a 10-inch tablet. If there is a reduction in functionality and no price break, that's a losing combination. Such a device would be to the mobile space what the Cube was to desktops.
Like I said earlier, the Kindle DX is 9.7 inches, it has non-touch black and white display, it ONLY functions as an e-reader and it sells for $489. Even if the tablet only does what an iPod touch does (and Im sure it will do much more,) it would be a far better value the the Kindle DX..
So then get a 6" Kindle for $259. Why do you think Aple is going against the Kindle and not the Netbook anyway? No one really knows that answer what until we see the unveiling.
To enjoy the activities that the Touch is used for that much more. Watching movies on a bigger screen is always an enhancement. Playing games using a larger screen, well, why wouldn't you want to? Browsing with a bigger screen? We'd all like to have that. Reading is better on a bigger screen, is it not?
If your overall experience is enhanced, how is that not something people would pay a little more to get their hands on?
Fact is that the Touch evolved out of a device that started off mainly as a music player. Screen real estate wasn't an issue per se. But then all sorts of activities that benefit from the largest screen possible were added to the mix. To my way of thinking, upping screen real estate on the iPod Touch is simply the logical next step in the device's evolution.
Really, when you think about it, isn't it rather absurd to suggest that a device that can only browse, be a gaming platform, serve as an organizer, serve as a media player, and run an assortment of handy, inexpensive apps, would be a device that has no market?
By your logic, what's the point of offering 50-inch TVs, when there are lots of 27-inch models available. I mean, can't you watch video on a 27-inch set and if so, what possible use could you have for a 50-inch screen?
But if your only option are purchases from iTunes than your screwed like the AppleTV. Can it stream HUlu, Netflix, or play Amazon movies like a MAC and not the APple TV? Stay tuned.
As I said in my earlier posts I think that there will be a $700 unlocked version, and a $400 subsidized version with 2 year att contract. Without 3g/4g this thing will be useless, cause even kindle has 3G. This means that you need a provider for that connection, and the only one who will work with Apple at this point is ATT, as verizon is not a fan of Apple any longer. Also I don't expect a verizon version to ever come out, because investing into putting new antennas into the iphone that will not be supported in the future (4G) is a giant waste of money. I expect all other GSM carriers to get the iPhone though (T-Mobile, US Cellular). I think It's also obvious that this will run iPhone os 4.0, cause otherwise why roll it out early? There you have it.
So then get a 6" Kindle for $259. Why do you think Aple is going against the Kindle and not the Netbook anyway? No one really knows that answer what until we see the unveiling.
Again, my point on this was missed entirely..
People are complaining about the rumored $700 pricepoint for the Mac tablet.. I was just trying to put things in perspective by stating that a far less capable device (in a similar size) is on the market for $500.
But if your only option are purchases from iTunes than your screwed like the AppleTV. Can it stream HUlu, Netflix, or play Amazon movies like a MAC and not the APple TV? Stay tuned.
I have a Touch and I haven't found it overly restrictive to acquire content for it. Games are dirt cheap. There is all sorts of other content available via the Internet, some of it free, and I really don't have anything against acquiring content from Apple. Don't forget that podcasts, for one, offer a wealth of material at minimal cost.
I don't think consumers would regard the Touch, including this rumoured larger model, too restrictive to bother with. Acquiring content can be very inexpensive and rather easy. Adding software, equally so.
It's really not an issue, I think, for the majority.
Not at all. The market, or rather hypothetical market, for this device is quite clear. It's not a replacement for either of the major gadgets, computer or smartphone. It's an inbetweenie, that can do many things that the other two cannot. Without knowing a thing about it, we can still accurately pinpoint what it will do, and what it might do....
[CENTER]If the device gives any impression that it is 'less than' (from a functional/capable standpoint) the average netbook, then it might well be a hard sell to anything but the Apple die-hards, even at US 500.00, not to mention US 700.00.
If it represents something truly new, an entirely new portable computing experience unlike anything shown before, then US 700.00 sounds about right.
Everyone is suggesting that the tablet will come with some data plan...it doesn't really make a lot of sense...
If this would be the case, customers should choose between an iphone or a tablet. Would you really trade your phone for a tablet? I don't think so... and how many of you would be willing to pay double monthly fees for unlimited surfing?...
Dave
[CENTER]Have you considered the possibility that Apple has made provisions for existing iPhone users to be able to tether their new iTablet/iSlate/iPad, with only new users having to open an entirely new account ?
Was it in 2008, after Apple reported quarterly sales figures, that they said they were going to do something in the future that other competitors wouldn't be able to match?
I think it was end of 2008 (or early 2009) they said there was a future product (in that quarter!?) that would reduce Apple's margin. So not likely 1 year later, but it does show that they are (in theory) happy to drop their margin to get a long term competitive advantage.
They also said end of last year to expect increased shipping costs, which was attributed to the 27" iMacs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
I dont' know 700.00 seems low to me. At 700.00 this would tell me this is nothing more then a larger version of an iPod Touch seeing the 64gb version of the Touch goes for 400.00.
Even the new netbook Windows based Tablets with a 10.1 screen are going for 550.00.
A week or 2 ago someone did a cost breakdown for a 10" screen atom notebook. Ignoring the atom, the 10" screen was $50, the battery for bigger screen and atom processor was $12. So you're right to say that you'd expect simply a bigger iPod Touch for $100 more. Or more precisely, a bigger version of the NEXT iPod Touch, whatever it's internals are.
(Assuming they wanted the same profit margins on the slate as the iPod Touch.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcrudo
There are speculations on what OS would the tablet run. I don't think it will run an iphone OS. If i were apple i would want the tablet to be more like a macbook and share the software. In fact, it was said there is a Multitouch version of iWorks out there. Normally apple doesn't produce multi-platform software, the software is really distinct: either for the iphone, either for computers.
Not a chance it'll run Mac programs. Especially if you look at the patents they've been putting together for this. While you're right that it'd be nice to have one code base and I'm sure they'll do that as much as they can, but the interface is just so different.
But it won't be today's iPhone OS either. Seriously check out the patents they have for recognising a thumb as different to a finger, and using that to enable multiple inter-related pop-up controls (also patented) which can switch from scroll wheels to lists. And patents describing iWork on a tablet etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea
Actually I would want a big iPod touch. Easier to read and work with. I hate browsing the internet on my iPod touch.... But 10 inches is too big!
There are some things that simply being bigger helps with, until it's too big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
I'm pretty convinced (Apple) have a controlled leak going that is a hype machine unlike any other.
I think so. I also think they've put in some disinformation - to deliberately throw of the exact nature of the tablet.
Now which information would they want to mislead us on?
Personally I think anything which fits the common mistakes people make on what a tablet would be would be emphasised by Apple...
I'll make my prediction... it will be essentially an oversized iPod touch with Wi-Fi with a oleo-phobic glossy 10-inch screen that runs iPhone OS. And it will be around $400 because Apple can skimp on costs thanks to them not having to miniaturize parts as much as the iPod touch. That means they can reuse PC components, except making it ARM to save on Intel licensing costs, which is far cheaper than doing it as a system on a chip like the iPod touches are. So that does wrap up a jaw-dropping price like Kevin Rose said it would have?
I think it was end of 2008 (or early 2009) they said there was a future product (in that quarter!?) that would reduce Apple's margin. So not likely 1 year later, but it does show that they are (in theory) happy to drop their margin to get a long term competitive advantage.
.
It was the unibody MacBook/ MacBook Pro's. The milling process for a single piece of aluminum is not cheap.
Comments
SURE. I'll pay $700 for a myth.
NO, make it an even thousand!
WHAT is with articles like this?
Announce it, let us look at the specs, THEN ask.
NO feature spec is worth more than $700. For just a few hundred more you can get a Macbook for crying out loud.
Is there a real gap that this would fill that can be worth more than $700?
REMEMBER THE NEWTON and how it flopped almost exclusively because of price.
For three hundred more you can get a MacBook.
My take on the price of this mythical beast is that the base model will come in exactly halfway between the top end iPod touch ($399) and the lowest end MacBook ($999) ... so the sweet spot of $700 (aka $699) seems right to me. That will be the base model ... the smallest storage (32 not unlikely but 64GB more likely). There might be a second model offered up at $799 (even $849) or so that offers a seemingly better storage option but not much more bells and whistles.
Why so close to a MacBook in price? Because it's not a MacBook and it's not intended to replace a laptop in any way/shape or form. It's not even an extension of a touch ... it's an entirely new category of product (or, at least, will be sold that way) that the masses don't even know they really "want" yet. And since we're talking Apple here, I wouldn't be surprised as several posters have said that it could be even $100 more for the base model (if there are even two) ... $799. They will, over time, come down in price naturally, to maybe even $599?
But again, it's Apple. "High end specs" are not the focus ... it's the integration and seamless design and whole package we buy as Apple users. They may surprise, they may (version 1) disappoint next week, but we'll all still oh, ah, and complain when they show us what they have got.
PS. It will be offered in a range of colours ... the iPod nano colours. It's a consumer device after all and that will allow people to "customize" their iThingy even if the v1 specs and price isn't that great.
if they're going to price is 200-300 shy of the macbook (white), then i would buy the macbook.
Because (1.) it's not only "what" it will do, but "how" it will do it.. and (2.) It may do things that the MacBook won't or vice versa.
A cheap $400 windows machine will pretty much do the same things as a $1000 MacBook.. They both do email, internet, movies, photos, music, office productivity etc. etc.. The key difference is "how" the MacBook does them.. The Mac is (arguably) a better user experience all around, that's what people will pay for.
It's the same idea behind a MacBook and MacBook touch.. Assuming they do similar functions, the difference is how they accomplish those functions.. And the perceived value of doing those functions in a more intuitive (multi-touch) way will determine how much people will pay for it.. I guess well have to wait and see..
But the argument of "why would I pay $xx.xx for the tablet when a MacBook costs $xx.xx" is a moot point until we see how this new device works and accomplishes certain tasks.
Who is gonna buy a 500-700 dollar giant iPod Touch? Im all for screen size but when im on the go i dont want a 10 inch screen tagging along with me. Maybe if i was like 14 and carried a backpack and still sitting in the backseat of my moms car id be interested in such a thing. It would be great on flights assuming it has ample storage to handle atleast 720p movies (for a device of this magnitude id expect nothing less).
It has to be more than an iPod/iPhone in features because if one can access nearly everything on this new tablet that you can on the aforementioned devices then why would you buy a tablet?
To enjoy the activities that the Touch is used for that much more. Watching movies on a bigger screen is always an enhancement. Playing games using a larger screen, well, why wouldn't you want to? Browsing with a bigger screen? We'd all like to have that. Reading is better on a bigger screen, is it not?
If your overall experience is enhanced, how is that not something people would pay a little more to get their hands on?
Fact is that the Touch evolved out of a device that started off mainly as a music player. Screen real estate wasn't an issue per se. But then all sorts of activities that benefit from the largest screen possible were added to the mix. To my way of thinking, upping screen real estate on the iPod Touch is simply the logical next step in the device's evolution.
Really, when you think about it, isn't it rather absurd to suggest that a device that can only browse, be a gaming platform, serve as an organizer, serve as a media player, and run an assortment of handy, inexpensive apps, would be a device that has no market?
By your logic, what's the point of offering 50-inch TVs, when there are lots of 27-inch models available. I mean, can't you watch video on a 27-inch set and if so, what possible use could you have for a 50-inch screen?
NO feature spec is worth more than $700. For just a few hundred more you can get a Macbook for crying out loud.
Exactly!
The device would have to be far less than $1000 dollars for people to justify. I'm really thinking the base model has to come in at well under $500. A base model being a Wifi only device with limited RAM and SSD compared to the $700 model.
Is there a real gap that this would fill that can be worth more than $700?
Actually I think the answer to that is yes. But such a high end model will not drive success of the platform. The plus $700 device might have an OLED display and a maxed out memory allotment. Maybe quad core too. The problem is I believe most people will have a hard time justifying such a high priced machine.
That has nothing to do with the economy by the way. It is just that filling a gap between the iPhone and a laptop with such a device means that people have to figure out if it is justified. many will simply say no because the iPhone and the laptop can both be leveraged to fill needs in between.
REMEMBER THE NEWTON and how it flopped almost exclusively because of price.
Ah this here bothered me. Newton did not fail because of a high price. It was sacrificed to save the company. But your point is worth consideration because things like the CUBE and AIR are certainly acceptable examples of Apple hardware priced to damn high.
Dave
Nothing would be wrong with a touch that has a larger screen. The downside I guess it depends on what you wanted it to do. If all you wanted was a Touch then that would be fine but for those that want it to have a version of SL and run a new UI, running a version of iLife and iWorks then those will will be rather disappointed.
Sure they would be disappointed but the problem is that to make a device that does certain functions well, you have to build something that leaps up to a price point that the average consumer isn't prepared to go to, especially if we're talking about a machine that is significantly less capable in some key respects to units costing about the same if not less.
If you can run iLife and iWork rather well on a MacBook, what's the point of trying to do it with a tablet that by its very nature is not well-suited to those applications. No matter what Apple comes up with, I highly doubt video editing and the like would be a good thing to be attempting on a 10-inch tablet. If there is a reduction in functionality and no price break, that's a losing combination. Such a device would be to the mobile space what the Cube was to desktops.
Like I said earlier, the Kindle DX is 9.7 inches, it has non-touch black and white display, it ONLY functions as an e-reader and it sells for $489. Even if the tablet only does what an iPod touch does (and Im sure it will do much more,) it would be a far better value the the Kindle DX..
So then get a 6" Kindle for $259. Why do you think Aple is going against the Kindle and not the Netbook anyway? No one really knows that answer what until we see the unveiling.
To enjoy the activities that the Touch is used for that much more. Watching movies on a bigger screen is always an enhancement. Playing games using a larger screen, well, why wouldn't you want to? Browsing with a bigger screen? We'd all like to have that. Reading is better on a bigger screen, is it not?
If your overall experience is enhanced, how is that not something people would pay a little more to get their hands on?
Fact is that the Touch evolved out of a device that started off mainly as a music player. Screen real estate wasn't an issue per se. But then all sorts of activities that benefit from the largest screen possible were added to the mix. To my way of thinking, upping screen real estate on the iPod Touch is simply the logical next step in the device's evolution.
Really, when you think about it, isn't it rather absurd to suggest that a device that can only browse, be a gaming platform, serve as an organizer, serve as a media player, and run an assortment of handy, inexpensive apps, would be a device that has no market?
By your logic, what's the point of offering 50-inch TVs, when there are lots of 27-inch models available. I mean, can't you watch video on a 27-inch set and if so, what possible use could you have for a 50-inch screen?
But if your only option are purchases from iTunes than your screwed like the AppleTV. Can it stream HUlu, Netflix, or play Amazon movies like a MAC and not the APple TV? Stay tuned.
So then get a 6" Kindle for $259. Why do you think Aple is going against the Kindle and not the Netbook anyway? No one really knows that answer what until we see the unveiling.
Again, my point on this was missed entirely..
People are complaining about the rumored $700 pricepoint for the Mac tablet.. I was just trying to put things in perspective by stating that a far less capable device (in a similar size) is on the market for $500.
But if your only option are purchases from iTunes than your screwed like the AppleTV. Can it stream HUlu, Netflix, or play Amazon movies like a MAC and not the APple TV? Stay tuned.
I have a Touch and I haven't found it overly restrictive to acquire content for it. Games are dirt cheap. There is all sorts of other content available via the Internet, some of it free, and I really don't have anything against acquiring content from Apple. Don't forget that podcasts, for one, offer a wealth of material at minimal cost.
I don't think consumers would regard the Touch, including this rumoured larger model, too restrictive to bother with. Acquiring content can be very inexpensive and rather easy. Adding software, equally so.
It's really not an issue, I think, for the majority.
Not at all. The market, or rather hypothetical market, for this device is quite clear. It's not a replacement for either of the major gadgets, computer or smartphone. It's an inbetweenie, that can do many things that the other two cannot. Without knowing a thing about it, we can still accurately pinpoint what it will do, and what it might do....
How would you do that? Even God couldn't do that.
How would you do that? Even God couldn't do that.
Read my page 2 posts, I already argued him on this...
If it represents something truly new, an entirely new portable computing experience unlike anything shown before, then US 700.00 sounds about right.
We'll See Soon Enough...[/CENTER]
Everyone is suggesting that the tablet will come with some data plan...it doesn't really make a lot of sense...
If this would be the case, customers should choose between an iphone or a tablet. Would you really trade your phone for a tablet? I don't think so... and how many of you would be willing to pay double monthly fees for unlimited surfing?...
Dave
[CENTER]Have you considered the possibility that Apple has made provisions for existing iPhone users to be able to tether their new iTablet/iSlate/iPad, with only new users having to open an entirely new account ?
[/CENTER]
Maybe you guys can help jog my memory here.
Was it in 2008, after Apple reported quarterly sales figures, that they said they were going to do something in the future that other competitors wouldn't be able to match?
I think it was end of 2008 (or early 2009) they said there was a future product (in that quarter!?) that would reduce Apple's margin. So not likely 1 year later, but it does show that they are (in theory) happy to drop their margin to get a long term competitive advantage.
They also said end of last year to expect increased shipping costs, which was attributed to the 27" iMacs.
I dont' know 700.00 seems low to me. At 700.00 this would tell me this is nothing more then a larger version of an iPod Touch seeing the 64gb version of the Touch goes for 400.00.
Even the new netbook Windows based Tablets with a 10.1 screen are going for 550.00.
A week or 2 ago someone did a cost breakdown for a 10" screen atom notebook. Ignoring the atom, the 10" screen was $50, the battery for bigger screen and atom processor was $12. So you're right to say that you'd expect simply a bigger iPod Touch for $100 more. Or more precisely, a bigger version of the NEXT iPod Touch, whatever it's internals are.
(Assuming they wanted the same profit margins on the slate as the iPod Touch.)
There are speculations on what OS would the tablet run. I don't think it will run an iphone OS. If i were apple i would want the tablet to be more like a macbook and share the software. In fact, it was said there is a Multitouch version of iWorks out there. Normally apple doesn't produce multi-platform software, the software is really distinct: either for the iphone, either for computers.
Not a chance it'll run Mac programs. Especially if you look at the patents they've been putting together for this. While you're right that it'd be nice to have one code base and I'm sure they'll do that as much as they can, but the interface is just so different.
But it won't be today's iPhone OS either. Seriously check out the patents they have for recognising a thumb as different to a finger, and using that to enable multiple inter-related pop-up controls (also patented) which can switch from scroll wheels to lists. And patents describing iWork on a tablet etc.
Actually I would want a big iPod touch. Easier to read and work with. I hate browsing the internet on my iPod touch.... But 10 inches is too big!
There are some things that simply being bigger helps with, until it's too big.
I'm pretty convinced (Apple) have a controlled leak going that is a hype machine unlike any other.
I think so. I also think they've put in some disinformation - to deliberately throw of the exact nature of the tablet.
Now which information would they want to mislead us on?
Personally I think anything which fits the common mistakes people make on what a tablet would be would be emphasised by Apple...
I think it was end of 2008 (or early 2009) they said there was a future product (in that quarter!?) that would reduce Apple's margin. So not likely 1 year later, but it does show that they are (in theory) happy to drop their margin to get a long term competitive advantage.
.
It was the unibody MacBook/ MacBook Pro's. The milling process for a single piece of aluminum is not cheap.