The first is that Apple has at least three patents on uni-body construction. These are not vague software patents, but tangible design and manufacturing patents. It will be very difficult for competitors to side-step these. I fully expect for someone try, and I also fully expect Apple to let slip the dogs of patent war. Kudos to Apple for innovating here...they cracked the DNA of the ulta-book years ago, and will reap the benefit for at least 12 more.
But the article said it would be a $100 savings at retail, not a $100 markup. How can something that only saves $10 (wholesale?) result in a $100 savings (retail)? Are manufacturers really willing to lower the retail price of their box by $90? They wouldn't just take that extra $90 in profit? Business really baffles me.
Okay... let's try this again.
The part might be a difference of only $10 but then we have to turn around and look at Apple.
If you start adding all of the costs down the line for Apple then that $10 extra on the MBA becomes, according to the "pc manufacturer", an extra $100 at retail... so, theoretically, since the MBA costs $1000, then that pc would cost $900 at retail.
I'm saying that the "manufacturer" is pulling figures out of his ass and that $10 difference only translates into a $45 difference, and therefore, $955.
Intel wants manufacturers to stay Intel customers. By providing them a prepackaged kit, they may persuade manufacturers from looking at alternatives (ARM-based systems for instance). It would certainly be easier to adapt an Intel-provided package than develop your own.
I think ARM is a threat for the thinner and lighter notebooks, especially when you consider Linux-based OSes, OS X (the umbrella of Mac OS and iOS) and Windows 8 will all run on ARM. I also think the threat isn't imminent from the desktop OS PoV this is the time when Intel needs to plan to keep that from happenings. Trying to sell more LV and ULV chips that can be used in ultra-light and ultra0thin notebooks is can benefit them in several ways.
Do you feel better now? Flexed your knowledge now you can continue your smarter than you complex. People like you humor me, comment has no real opinion on the article, just a need to be extra particular. Reminds me of Mike Tirico (not that you know who he is as I'm sure sports are beneath your IQ), if someone says the ball went 301yards he'll correct them and say actually it went 302 - who the hell cares it's in the general area. Lastly, speaking of tools, you are one.
/ghost
A lathe and a mill are two very different machines, that serve very different functions. The original commenter was not being arrogant or prickish by pointing that out. However, your response to the comment certainly was. Chill dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kit_C
This is my first post. I registered just to say that this was way out of line. The article had a fundamental error, there is no foul in pointing it out.
The part might be a difference of only $10 but then we have to turn around and look at Apple.
If you start adding all of the costs down the line for Apple then that $10 extra on the MBA becomes, according to the "pc manufacturer", an extra $100 at retail... so, theoretically, since the MBA costs $1000, and because that one piece was $10 cheaper for the PC, then, once you go down the line, that pc would cost $900 at retail.
I'm saying that the "manufacturer" is pulling figures out of his ass and that $10 difference only translates into a $45 difference, and therefore, $955.
Could you elaborate on how that $10 "becomes" even $45 in savings? Would glue be cheaper to affix internal parts than screws, for instance?
it isnt a coincidence that Apple has all that production - those milling machines probably were bought specifically to service the Apple demand. I doubt that CNC chassis milling was a very big business before Apple decided to make the Macbook Pro that way.
This is more a measure of Intel's confidence than Apple's dominance - I'm sure that Foxconn would be willing to buy more CNC machines if Intel signed a 10 year supply contract with penalty clauses for termination.
Those machines in fact where build to Apple specifications, at least Foxcom ones. And also a unibody case if I remember well is a patented invention or process owned by Apple. The use of Liquid Metal is a unlimited one and is used for small parts inside most macs and mobile devices.
All these companies complaining about supplies and stuff are just paying the price of have incompetent CEO and poor planing. All Apple products are conceived in a way that they can earn the most out of them from the get go (manufacturing)
But the article said it would be a $100 savings at retail, not a $100 markup. How can something that only saves $10 (wholesale?) result in a $100 savings (retail)? Are manufacturers really willing to lower the retail price of their box by $90? They wouldn't just take that extra $90 in profit? Business really baffles me.
It would save the computer maker $20 not $10. $10 is the price Mitak pays before their process, as I read it. It doesn't say what the final cost is, just savings. Whatever the final cost to the computer maker they(hp or dell etc)may double it when they sell to retail suppliers. Retail may double that price. So if a part is $20 cheaper to Dell it's $40 cheaper to retail and $80 cheaper to consumer. Assuming keystone pricing all along the way which does seem out of line.
How about get the fuck off my back for an enduring concept...
So um yeah. That was WAY over the top from your usual banter.
Anyway, it is interesting to see what the other PC makers are going to do. Especially because, as was commented upthread, they need to differentiate these from the classically under-powered, under-memoried, poor resolution screened netbooks that failed under the influence of the iPad. Intel has offered several reference designs over the years, including the low-powered netbooks. The PC makers have used them with varying success. And of course Intel doesn't help differentiate the processors because you have a huge range of performance characteristics in the chipsets (depending if they are true iCore or Celeron iCore technologies). So the average consumer sees "Intel Inside" and Core i3 or Core i5 and assumes that they are getting a steal on the latest chip tech, which actually only performances at 66% as the true i3 or i5. If the PC makers try the same thing in the Ultrabook benchmark - they will be seen as only fancy netbooks by most consumers.
Even if the numbers are exaggerated, I still don't get it. $10 is $10. How does it become $100. Remember this is a savings, right? So the case costs $10 less to make in fiberglass than of metal. How does this become a $100 savings at retail? It's still just a savings of $10.
It's a ratio of raw material cost to retail selling price markups. Typically consumer electronics will be a 4 to 1 ratio markup.
WTF?!?! PC notebooks are trying to compete with Apple price points (and can't)?! At what point did the tables turn and where the fuck have I been?!!
The problem is in that case there are design constraint. PC's beats Apple prices by using cheap and bulky "designless" containers with no power, size or weight limits.
This is why they cant beat apple in the tablet or air segment.
Intel wants manufacturers to stay Intel customers. By providing them a prepackaged kit, they may persuade manufacturers from looking at alternatives (ARM-based systems for instance). It would certainly be easier to adapt an Intel-provided package than develop your own.
Pretty sure they are gonna have a major issue with heat dissipation. One of the great things about aluminum is its ability to transfer heat out of the system. Fiberglass acts almost as an insulator and these things are gonna have to have crazy vents in them or they are gonna bake!
Do you feel better now? Flexed your knowledge now you can continue your smarter than you complex. People like you humor me, comment has no real opinion on the article, just a need to be extra particular. Reminds me of Mike Tirico (not that you know who he is as I'm sure sports are beneath your IQ), if someone says the ball went 301yards he'll correct them and say actually it went 302 - who the hell cares it's in the general area. Lastly, speaking of tools, you are one.
No, it's not like that at all.
How about this: It's like reporting on a golf game and saying the golfer is swinging a bat. How a lathe and a mill make a part, and what kind of parts they can make, are very different, even if the technology behind both are similar.
If you're saying it's information that you don't care about, that's fine, but correcting wrong terminology is very different than getting your yardage within a third of a percent accuracy.
The problem is in that case there are design constraint. PC's beats Apple prices by using cheap and bulky "designless" containers with no power, size or weight limits.
This is why they cant beat apple in the tablet or air segment.
... and I'm extremely happy about that. Odd, though, that we don't have some pc blowhards entering this thread explaining how much better the $1300 pc is compared to the "crappy" $999 MBA. I guess those days are gone... <tear in eye>
Yeah, lathes are to make parts that are circular (or revolved) around an axis, such as shafts. Apple's unibody aren't anything like that. They use mills to make those parts.
I guess whoever wrote this used 'lathes' as a synonym for shape-cutting machining (as opposed to casting combined with screwing and glueing things together).
Pretty sure they are gonna have a major issue with heat dissipation. One of the great things about aluminum is its ability to transfer heat out of the system. Fiberglass acts almost as an insulator and these things are gonna have to have crazy vents in them or they are gonna bake!
That's an interesting point, but I wonder how much the aluminum helps when none of the heat sources are thermally coupled with the shell like a chip and its heat sink. Keep in mind that most computers have a plastic shell.
Comments
But the article said it would be a $100 savings at retail, not a $100 markup. How can something that only saves $10 (wholesale?) result in a $100 savings (retail)? Are manufacturers really willing to lower the retail price of their box by $90? They wouldn't just take that extra $90 in profit? Business really baffles me.
Okay... let's try this again.
The part might be a difference of only $10 but then we have to turn around and look at Apple.
If you start adding all of the costs down the line for Apple then that $10 extra on the MBA becomes, according to the "pc manufacturer", an extra $100 at retail... so, theoretically, since the MBA costs $1000, then that pc would cost $900 at retail.
I'm saying that the "manufacturer" is pulling figures out of his ass and that $10 difference only translates into a $45 difference, and therefore, $955.
Didn't you just answer your own question?
Intel wants manufacturers to stay Intel customers. By providing them a prepackaged kit, they may persuade manufacturers from looking at alternatives (ARM-based systems for instance). It would certainly be easier to adapt an Intel-provided package than develop your own.
I think ARM is a threat for the thinner and lighter notebooks, especially when you consider Linux-based OSes, OS X (the umbrella of Mac OS and iOS) and Windows 8 will all run on ARM. I also think the threat isn't imminent from the desktop OS PoV this is the time when Intel needs to plan to keep that from happenings. Trying to sell more LV and ULV chips that can be used in ultra-light and ultra0thin notebooks is can benefit them in several ways.
I'm waiting for the transparent aluminum.
+1 LOL.
Do you feel better now? Flexed your knowledge now you can continue your smarter than you complex. People like you humor me, comment has no real opinion on the article, just a need to be extra particular. Reminds me of Mike Tirico (not that you know who he is as I'm sure sports are beneath your IQ), if someone says the ball went 301yards he'll correct them and say actually it went 302 - who the hell cares it's in the general area. Lastly, speaking of tools, you are one.
/ghost
A lathe and a mill are two very different machines, that serve very different functions. The original commenter was not being arrogant or prickish by pointing that out. However, your response to the comment certainly was. Chill dude.
This is my first post. I registered just to say that this was way out of line. The article had a fundamental error, there is no foul in pointing it out.
Agreed.
This thread has gone hill in record time. I blame the Nazis.
Let's start discussing sarcasm again...
Okay... let's try this again.
The part might be a difference of only $10 but then we have to turn around and look at Apple.
If you start adding all of the costs down the line for Apple then that $10 extra on the MBA becomes, according to the "pc manufacturer", an extra $100 at retail... so, theoretically, since the MBA costs $1000, and because that one piece was $10 cheaper for the PC, then, once you go down the line, that pc would cost $900 at retail.
I'm saying that the "manufacturer" is pulling figures out of his ass and that $10 difference only translates into a $45 difference, and therefore, $955.
Could you elaborate on how that $10 "becomes" even $45 in savings? Would glue be cheaper to affix internal parts than screws, for instance?
it isnt a coincidence that Apple has all that production - those milling machines probably were bought specifically to service the Apple demand. I doubt that CNC chassis milling was a very big business before Apple decided to make the Macbook Pro that way.
This is more a measure of Intel's confidence than Apple's dominance - I'm sure that Foxconn would be willing to buy more CNC machines if Intel signed a 10 year supply contract with penalty clauses for termination.
Those machines in fact where build to Apple specifications, at least Foxcom ones. And also a unibody case if I remember well is a patented invention or process owned by Apple. The use of Liquid Metal is a unlimited one and is used for small parts inside most macs and mobile devices.
All these companies complaining about supplies and stuff are just paying the price of have incompetent CEO and poor planing. All Apple products are conceived in a way that they can earn the most out of them from the get go (manufacturing)
But the article said it would be a $100 savings at retail, not a $100 markup. How can something that only saves $10 (wholesale?) result in a $100 savings (retail)? Are manufacturers really willing to lower the retail price of their box by $90? They wouldn't just take that extra $90 in profit? Business really baffles me.
It would save the computer maker $20 not $10. $10 is the price Mitak pays before their process, as I read it. It doesn't say what the final cost is, just savings. Whatever the final cost to the computer maker they(hp or dell etc)may double it when they sell to retail suppliers. Retail may double that price. So if a part is $20 cheaper to Dell it's $40 cheaper to retail and $80 cheaper to consumer. Assuming keystone pricing all along the way which does seem out of line.
How about get the fuck off my back for an enduring concept...
So um yeah. That was WAY over the top from your usual banter.
Anyway, it is interesting to see what the other PC makers are going to do. Especially because, as was commented upthread, they need to differentiate these from the classically under-powered, under-memoried, poor resolution screened netbooks that failed under the influence of the iPad. Intel has offered several reference designs over the years, including the low-powered netbooks. The PC makers have used them with varying success. And of course Intel doesn't help differentiate the processors because you have a huge range of performance characteristics in the chipsets (depending if they are true iCore or Celeron iCore technologies). So the average consumer sees "Intel Inside" and Core i3 or Core i5 and assumes that they are getting a steal on the latest chip tech, which actually only performances at 66% as the true i3 or i5. If the PC makers try the same thing in the Ultrabook benchmark - they will be seen as only fancy netbooks by most consumers.
Could you elaborate on how that $10 "becomes" even $45 in savings? Would glue be cheaper to affix internal parts than screws, for instance?
You're right... that's the real stumper... how the manufacturer figures that Apple's process adds $80 onto the line...
Let's go with plan B... since it wasn't explained then we can only conclude that the manufacturer is pulling figures out of his ass.
So um yeah. That was WAY over the top from your usual banter.
Way over the top would be if I had made an ad hominem attack... get with the program if you're going to insult people.
Even if the numbers are exaggerated, I still don't get it. $10 is $10. How does it become $100. Remember this is a savings, right? So the case costs $10 less to make in fiberglass than of metal. How does this become a $100 savings at retail? It's still just a savings of $10.
It's a ratio of raw material cost to retail selling price markups. Typically consumer electronics will be a 4 to 1 ratio markup.
WTF?!?! PC notebooks are trying to compete with Apple price points (and can't)?! At what point did the tables turn and where the fuck have I been?!!
The problem is in that case there are design constraint. PC's beats Apple prices by using cheap and bulky "designless" containers with no power, size or weight limits.
This is why they cant beat apple in the tablet or air segment.
Didn't you just answer your own question?
Intel wants manufacturers to stay Intel customers. By providing them a prepackaged kit, they may persuade manufacturers from looking at alternatives (ARM-based systems for instance). It would certainly be easier to adapt an Intel-provided package than develop your own.
Do you feel better now? Flexed your knowledge now you can continue your smarter than you complex. People like you humor me, comment has no real opinion on the article, just a need to be extra particular. Reminds me of Mike Tirico (not that you know who he is as I'm sure sports are beneath your IQ), if someone says the ball went 301yards he'll correct them and say actually it went 302 - who the hell cares it's in the general area. Lastly, speaking of tools, you are one.
No, it's not like that at all.
How about this: It's like reporting on a golf game and saying the golfer is swinging a bat. How a lathe and a mill make a part, and what kind of parts they can make, are very different, even if the technology behind both are similar.
If you're saying it's information that you don't care about, that's fine, but correcting wrong terminology is very different than getting your yardage within a third of a percent accuracy.
The problem is in that case there are design constraint. PC's beats Apple prices by using cheap and bulky "designless" containers with no power, size or weight limits.
This is why they cant beat apple in the tablet or air segment.
... and I'm extremely happy about that. Odd, though, that we don't have some pc blowhards entering this thread explaining how much better the $1300 pc is compared to the "crappy" $999 MBA.
This thread has gone down hill in record time. I blame the Nazis.
It's because it's an "open" discussion instead of being a closed "walled garden".
</sarcasm>*
* tag inserted to prevent riling the spelling, grammar, and comprehension nazis.
Yeah, lathes are to make parts that are circular (or revolved) around an axis, such as shafts. Apple's unibody aren't anything like that. They use mills to make those parts.
I guess whoever wrote this used 'lathes' as a synonym for shape-cutting machining (as opposed to casting combined with screwing and glueing things together).
Pretty sure they are gonna have a major issue with heat dissipation. One of the great things about aluminum is its ability to transfer heat out of the system. Fiberglass acts almost as an insulator and these things are gonna have to have crazy vents in them or they are gonna bake!
That's an interesting point, but I wonder how much the aluminum helps when none of the heat sources are thermally coupled with the shell like a chip and its heat sink. Keep in mind that most computers have a plastic shell.