Apple usually lowers pricing around 8-12 mo mark on new tech.. Not much to see, processes improve, etc.
I bet they've had a price lowering goal from the start. Once they are able to get them down to same level as current Macbook pricing, I would not be surprised if the old Macbook line goes away all together and they just start selling Retina systems.
the 13" was way overprice for something with no GPU. Its an improvement at $1500, it fits the MacBook Air with retina needs. But I still think you need a GPU to drive that resolution, so its not a PC for either gaming or serious video/photo editing.
How is it that there's nothing else on the market even close to the resolution and it's 'overpriced'? A couple hundred dollar premium for the best screen on the planet? If you don't want it, that's fine, but that doesn't make it overpriced.
Overprice compare to Apple own 15" RMBP... look at the specs, you almost have to be a fool the buy the 13" at $1700. Makes a bit more sense at 1500$
That's ridiculous. You're comparing a fully loaded 13" to the base 15". When you compare comparably equipped models, the 13" is about $600-700 less than the 17". Hardly overpriced.
How about the Acer Aspire S7? List is $1399, but it's commonly available for under $1300. There's also the Asus Zenbook Prime (UX31A) at $1399 list price. There may be others. That was just a quick search.
Even if we upgrade the SSD, we have:
2.4 GHz i5 (2 cores)
2560x1600
8 GB RAM
256 GB SSD
MSRP $1699, lowest price set $1599
Your Acer costs as much or more and has a much slower processor, less RAM, and vastly inferior display. The Asus also has the same problems - plus reviews say that its SSD is slow and the touchpad is very erratic.
If that's your idea of comparable computers, it's no wonder you're such a big fan of crapware from other vendors.
That's nice, but compared to 2560-by-1600, 2.5GHz vs 1.7 GHz, 8GB vs. 4GB RAM, the Acer is not competitive.
The Acer is touch screen though, if that's your thing, maybe the other trade-offs are worth it.
Ack, I forgot to post it. jragosta has it.
Yes, I went back and edited the original post, as they're not "retina-grade" for less than $1700 which is the only thing Soli said he was trying to find. Thanks Jeff.
Your Acer costs as much or more and has a much slower processor, less RAM, and vastly inferior display. The Asus also has the same problems - plus reviews say that its SSD is slow and the touchpad is very erratic.
Lowest price for their touchscreen notebook is under $1300.
Uh huh. That one is an even slower processor than the one that was reviewed above. I'm sure that 1.7 GHz processor is going to be really fast when combined with half the RAM of the MBP. Oh, and even with such a slow processor, it's only 6 hours of battery life.
Great job. I guess if your only concern is price and you don't mind a crappy processor, inferior display, half the RAM, and shorter battery life in order to save a couple hundred dollars, that might be OK.
What do you run that requires 16 GB? There are very few power apps running on a 13" laptop that can truly make use of that much memory, unless you are running Windows in Parallels.
Try running Xcode, Illustrator and Safari at the same time. It's fine at the moment with 8GB but that RAM is non-upgradeable. A machine with 8GB will almost certainly struggle in two years time.
Hmm...must not have been selling as well as they hoped?
Perhaps, but the real story is that they lowered the price of SSD storage across their notebook line. The 256GB, 512GB, and 768GB SSD options are all significantly cheaper than before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobius
This is good news. But how pissed would you be if you'd just bought one.
I purchased my 13 rMBP the day after Christmas from MacMall with insurance proceeds as I lost my MacBook Air while traveling home for the holidays. Sure, I'd rather have paid today's prices for what I got, but that's technology. I've gotten over 6 weeks of solid service from my rMBP since then. The 15" rMBP was on sale for over 6 months. While the 13" was only on sale since October, it was pretty clear from the initial pricing that it wasn't priced to be a volume seller. Perhaps Apple's yields were too low on the display back in October, and they now have production issues sorted and can make it mainstream. I'm not surprised at all with the price drop. The Retinas will probably be the only MacBook Pros by late summer.
How about providing a 16 GM RAM option for the 13" rMBP?
My best guess is that they think it would kill demand for the 15" model. With the way that the 13" MBPr is going, I wouldn't be surprised if we see more consolidation in the near future. Dropping the 11" Air would be a start as that product is too limited to begin with. Even though Apple would likely never say it, I'll bet that it is the lowest selling laptop at this point. The fact that they still have two 13" machines is increasingly odd; the Pro already jettisoned the HDD and added a Retina display, if they continue going down this road, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Air get a Retina display @ WWDC. At that point, deciding between the Air and Pro is so minor that most people (at least the non-nerds among us) are going to have a harder time deciding which one fits their needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Is $200 worth not waiting for 3 months?
1) You repeat that it has no GPU in a clear reference to an iGPU but then conclude by suggesting people wait for the next iGPU. If the 4000 doesn't suit you why will you be satisfied with the 5000? What about it will make a world of difference after you've stated. "I still think you need a GPU to drive that resolution, so its not a PC for either gaming or serious video/photo editing."
2) As someone who has been using 13" MBPs, 13" MBs, and 12" PBs for a very long time I can say I've never cared about the GPU performance so long as it drives the display for my needs. I am not a gamer nor a video or photo editor. If I was I certainly wouldn't want a 13" notebook as my primary PC. Note the 12" PB had a dGPU but there is no way I'd trade that for the iGPUs that came in the Intel machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
I meant the 13" RMBP should have a discreet GPU like the GT 650m. But at $1500, the same machine with an intel Haswell CPU w/HD5000 would be decent since its 2.5 times faster than the HD4000. Still no gaming machine, but at least it would be able to run old games or do photo editing without choking.
The 13" RMBP is a broken product to me, its as a major GPU bottleneck that makes the machine useless for anything other than web browsing and desktop apps. Its a very expensive facebook laptop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
I'm waiting for a GPU bump before pulling the trigger on a 15" MBPr. My 2010 MBP is still going strong (mostly thanks to the SSD I upgraded it to).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos
Agreed. I'm no engineer, but a GPU update seems more complicated than using a newer revision of the same CPU model. At least for the rMBPs and their current Woz-style double-resolution-downscaled hack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
I have the 27" imac with the GTX 680mx. The imac has roughly the same resolution as the 15" rMBP. You cant squeeze an mx chip into a laptop, but the 680m would have been a nice optional upgrade for the 15" rMBP.
That being said, the GT 650m is still a decent GPU, its no high end gaming GPU like the 680mx, but it will run World of warcraft at "good" settings. At this point in time you a better off waiting for the next refresh indeed.
I could see them doing this as a stopgap measure until Haswell (and the HD 4600) is ready later this year, but given their recent attitudes with regard to graphics hardware, it's probably unrealistic. For whatever reason, Apple seems unwilling to push forward with GPUs in Macs - See OpenCL, falling behind in terms of OpenGL support, and changes to the graphics stack that make it less likely to engage the discrete GPU. Faster and more powerful Kepler chips (Read: More memory) have been available for a while. The only semi-logical reason I can come up with is given Apple's troubles with GPU's in the past (Again, Nvidia 8600 and the AMD/ATI chips in the old MacBook Pros), they don't want to go through that again and so are being conservative in the parts they select instead of going with the highest performing models that they can get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That's just ridiculous on all levels.
And yet I never would have paid $400 more for a machine that was less portable and less ideal for my needs. If not for my desire to get a new iMac I would have bought a 13" RMBP last year. I've been using iGPUs since i switched from my 12" PB back in 2005(?) and I've never once thought to myself "Gee, I wish TextEdit would render my text faster.
The lack of a GPU upgrade is a bigger deal than you might think. Speaking from experience with a late 2007 MBP that was recently retired, the GPU is probably the biggest sticking point for me when looking for a new machine (Nvidia 8600M GT, I curse you). In addition, AnandTech's review of the original Retina MBP showed that even though Apple worked with Nvidia to write drivers for the 650M, the integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000) were somewhat underpowered when tasked with driving that many pixels. Don't get me wrong, the performance is acceptable, but they can do better. Apple was probably betting that Haswell would be ready by the time they introduced a portable with a Retina display and while Ivy Bridge isn't bad by any means, it's not quite up to the level of performance that they need to ensure a smooth, consistent experience. If Intel can deliver on their roadmap, the integrated performance should see a boost with the HD 4600.
Uh huh. That one is an even slower processor than the one that was reviewed above. I'm sure that 1.7 GHz processor is going to be really fast when combined with half the RAM of the MBP. Oh, and even with such a slow processor, it's only 6 hours of battery life.
Great job. I guess if your only concern is price and you don't mind a crappy processor, inferior display, half the RAM, and shorter battery life in order to save a couple hundred dollars, that might be OK.
Soli said he could not find any other notebooks with an IPS Retina-equivalent display. I was trying (unsuccessfully) to point him to a couple. If you're looking for a spec match (or better) to Apple's MacBook with Retina I've not tried to find one myself. There may not be anything.
EDIT: This is the most recent "recommended" list I can find. Of course the Macbook w/Retina is there
Try running Xcode, Illustrator and Safari at the same time. It's fine at the moment with 8GB but that RAM is non-upgradeable. A machine with 8GB will almost certainly struggle in two years time.
Agreed. I was surprised that the RAM didn't get bumped in either model. Apple sells iMacs (and to a lesser extent, Mac Pros) with 32 GB, so why not do it for the laptop line, which, when combined, probably outsells the iMac.
How stupid would you be if you complained. Anybody with any intelligence at all would have realized that the prices of these machines would come down over time and fairly quickly. The use of flash and retina displays means that Apple would be seeing substantial decreases in costs as the the technologies mature or in the case of flash moves to new process nodes.
It should have been obvious to anybody with anything more than a peanut between their ears that the machines would be cheaper in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobius
This is good news. But how pissed would you be if you'd just bought one.
You didn't comment at all on the Asus. It's not comparable either?
EDIT: Gotcha now Soli. The PPI works out to around 170 I think, whereas it needs to get to about 215ppi for a laptop to be "retina-grade".
My bad.<img alt="1smile.gif" id="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1360769485792_1272" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/1smile.gif" style="line-height:1.231;" name="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1360769485792_1272">
Yes, I went back and edited the original post, as they're not "retina-grade" for less than $1700 which is the only thing Soli said he was trying to find. Thanks Jeff.
I get 165.63 (don't forget it's 13.3", not 13") which means you'd have to be sitting more than 20" away before you'd get the Retina effect for someone with 20/20 vision. For comparison the 13" RMBP only needs to be just over 15" away. It's still a great IPS display at 1920x1080 and the price of that Ultrabook seems very reasonable. Unfortunately Acer seems to have gotten the display right but skimped in other areas according to AT's review.
Can a $1650 ($1300 at Amazon) Ultrabook be successful when even the AT reviewer says he won't pay more than $1000 for an Ultrabook and the ASP of a WinPC is nearly half the cost of this machine? Personally, I hope that Ultrabooks will get Windows users into invest more in a decent PC but that ship looks like it sailed long ago. For too long the only innovations we've seen in shipping WinPCs seems to be creative ways to cut costs. We finally have HiDPI and IPS on a machine that isn't too expensive… and it's long over due.
When Apple products are "too expensive" people rage at the price and make fun of us that buy them.
When Apple lowers the price due to part savings, manufacturing processes, etc. then it's because Apple market share was suffering and they need to sell more.
The lack of a GPU upgrade is a bigger deal than you might think. Speaking from experience with a late 2007 MBP that was recently retired, the GPU is probably the biggest sticking point for me when looking for a new machine (Nvidia 8600M GT, I curse you). In addition, AnandTech's review of the original Retina MBP showed that even though Apple worked with Nvidia to write drivers for the 650M, the integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000) were somewhat underpowered when tasked with driving that many pixels. Don't get me wrong, the performance is acceptable, but they can do better. Apple was probably betting that Haswell would be ready by the time they introduced a portable with a Retina display and while Ivy Bridge isn't bad by any means, it's not quite up to the level of performance that they need to ensure a smooth, consistent experience. If Intel can deliver on their roadmap, the integrated performance should see a boost with the HD 4600.
Of course they can do better but the point is that spending more for a machine that suits my needs less simply won't make sense. It was less than a week ago I talked my brother out of buying a 13" RMBP now. I told him to wait for a revision so they could update the iGPU and perhaps they may finally be able to offer these displays in the MBAs. His usage is completely different from mine hence the suggestion was warranted, but in no way does that mean the current 13" RMBP is useless, overpriced, poorly designed or anything else. Like all PCs there are use cases that can make one better or worse for a user but it's never a blanket statement.
Yep! The high price was there to deal with demand as production was ramped up. Now we have an additional factor here in that flash prices have dropped due to new nodes coming on line. These two factors will lead to a much more interesting value equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott6666
Frankly, they were overpriced to begin with. This is just a step to returning them to normal Apple pricing.
The price premiums they put in when they first released retina were pretty high.
Yes high on purpose! To me this signals that Apple and its screen vendors have successfully ramped production of retina class screens. By this time next year retina density screens will likely be the norm. People need to think a bit here about iPad and its pricing, a 13" screen isn't that much bigger so the costs and difficulty can't be that much greater.
Uh huh. That one is an even slower processor than the one that was reviewed above. I'm sure that 1.7 GHz processor is going to be really fast when combined with half the RAM of the MBP. Oh, and even with such a slow processor, it's only 6 hours of battery life.
Great job. I guess if your only concern is price and you don't mind a crappy processor, inferior display, half the RAM, and shorter battery life in order to save a couple hundred dollars, that might be OK.
I haven't verified it but I think that Acer S7 might be more closely related to the MBA than the MBP. That 1.9GHz Core-i7 (note that i7 is required for the Ultrabook rating) is likely a ULV which may cost more than the CPU in the MBPs, even thought it is slower.
Comments
Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like they have cut SSD prices across the board. For all MBPs and MBAs.
I bet they've had a price lowering goal from the start. Once they are able to get them down to same level as current Macbook pricing, I would not be surprised if the old Macbook line goes away all together and they just start selling Retina systems.
How is it that there's nothing else on the market even close to the resolution and it's 'overpriced'? A couple hundred dollar premium for the best screen on the planet? If you don't want it, that's fine, but that doesn't make it overpriced.
That's ridiculous. You're comparing a fully loaded 13" to the base 15". When you compare comparably equipped models, the 13" is about $600-700 less than the 17". Hardly overpriced.
ROTFLMAO.
Acer Aspire S7 (http://www.cnet.com/laptops/acer-aspire-s7-391/4505-3121_7-35472847.html)
1.9 GHz i7 (2 cores)
1920x1080
4 GB RAM
256 GB SSD
MSRP $1650, lowest price $1578
Apple MBP 13" retina
2.4 GHz i5 (2 cores)
2560x1600
8 GB RAM
128 GB SSD
MSRP $1499, lowest price est $1399
Even if we upgrade the SSD, we have:
2.4 GHz i5 (2 cores)
2560x1600
8 GB RAM
256 GB SSD
MSRP $1699, lowest price set $1599
Your Acer costs as much or more and has a much slower processor, less RAM, and vastly inferior display. The Asus also has the same problems - plus reviews say that its SSD is slow and the touchpad is very erratic.
If that's your idea of comparable computers, it's no wonder you're such a big fan of crapware from other vendors.
Then buy one.
But if you look at these great comparables that Gatorguy suggested, you might be better off to buy the MBP and wipe the drive to install Windows.
That's nice, but compared to 2560-by-1600, 2.5GHz vs 1.7 GHz, 8GB vs. 4GB RAM, the Acer is not competitive.
The Acer is touch screen though, if that's your thing, maybe the other trade-offs are worth it.
Ack, I forgot to post it. jragosta beat me to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
That's nice, but compared to 2560-by-1600, 2.5GHz vs 1.7 GHz, 8GB vs. 4GB RAM, the Acer is not competitive.
The Acer is touch screen though, if that's your thing, maybe the other trade-offs are worth it.
Ack, I forgot to post it. jragosta has it.
Yes, I went back and edited the original post, as they're not "retina-grade" for less than $1700 which is the only thing Soli said he was trying to find. Thanks Jeff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Acer Aspire S7 (http://www.cnet.com/laptops/acer-aspire-s7-391/4505-3121_7-35472847.html)
MSRP $1650, lowest price $1578
Your Acer costs as much or more and has a much slower processor, less RAM, and vastly inferior display. The Asus also has the same problems - plus reviews say that its SSD is slow and the touchpad is very erratic.
http://www.amazon.com/Acer-S7-391-6810-13-3-Inch-Touchscreen-Ultrabook/dp/B009H2CL1S
Lowest price for their touchscreen notebook is under $1300.
Uh huh. That one is an even slower processor than the one that was reviewed above. I'm sure that 1.7 GHz processor is going to be really fast when combined with half the RAM of the MBP. Oh, and even with such a slow processor, it's only 6 hours of battery life.
Great job. I guess if your only concern is price and you don't mind a crappy processor, inferior display, half the RAM, and shorter battery life in order to save a couple hundred dollars, that might be OK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
What do you run that requires 16 GB? There are very few power apps running on a 13" laptop that can truly make use of that much memory, unless you are running Windows in Parallels.
Try running Xcode, Illustrator and Safari at the same time. It's fine at the moment with 8GB but that RAM is non-upgradeable. A machine with 8GB will almost certainly struggle in two years time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Hmm...must not have been selling as well as they hoped?
Perhaps, but the real story is that they lowered the price of SSD storage across their notebook line. The 256GB, 512GB, and 768GB SSD options are all significantly cheaper than before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobius
This is good news. But how pissed would you be if you'd just bought one.
I purchased my 13 rMBP the day after Christmas from MacMall with insurance proceeds as I lost my MacBook Air while traveling home for the holidays. Sure, I'd rather have paid today's prices for what I got, but that's technology. I've gotten over 6 weeks of solid service from my rMBP since then. The 15" rMBP was on sale for over 6 months. While the 13" was only on sale since October, it was pretty clear from the initial pricing that it wasn't priced to be a volume seller. Perhaps Apple's yields were too low on the display back in October, and they now have production issues sorted and can make it mainstream. I'm not surprised at all with the price drop. The Retinas will probably be the only MacBook Pros by late summer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpf1952
How about providing a 16 GM RAM option for the 13" rMBP?
My best guess is that they think it would kill demand for the 15" model. With the way that the 13" MBPr is going, I wouldn't be surprised if we see more consolidation in the near future. Dropping the 11" Air would be a start as that product is too limited to begin with. Even though Apple would likely never say it, I'll bet that it is the lowest selling laptop at this point. The fact that they still have two 13" machines is increasingly odd; the Pro already jettisoned the HDD and added a Retina display, if they continue going down this road, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Air get a Retina display @ WWDC. At that point, deciding between the Air and Pro is so minor that most people (at least the non-nerds among us) are going to have a harder time deciding which one fits their needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Is $200 worth not waiting for 3 months?
1) You repeat that it has no GPU in a clear reference to an iGPU but then conclude by suggesting people wait for the next iGPU. If the 4000 doesn't suit you why will you be satisfied with the 5000? What about it will make a world of difference after you've stated. "I still think you need a GPU to drive that resolution, so its not a PC for either gaming or serious video/photo editing."
2) As someone who has been using 13" MBPs, 13" MBs, and 12" PBs for a very long time I can say I've never cared about the GPU performance so long as it drives the display for my needs. I am not a gamer nor a video or photo editor. If I was I certainly wouldn't want a 13" notebook as my primary PC. Note the 12" PB had a dGPU but there is no way I'd trade that for the iGPUs that came in the Intel machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
I meant the 13" RMBP should have a discreet GPU like the GT 650m. But at $1500, the same machine with an intel Haswell CPU w/HD5000 would be decent since its 2.5 times faster than the HD4000. Still no gaming machine, but at least it would be able to run old games or do photo editing without choking.
The 13" RMBP is a broken product to me, its as a major GPU bottleneck that makes the machine useless for anything other than web browsing and desktop apps. Its a very expensive facebook laptop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
I'm waiting for a GPU bump before pulling the trigger on a 15" MBPr. My 2010 MBP is still going strong (mostly thanks to the SSD I upgraded it to).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos
Agreed. I'm no engineer, but a GPU update seems more complicated than using a newer revision of the same CPU model. At least for the rMBPs and their current Woz-style double-resolution-downscaled hack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
I have the 27" imac with the GTX 680mx. The imac has roughly the same resolution as the 15" rMBP. You cant squeeze an mx chip into a laptop, but the 680m would have been a nice optional upgrade for the 15" rMBP.
That being said, the GT 650m is still a decent GPU, its no high end gaming GPU like the 680mx, but it will run World of warcraft at "good" settings. At this point in time you a better off waiting for the next refresh indeed.
I could see them doing this as a stopgap measure until Haswell (and the HD 4600) is ready later this year, but given their recent attitudes with regard to graphics hardware, it's probably unrealistic. For whatever reason, Apple seems unwilling to push forward with GPUs in Macs - See OpenCL, falling behind in terms of OpenGL support, and changes to the graphics stack that make it less likely to engage the discrete GPU. Faster and more powerful Kepler chips (Read: More memory) have been available for a while. The only semi-logical reason I can come up with is given Apple's troubles with GPU's in the past (Again, Nvidia 8600 and the AMD/ATI chips in the old MacBook Pros), they don't want to go through that again and so are being conservative in the parts they select instead of going with the highest performing models that they can get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That's just ridiculous on all levels.
And yet I never would have paid $400 more for a machine that was less portable and less ideal for my needs. If not for my desire to get a new iMac I would have bought a 13" RMBP last year. I've been using iGPUs since i switched from my 12" PB back in 2005(?) and I've never once thought to myself "Gee, I wish TextEdit would render my text faster.
The lack of a GPU upgrade is a bigger deal than you might think. Speaking from experience with a late 2007 MBP that was recently retired, the GPU is probably the biggest sticking point for me when looking for a new machine (Nvidia 8600M GT, I curse you). In addition, AnandTech's review of the original Retina MBP showed that even though Apple worked with Nvidia to write drivers for the 650M, the integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000) were somewhat underpowered when tasked with driving that many pixels. Don't get me wrong, the performance is acceptable, but they can do better. Apple was probably betting that Haswell would be ready by the time they introduced a portable with a Retina display and while Ivy Bridge isn't bad by any means, it's not quite up to the level of performance that they need to ensure a smooth, consistent experience. If Intel can deliver on their roadmap, the integrated performance should see a boost with the HD 4600.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Uh huh. That one is an even slower processor than the one that was reviewed above. I'm sure that 1.7 GHz processor is going to be really fast when combined with half the RAM of the MBP. Oh, and even with such a slow processor, it's only 6 hours of battery life.
Great job. I guess if your only concern is price and you don't mind a crappy processor, inferior display, half the RAM, and shorter battery life in order to save a couple hundred dollars, that might be OK.
Soli said he could not find any other notebooks with an IPS Retina-equivalent display. I was trying (unsuccessfully) to point him to a couple. If you're looking for a spec match (or better) to Apple's MacBook with Retina I've not tried to find one myself. There may not be anything.
EDIT: This is the most recent "recommended" list I can find. Of course the Macbook w/Retina is there
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369981,00.asp
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Try running Xcode, Illustrator and Safari at the same time. It's fine at the moment with 8GB but that RAM is non-upgradeable. A machine with 8GB will almost certainly struggle in two years time.
Agreed. I was surprised that the RAM didn't get bumped in either model. Apple sells iMacs (and to a lesser extent, Mac Pros) with 32 GB, so why not do it for the laptop line, which, when combined, probably outsells the iMac.
How stupid would you be if you complained. Anybody with any intelligence at all would have realized that the prices of these machines would come down over time and fairly quickly. The use of flash and retina displays means that Apple would be seeing substantial decreases in costs as the the technologies mature or in the case of flash moves to new process nodes.
It should have been obvious to anybody with anything more than a peanut between their ears that the machines would be cheaper in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobius
This is good news. But how pissed would you be if you'd just bought one.
I get 165.63 (don't forget it's 13.3", not 13") which means you'd have to be sitting more than 20" away before you'd get the Retina effect for someone with 20/20 vision. For comparison the 13" RMBP only needs to be just over 15" away. It's still a great IPS display at 1920x1080 and the price of that Ultrabook seems very reasonable. Unfortunately Acer seems to have gotten the display right but skimped in other areas according to AT's review.
Can a $1650 ($1300 at Amazon) Ultrabook be successful when even the AT reviewer says he won't pay more than $1000 for an Ultrabook and the ASP of a WinPC is nearly half the cost of this machine? Personally, I hope that Ultrabooks will get Windows users into invest more in a decent PC but that ship looks like it sailed long ago. For too long the only innovations we've seen in shipping WinPCs seems to be creative ways to cut costs. We finally have HiDPI and IPS on a machine that isn't too expensive… and it's long over due.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
I love it:
When Apple products are "too expensive" people rage at the price and make fun of us that buy them.
When Apple lowers the price due to part savings, manufacturing processes, etc. then it's because Apple market share was suffering and they need to sell more.
This should be a sticky.
Of course they can do better but the point is that spending more for a machine that suits my needs less simply won't make sense. It was less than a week ago I talked my brother out of buying a 13" RMBP now. I told him to wait for a revision so they could update the iGPU and perhaps they may finally be able to offer these displays in the MBAs. His usage is completely different from mine hence the suggestion was warranted, but in no way does that mean the current 13" RMBP is useless, overpriced, poorly designed or anything else. Like all PCs there are use cases that can make one better or worse for a user but it's never a blanket statement.
Yep! The high price was there to deal with demand as production was ramped up. Now we have an additional factor here in that flash prices have dropped due to new nodes coming on line. These two factors will lead to a much more interesting value equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott6666
Frankly, they were overpriced to begin with. This is just a step to returning them to normal Apple pricing.
The price premiums they put in when they first released retina were pretty high.
Yes high on purpose! To me this signals that Apple and its screen vendors have successfully ramped production of retina class screens. By this time next year retina density screens will likely be the norm. People need to think a bit here about iPad and its pricing, a 13" screen isn't that much bigger so the costs and difficulty can't be that much greater.
I haven't verified it but I think that Acer S7 might be more closely related to the MBA than the MBP. That 1.9GHz Core-i7 (note that i7 is required for the Ultrabook rating) is likely a ULV which may cost more than the CPU in the MBPs, even thought it is slower.
edit: Yep!
Core i7-3517U - 17W - $346 — http://ark.intel.com/products/65714
i5-3210M - 35W - $225 — http://ark.intel.com/products/65708
Certainly taking it like a man; commendable.
I agree; who uses Facebook¿