This is good news. But how pissed would you be if you'd just bought one.
It depends. If you bought a MacBook Pro Retina and you were willing to spend what it used to cost to get it, you obviously thought it was worth the money, so why would you be pissed? You got a great computer, right?
Most of the pricing adjustments could be accounted for by a small change to their gross margins. We know their margins lowered overall at the last financial report.
It strikes me that higher yields on the retina panels and lower component costs are more likely than Apple willing to take an unnecessary margin and ASP hit on their top laptop lines. There's no indication that they aren't selling as well as Apple might have hoped.
Quote:
Like I said in previous threads, they could actually knock $200 average off every Mac in their lineup (the higher amounts going to the expensive models) and if they didn't increase volume, they'd only lose $1b out of the $13b per quarter they make.
LOL...only lose a $1B.
Quote:
But of course they will increase shipment volume quite a bit knocking that much off so everybody wins: Apple increases shipment volume, customers get lower prices and more Macs sold means higher software sales through the App Stores and potentially more peripheral devices sold too.
I do not believe that Apple MBP customers are that price sensitive. I would think that if they were willing to take a new $1B/qtr hit they would MOST likely do so on the iPad Mini instead of the MBP line.
Quote:
Once they drop the price of the 15" models, there's also a question of whether they will bring the 17" back to fill the higher price point or just keep adding more storage. I was going to say it would be better having the $2799 model lower but you can spec the lower one up with the 2.7GHz CPU and 16GB RAM for $300 to get $2499 with 256GB storage.
Given Haswell's GPU boost, perhaps that entry 15" model can be Retina but just a dual-core i5/i7 with IGP and 256GB storage at the $1799 price - possibly the removal of the dedicated GPU and $150 cheaper CPU can justify the $400 lower price.
As much as it pains me the return of the 17" looks unlikely at this stage.
While the entry level 15" COULD go with IGP (even today) that would simply drive up the minimum price for anyone wishing to have a dedicated GPU. That's probably unwise. While I believe that most MBP buyers are relatively price intolerant there's always a point too far.
It strikes me that Apple likes using the dedicated GPU as the differentiating point between lines. Mac Mini vs iMac. 13" MBP/MBA to the 15" MBP.
LOL...you're all upset because he replace "conclusion" with "explanation"? Really?
Fine...you wrote "I don't see any other conclusion".
LOL...man that's hilarious.
No, what this is is sad and pathetic that you two would outright lie when the evidence is all right here in text.
I can't find me writing "no other explanation" once in this thread or making any comparable statement that would exclude anyone else from having an opinion or asserting my opinion as an incontrovertible truth.
I clearly I addressed the use of synonyms (see underlined text) and couldn't find any that backed up jragosta's lie that I didn't state my opinion.
What I objected to and what you and jragosta continue to do is fail to read properly. This is becoming a habit with you. You can be angry all you want that I call you out on your bullshit but it doesn't change the fact that you have once again outright lied in this thread. Whether this is some intentional vendetta for my besting you or hubris that prevents you from simply admitting you failed to comprehend plain English remains to me seen.
Can anyone explain to me the difference between the 13" rmbp 2.6 GHz intel i5 vs the 3.0 GHz intel i7 ??
Is it worth the difference in price? It's about $200 more for the 3.0 Ghz model.
Both the CPU (3.7 vs 3.2 Ghz) and GPU (1.3 Ghz vs 1.1 Ghz) run a bit faster.
In the previous models (2.9 Ghz i7 vs 2.5 Ghz i5) the CPU was around 13-14% faster and the GPU around 9-13% faster.
Of the two the GPU being around 10% faster is probably more important.
I dunno...I don't feel that 8GB RAM is sufficiently future proof so I'd either go for the 15" MBPr with 16GB RAM or buy the cheapest 13" MBPr model possible and get the $1,499 base model unless I had to have 256GB of SSD.
If you buy and sell your laptop often then any is fine. If you buy and hold...man, that extra $500 for the base 15" MBPr with 16GB RAM over the $1899 13" MBP i7 is a lot more future proof.
No, what this is is sad and pathetic that you two would outright lie when the evidence is all right here in text.
I clearly I addressed the use of synonyms (see underlined text) and couldn't find any that backed up jragosta's lie that I didn't state my opinion.
What I objected to and what you and jragosta continue to do is fail to read properly. This is becoming a habit with you. You can be angry all you want that I call you out on your bullshit but it doesn't change the fact that you have once again outright lied in this thread. Whether this is some intentional vendetta for my besting you or hubris that prevents you from simply admitting you failed to comprehend plain English remains to me seen.
Lets see what you fail to read properly, too...
Dude...you clearly wrote "I don't see any other conclusion than they are now using a smaller process node to double the NAND density".
Who's angry? The one calling people names or the one laughing at the person calling people names? I don't mind but you sure talk tough on the internet buddy.
I quoted you exactly every single time. I disagree there's a significant difference between "conclusion" and "explanation" in the context of what you wrote but that's neither a misread nor a lie. So you'll have to show where I lied.
Is "conclusion" and "explanation" direct synonyms? Nope...at least not in my thesaurus. But man are they related enough that replacing one with the other isn't unusual given the phrasing you used. He misspoke by using the wrong, but closely related word. You'll have to provide what you think the horrible difference in meaning really is in the context of your quote.
Read properly? LOL. From the guy that only skims AI articles before he comments on them:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Can? Yes. Do I? Kinda. I usually skim them.
Project much?
Of course you stated an opinion. Your opinion was you didn't see any other conclusion other than using a smaller process node.
Jragosta thinks your opinion that there are no other conclusions is (I presume...if he doesn't think so then at least I sure do) stupid, not that you didn't state an opinion or that you aren't allowed to have one.
Keep digging buddy. Soon you'll pop out in a Foxconn factory and you can give us a report on the iPhone 5S...heh
Dude...you clearly wrote "I don't see any other conclusion than they are now using a smaller process node to double the NAND density".
Who's angry? The one calling people names or the one laughing at the person calling people names? I don't mind but you sure talk tough on the internet buddy.
I quoted you exactly every single time. I disagree there's a significant difference between "conclusion" and "explanation" in the context of what you wrote but that's neither a misread nor a lie. So you'll have to show where I lied.
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Is "conclusion" and "explanation" direct synonyms? Nope...at least not in my thesaurus. But man are they related enough that replacing one with the other isn't unusual given the phrasing you used. He misspoke by using the wrong, but closely related word. You'll have to provide what you think the horrible difference in meaning really is in the context of your quote.</p>
Read properly? LOL. From the guy that only skims AI articles before he comments on them:
Project much?
Of course you stated an opinion. Your opinion was you didn't see any other conclusion other than using a smaller process node.
Jragosta thinks your opinion that there are no other conclusions is (I presume...if he doesn't think so then at least I sure do) stupid, not that you didn't state an opinion or that you aren't allowed to have one.
Keep digging buddy. Soon you'll pop out in a Foxconn factory and you can give us a report on the iPhone 5S...heh
The statements, "I don't see how all that stuff is going to fit in your mini van" and "It is impossible to fit all that stuff in your mini van" are not saying the same thing. They just aren't. "I don't see" implies that something might not be seen that allows for an alternate possibility. "I don't see how he could have made it from Berlin to Paris in that amount of time." -- "I believe he took a high speed train." -- "Oh, that seems reasonable. I hadn't thought of that."
To reject this use of language is childish. He wasn't expressing a philosophical axiom in a dissertation, but the opinion that one possibility was the most probable, amongst others that are less probable. If this were a class on formal logic, you would be told not to use the phrase "I don't see," because it is ambiguous. So your argument is still broken, because you're conflating "It is impossible" with "I don't see," which is absurd in any imaginable context. They are VERY clearly not expressing the same degree of certainty.
The statements, "I don't see how all that stuff is going to fit in your mini van" and "It is impossible to fit all that stuff in your mini van" are not saying the same thing. They just aren't. "I don't see" implies that something might not be seen that allows for an alternate possibility. "I don't see how he could have made it from Berlin to Paris in that amount of time." -- "I believe he took a high speed train." -- "Oh, that seems reasonable. I hadn't thought of that."
To reject this use of language is childish. He wasn't expressing a philosophical axiom in a dissertation, but the opinion that one possibility was the most probable, amongst others that are less probable. If this were a class on formal logic, you would be told not to use the phrase "I don't see," because it is ambiguous. So your argument is still broken, because you're conflating "It is impossible" with "I don't see," which is absurd in any imaginable context. They are VERY clearly not expressing the same degree of certainty.
If it were the case his position was one of disbelief or one accepting alternate possibilities then the response "Oh, that seems reasonable. I hadn't thought of that" would be expected. That was not the response provided.
You make a good point. However, I disagree that "I don't seehow you can arrive at any different conclusion" is the same as "I don't seeany other conclusion". The latter is expressing a far greater degree of certainty. There is no how in the original quote. I agree that injecting the word how would make the statement more questioning but this is not the case.
Besides, your premise is incorrect. I am not conflating "I don't see" with "It is impossible". My position is that "I don't see any other conclusion except X" is saying the same thing as "I don't believe [there are] any other conclusions except X".
I also don't see how (heh) the statement "I don't see any other conclusion..." to be materially different from "I don't see any other explanation..."
Childish is calling other folks liars because you disagree and can hide in the anonymity of the internet.
This is not a new trend. MacBook Air started off more expensive than it is today, when SSD drives were not as cheap.
Having said that, I do believe the marvels of Retina Display on a laptop are totally under-appreciated. I wish it was available on more Windows laptops, as I need to work on both Windows and Mac OS.
It's less common for them to trim pricing mid cycle. Usually you see these things happen around refreshes. I guess they could always move away from that to even out demand somewhat as demand will naturally be high at the start of a product cycle, around fall college courses, and around the holidays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I guess $999 is not something they want to deviate from and the 64GB MBA is selling well enough to make that a good starting point.
In my opinion 64GB should have gone away some time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It looks like they dropped the higher model of the old-style 15" MBP on the US site:
This used to be $1,999. Maybe they'll do the same once stocks of the high-end old 13" run out.
According to my own memory and everymac, it was always $1799. That appears to be the base 15" spec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How are those the same? I know that Acer uses an IPS display and AnandTech said it was a great machine, for Acer, but t's not Retina and the MSRP on the Acer is $1650.
Anandtech also liked the Asus one, although they mention caveats and Amazon comments mention other things. I'm a little surprised by the number of negative comments on there. Asus is capable of turning out solid machines. Scrolling through the negative comments, keyboard problems come up a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
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.
They used to do this primarily at refresh times. I did think the pricing was pretty aggressive for a 13" notebook, but it obviously depends on their anticipated volume. It would be difficult for me to pick up a machine so full of proprietary parts and connections. I wouldn't personally pick up a first generation on something like this.
It strikes me that higher yields on the retina panels and lower component costs are more likely than Apple willing to take an unnecessary margin and ASP hit on their top laptop lines. There's no indication that they aren't selling as well as Apple might have hoped.
If we assume the iMac makes up 25% of the Mac sales, then it would have sold 1.3 million units last year in Q1. This year's Q1 Mac sales were 4.1m vs 5.2m and the iMac was not on sale for 6-8 weeks. If they'd maintained their 25% growth, they'd have sold 6.5 million Macs, which without half of the iMac sales should have been about 5.6m units. Even if there was no growth, the Mac sales are still lower.
In the worst case but that wouldn't happen and it's small relative to what they make. All their prices are a balance between profit and volume. They could be losing $1b profit at any point by not pricing $200 higher if you just look at the pricing and nothing else but if they price too high, they lessen their appeal to buyers. They have to find the best margin that gives them the highest overall return taking into consideration what people are willing to pay for.
I do not believe that Apple MBP customers are that price sensitive. I would think that if they were willing to take a new $1B/qtr hit they would MOST likely do so on the iPad Mini instead of the MBP line.
The iPad Mini is in high demand and already competitively priced. Having a 13" dual-core laptop starting at $1699 wasn't all that competitive. Clearly MBP buyers are willing to pay more but $400-500 more is pushing it.
While the entry level 15" COULD go with IGP (even today) that would simply drive up the minimum price for anyone wishing to have a dedicated GPU. That's probably unwise.
It depends on how fast the Haswell GPU is. It's likely to be on par with a 640M. This makes it 70% the speed of the 650M. If they get it to match the 650M as one demo showed, even better. It would be like getting the 2012 model with a Retina display for the same price.
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.
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.
Exactly. The MacBook Pro line is always supposed to be about performance. For everything else, there's Air.
Our problem is that even the current top-end rMBP is barely keeping up with its own framebuffer, let alone maintaining a capability for serious rendering. For all the fuss Apple makes (made?) over squeezing every last ounce of performance from their chips via GCD and OpenCL, having a fatter pixel pipe in the first place would be a big help...
Though I do agree with OS X invoking the dGPU less often in normal operation. Before, the threshold was comically low: running any app that might use Core Animation at some point. Want to open the official Twitter app? dGPU, motherfucker.
wizard69
Sadly does anybody think that this might be an indication of a long wait for Haswell based Mac Books? If this was just a flash update I wouldn't bother to ask but the processor bumps make me think we have another six months ahead of us.
Current estimate for Haswell rMBP is June at the earliest.
SolipsismX
v5v
Yay for you. You don't *DO* anything other than punch text on your machine. You sound like a guy standing at a race track arguing that there's no need for anything more than a 98 horsepower 4-banger for carrying groceries. True, but completely irrelevant to those whose needs are CONSIDERABLY more demanding.
I sound like someone that buys what they need when they need it instead of complaining that they've been wronged or that such-and-such is doing wrong because they aren't catering exactly to their personal needs.
Ever see a white guy claim that racism/sexism isn't a problem, because he's never been the target?
You don't see a problem because Apple's current product line actually serves your needs. Those of us who are willing to pay for the utmost performance in a portable form factor? Not so much. This revision still has us stuck under a low graphics ceiling, uncharacteristic of the MBP line throughout history.
That was perhaps too wordy and I'm sure you'll have a cogent rebuttal for the poorly written parts of my last post.
To put it more simply and clearly I do not believe that the two statements:
"I don't see how other birds [are] in the car"
and
"I don't see any other birds in the car"
are the same kind of statements despite both starting with the phrase "I do not see". The latter is expressing a great degree of certainty.
I think it is fair to say, colloquially, that he was "expressing a great degree of certainty." Note, though, that this is ambiguous in terms of formal logic, in the same way that "a great degree of dead" would be, (that is, you can be dead or not dead, certain or not certain; this is a "light switch;" on or off, yes or no, true or false) but in casual use "a great degree of certainty" does have a use which we are familiar with.
More to the point, SolX usually has something to say concerning the subject of the article, and I think the parsing of his assertion along the lines of truth values is excessive. I don't always agree with what he says, I might even mostly disagree, but he has something to contribute, and that is why I paused to say something in defense of that.
I think it is fair to say, colloquially, that he was "expressing a great degree of certainty." Note, though, that this is ambiguous in terms of formal logic, in the same way that "a great degree of dead" would be, (that is, you can be dead or not dead, certain or not certain; this is a "light switch;" on or off, yes or no, true or false) but in casual use "a great degree of certainty" does have a use which we are familiar with.
More to the point, SolX usually has something to say concerning the subject of the article, and I think the parsing of his assertion along the lines of truth values is excessive. I don't always agree with what he says, I might even mostly disagree, but he has something to contribute, and that is why I paused to say something in defense of that.
Cheers.
When I said "a great deal of certainty" I was using your phrasing as I don't believe there's ambiguity in the statements "I see no other birds in the car" or "I see no other conclusions".
As I quoted, while SolX usually has something to say concerning the subject of an article, by his own admission he often simply skims the article as opposed to reading it...I would say that greatly degrades the value of his contributions leading to some silly questions and dubious assertions.
If we assume the iMac makes up 25% of the Mac sales, then it would have sold 1.3 million units last year in Q1. This year's Q1 Mac sales were 4.1m vs 5.2m and the iMac was not on sale for 6-8 weeks. If they'd maintained their 25% growth, they'd have sold 6.5 million Macs, which without half of the iMac sales should have been about 5.6m units. Even if there was no growth, the Mac sales are still lower.
My impression was they were supply constrained with the MBPr as well for period.
Quote:
In the worst case but that wouldn't happen and it's small relative to what they make. All their prices are a balance between profit and volume. They could be losing $1b profit at any point by not pricing $200 higher if you just look at the pricing and nothing else but if they price too high, they lessen their appeal to buyers. They have to find the best margin that gives them the highest overall return taking into consideration what people are willing to pay for.
My assumption is that they have done just this relative to their supply constraints and costs. My recollection was that MBPrs were priced higher than the regular MBPs price points and are drifting back toward the price points that Apple has set.
Quote:
The iPad Mini is in high demand and already competitively priced. Having a 13" dual-core laptop starting at $1699 wasn't all that competitive. Clearly MBP buyers are willing to pay more but $400-500 more is pushing it.
I'm just saying that if Apple is willing to take a potential $1B hit then I would think that strategically doing so with the iPad Mini to be better. It is in high demand but also under greater competitive pressure and of greater strategic importance.
The 13" MBP is just has not been a good bang for the buck platform. If it were me and I were to take a $1B margin hit I'd rather add a GPU to the 13" MBP line and live with the cannibalization of the bottom end of the 15" MBP line. My ASPs drop either way but I preserve the 15" MBPr price points.
Quote:
It depends on how fast the Haswell GPU is. It's likely to be on par with a 640M. This makes it 70% the speed of the 650M. If they get it to match the 650M as one demo showed, even better. It would be like getting the 2012 model with a Retina display for the same price.
Except by then being on par with the 640M will be being on par with last years budget GPU. It would be like getting a 2012 model retina display for the same price in 2013...
When I said "a great deal of certainty" I was using your phrasing as I don't believe there's ambiguity in the statements "I see no other birds in the car" or "I see no other conclusions".
As I quoted, while SolX usually has something to say concerning the subject of an article, by his own admission he often simply skims the article as opposed to reading it...I would say that greatly degrades the value of his contributions leading to some silly questions and dubious assertions.
With regard to my phrasing, I am only saying it's qualified as a coloquial usage (and there isn't anything wrong with that.) To evaluate some truth value, though, you would have to develop, or invoke, some specialized usage of the phrase "I see no other" that would be applied retroactively, which would be difficult to justify as it was not your expression, or mine, but his (and his intention is anyone's guess.) I think we should agree that "I see no other" does not mean absolutely that there CANNOT be, some other, but it may be used that way.
As to the latter point, SolX has contributed to discussions in the past that I recall as having merit. For a forum, that is about as much as you can ask.
The 13" MBP is just has not been a good bang for the buck platform. If it were me and I were to take a $1B margin hit I'd rather add a GPU to the 13" MBP line and live with the cannibalization of the bottom end of the 15" MBP line. My ASPs drop either way but I preserve the 15" MBPr price points.
It would be nice to see a dedicated GPU in the 13" but I think Haswell is going to be enough. Apple really hasn't done enough to win over the Windows PC crowd and I can't see that happening without the price cuts. I pointed out an example some time ago with a Lenovo priced at $900 less than the old optical MBP with HDD:
Some people will pay a premium for Apple but few will pay double. They obviously shouldn't try and match Lenovo's crazy margins, nor lower build quality noticeably but there has to be a better starting price point than even $1799 for their 15" laptop so they can appeal to more customers.
All their prices are a balance between profit and volume. They could be losing $1b profit at any point by not pricing $200 higher if you just look at the pricing and nothing else but if they price too high, they lessen their appeal to buyers. They have to find the best margin that gives them the highest overall return taking into consideration what people are willing to pay for.
It's nice to see someone on here acknowledge that there's more to pricing than manufacturing cost.
Quote:
There was a model next to the base one for $1999 but they've moved it to be a BTO option.
It was $2200. They had a 2.6 version with the 1GB 650m for $2200, which was in line with prior pricing strategies. If you saw something else, they could have changed it more than once, but they've stuck to $1800 and $2200 as their price targets for some time. It seems like in cto form, you can upgrade the cpu for $200, so it's almost the same thing. I'm not sure why they go so skimpy on video memory. It's too easy to saturate 512 in anything that directly accesses the gpu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
My impression was they were supply constrained with the MBPr as well for period.
My assumption is that they have done just this relative to their supply constraints and costs. My recollection was that MBPrs were priced higher than the regular MBPs price points and are drifting back toward the price points that Apple has set.
Normally they do this at product refreshes. The new one is sometimes cheaper than the old one. It may be that they want to even out demand spikes somewhat. Demand normally spikes around product introductions and seasonal variables. Shifting price point shifts away from annual refreshes would be a different strategy. They did cut the first generation iphone pricing after the first couple months. That's the last time I can remember such a thing. With the mac pro, they only adjusted pricing after two years.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobius
This is good news. But how pissed would you be if you'd just bought one.
It depends. If you bought a MacBook Pro Retina and you were willing to spend what it used to cost to get it, you obviously thought it was worth the money, so why would you be pissed? You got a great computer, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Most of the pricing adjustments could be accounted for by a small change to their gross margins. We know their margins lowered overall at the last financial report.
It strikes me that higher yields on the retina panels and lower component costs are more likely than Apple willing to take an unnecessary margin and ASP hit on their top laptop lines. There's no indication that they aren't selling as well as Apple might have hoped.
Quote:
Like I said in previous threads, they could actually knock $200 average off every Mac in their lineup (the higher amounts going to the expensive models) and if they didn't increase volume, they'd only lose $1b out of the $13b per quarter they make.
LOL...only lose a $1B.
Quote:
But of course they will increase shipment volume quite a bit knocking that much off so everybody wins: Apple increases shipment volume, customers get lower prices and more Macs sold means higher software sales through the App Stores and potentially more peripheral devices sold too.
I do not believe that Apple MBP customers are that price sensitive. I would think that if they were willing to take a new $1B/qtr hit they would MOST likely do so on the iPad Mini instead of the MBP line.
Quote:
Once they drop the price of the 15" models, there's also a question of whether they will bring the 17" back to fill the higher price point or just keep adding more storage. I was going to say it would be better having the $2799 model lower but you can spec the lower one up with the 2.7GHz CPU and 16GB RAM for $300 to get $2499 with 256GB storage.
Given Haswell's GPU boost, perhaps that entry 15" model can be Retina but just a dual-core i5/i7 with IGP and 256GB storage at the $1799 price - possibly the removal of the dedicated GPU and $150 cheaper CPU can justify the $400 lower price.
As much as it pains me the return of the 17" looks unlikely at this stage.
While the entry level 15" COULD go with IGP (even today) that would simply drive up the minimum price for anyone wishing to have a dedicated GPU. That's probably unwise. While I believe that most MBP buyers are relatively price intolerant there's always a point too far.
It strikes me that Apple likes using the dedicated GPU as the differentiating point between lines. Mac Mini vs iMac. 13" MBP/MBA to the 15" MBP.
No, what this is is sad and pathetic that you two would outright lie when the evidence is all right here in text.
I clearly I addressed the use of synonyms (see underlined text) and couldn't find any that backed up jragosta's lie that I didn't state my opinion.
What I objected to and what you and jragosta continue to do is fail to read properly. This is becoming a habit with you. You can be angry all you want that I call you out on your bullshit but it doesn't change the fact that you have once again outright lied in this thread. Whether this is some intentional vendetta for my besting you or hubris that prevents you from simply admitting you failed to comprehend plain English remains to me seen.
Lets see what you fail to read properly, too...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmie92592
Can anyone explain to me the difference between the 13" rmbp 2.6 GHz intel i5 vs the 3.0 GHz intel i7 ??
Is it worth the difference in price? It's about $200 more for the 3.0 Ghz model.
Both the CPU (3.7 vs 3.2 Ghz) and GPU (1.3 Ghz vs 1.1 Ghz) run a bit faster.
In the previous models (2.9 Ghz i7 vs 2.5 Ghz i5) the CPU was around 13-14% faster and the GPU around 9-13% faster.
Of the two the GPU being around 10% faster is probably more important.
I dunno...I don't feel that 8GB RAM is sufficiently future proof so I'd either go for the 15" MBPr with 16GB RAM or buy the cheapest 13" MBPr model possible and get the $1,499 base model unless I had to have 256GB of SSD.
If you buy and sell your laptop often then any is fine. If you buy and hold...man, that extra $500 for the base 15" MBPr with 16GB RAM over the $1899 13" MBP i7 is a lot more future proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
No, what this is is sad and pathetic that you two would outright lie when the evidence is all right here in text.
I clearly I addressed the use of synonyms (see underlined text) and couldn't find any that backed up jragosta's lie that I didn't state my opinion.
What I objected to and what you and jragosta continue to do is fail to read properly. This is becoming a habit with you. You can be angry all you want that I call you out on your bullshit but it doesn't change the fact that you have once again outright lied in this thread. Whether this is some intentional vendetta for my besting you or hubris that prevents you from simply admitting you failed to comprehend plain English remains to me seen.
Lets see what you fail to read properly, too...
Dude...you clearly wrote "I don't see any other conclusion than they are now using a smaller process node to double the NAND density".
Who's angry? The one calling people names or the one laughing at the person calling people names? I don't mind but you sure talk tough on the internet buddy.
I quoted you exactly every single time. I disagree there's a significant difference between "conclusion" and "explanation" in the context of what you wrote but that's neither a misread nor a lie. So you'll have to show where I lied.
Is "conclusion" and "explanation" direct synonyms? Nope...at least not in my thesaurus. But man are they related enough that replacing one with the other isn't unusual given the phrasing you used. He misspoke by using the wrong, but closely related word. You'll have to provide what you think the horrible difference in meaning really is in the context of your quote.
Read properly? LOL. From the guy that only skims AI articles before he comments on them:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Can? Yes. Do I? Kinda. I usually skim them.
Project much?
Of course you stated an opinion. Your opinion was you didn't see any other conclusion other than using a smaller process node.
Jragosta thinks your opinion that there are no other conclusions is (I presume...if he doesn't think so then at least I sure do) stupid, not that you didn't state an opinion or that you aren't allowed to have one.
Keep digging buddy. Soon you'll pop out in a Foxconn factory and you can give us a report on the iPhone 5S...heh
The statements, "I don't see how all that stuff is going to fit in your mini van" and "It is impossible to fit all that stuff in your mini van" are not saying the same thing. They just aren't. "I don't see" implies that something might not be seen that allows for an alternate possibility. "I don't see how he could have made it from Berlin to Paris in that amount of time." -- "I believe he took a high speed train." -- "Oh, that seems reasonable. I hadn't thought of that."
To reject this use of language is childish. He wasn't expressing a philosophical axiom in a dissertation, but the opinion that one possibility was the most probable, amongst others that are less probable. If this were a class on formal logic, you would be told not to use the phrase "I don't see," because it is ambiguous. So your argument is still broken, because you're conflating "It is impossible" with "I don't see," which is absurd in any imaginable context. They are VERY clearly not expressing the same degree of certainty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanSolecki
The statements, "I don't see how all that stuff is going to fit in your mini van" and "It is impossible to fit all that stuff in your mini van" are not saying the same thing. They just aren't. "I don't see" implies that something might not be seen that allows for an alternate possibility. "I don't see how he could have made it from Berlin to Paris in that amount of time." -- "I believe he took a high speed train." -- "Oh, that seems reasonable. I hadn't thought of that."
To reject this use of language is childish. He wasn't expressing a philosophical axiom in a dissertation, but the opinion that one possibility was the most probable, amongst others that are less probable. If this were a class on formal logic, you would be told not to use the phrase "I don't see," because it is ambiguous. So your argument is still broken, because you're conflating "It is impossible" with "I don't see," which is absurd in any imaginable context. They are VERY clearly not expressing the same degree of certainty.
If it were the case his position was one of disbelief or one accepting alternate possibilities then the response "Oh, that seems reasonable. I hadn't thought of that" would be expected. That was not the response provided.
You make a good point. However, I disagree that "I don't see how you can arrive at any different conclusion" is the same as "I don't see any other conclusion". The latter is expressing a far greater degree of certainty. There is no how in the original quote. I agree that injecting the word how would make the statement more questioning but this is not the case.
Besides, your premise is incorrect. I am not conflating "I don't see" with "It is impossible". My position is that "I don't see any other conclusion except X" is saying the same thing as "I don't believe [there are] any other conclusions except X".
I also don't see how (heh) the statement "I don't see any other conclusion..." to be materially different from "I don't see any other explanation..."
Childish is calling other folks liars because you disagree and can hide in the anonymity of the internet.
@Dean
That was perhaps too wordy and I'm sure you'll have a cogent rebuttal for the poorly written parts of my last post.
To put it more simply and clearly I do not believe that the two statements:
"I don't see how other birds [are] in the car"
and
"I don't see any other birds in the car"
are the same kind of statements despite both starting with the phrase "I do not see". The latter is expressing a great degree of certainty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
...., but t's not Retina ....
Retina? What is "Retina"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
This is not a new trend. MacBook Air started off more expensive than it is today, when SSD drives were not as cheap.
Having said that, I do believe the marvels of Retina Display on a laptop are totally under-appreciated. I wish it was available on more Windows laptops, as I need to work on both Windows and Mac OS.
It's less common for them to trim pricing mid cycle. Usually you see these things happen around refreshes. I guess they could always move away from that to even out demand somewhat as demand will naturally be high at the start of a product cycle, around fall college courses, and around the holidays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I guess $999 is not something they want to deviate from and the 64GB MBA is selling well enough to make that a good starting point.
In my opinion 64GB should have gone away some time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It looks like they dropped the higher model of the old-style 15" MBP on the US site:
This used to be $1,999. Maybe they'll do the same once stocks of the high-end old 13" run out.
According to my own memory and everymac, it was always $1799. That appears to be the base 15" spec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How are those the same? I know that Acer uses an IPS display and AnandTech said it was a great machine, for Acer, but t's not Retina and the MSRP on the Acer is $1650.
Anandtech also liked the Asus one, although they mention caveats and Amazon comments mention other things. I'm a little surprised by the number of negative comments on there. Asus is capable of turning out solid machines. Scrolling through the negative comments, keyboard problems come up a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
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.
They used to do this primarily at refresh times. I did think the pricing was pretty aggressive for a 13" notebook, but it obviously depends on their anticipated volume. It would be difficult for me to pick up a machine so full of proprietary parts and connections. I wouldn't personally pick up a first generation on something like this.
If we assume the iMac makes up 25% of the Mac sales, then it would have sold 1.3 million units last year in Q1. This year's Q1 Mac sales were 4.1m vs 5.2m and the iMac was not on sale for 6-8 weeks. If they'd maintained their 25% growth, they'd have sold 6.5 million Macs, which without half of the iMac sales should have been about 5.6m units. Even if there was no growth, the Mac sales are still lower.
In the worst case but that wouldn't happen and it's small relative to what they make. All their prices are a balance between profit and volume. They could be losing $1b profit at any point by not pricing $200 higher if you just look at the pricing and nothing else but if they price too high, they lessen their appeal to buyers. They have to find the best margin that gives them the highest overall return taking into consideration what people are willing to pay for.
The iPad Mini is in high demand and already competitively priced. Having a 13" dual-core laptop starting at $1699 wasn't all that competitive. Clearly MBP buyers are willing to pay more but $400-500 more is pushing it.
It depends on how fast the Haswell GPU is. It's likely to be on par with a 640M. This makes it 70% the speed of the 650M. If they get it to match the 650M as one demo showed, even better. It would be like getting the 2012 model with a Retina display for the same price.
There was a model next to the base one for $1999 but they've moved it to be a BTO option.
CMF
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.
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.
Exactly. The MacBook Pro line is always supposed to be about performance. For everything else, there's Air.
Our problem is that even the current top-end rMBP is barely keeping up with its own framebuffer, let alone maintaining a capability for serious rendering. For all the fuss Apple makes (made?) over squeezing every last ounce of performance from their chips via GCD and OpenCL, having a fatter pixel pipe in the first place would be a big help...
Though I do agree with OS X invoking the dGPU less often in normal operation. Before, the threshold was comically low: running any app that might use Core Animation at some point. Want to open the official Twitter app? dGPU, motherfucker.
wizard69
Sadly does anybody think that this might be an indication of a long wait for Haswell based Mac Books? If this was just a flash update I wouldn't bother to ask but the processor bumps make me think we have another six months ahead of us.
Current estimate for Haswell rMBP is June at the earliest.
SolipsismX
v5v
Yay for you. You don't *DO* anything other than punch text on your machine. You sound like a guy standing at a race track arguing that there's no need for anything more than a 98 horsepower 4-banger for carrying groceries. True, but completely irrelevant to those whose needs are CONSIDERABLY more demanding.
I sound like someone that buys what they need when they need it instead of complaining that they've been wronged or that such-and-such is doing wrong because they aren't catering exactly to their personal needs.
Ever see a white guy claim that racism/sexism isn't a problem, because he's never been the target?
You don't see a problem because Apple's current product line actually serves your needs. Those of us who are willing to pay for the utmost performance in a portable form factor? Not so much. This revision still has us stuck under a low graphics ceiling, uncharacteristic of the MBP line throughout history.
I think it is fair to say, colloquially, that he was "expressing a great degree of certainty." Note, though, that this is ambiguous in terms of formal logic, in the same way that "a great degree of dead" would be, (that is, you can be dead or not dead, certain or not certain; this is a "light switch;" on or off, yes or no, true or false) but in casual use "a great degree of certainty" does have a use which we are familiar with.
More to the point, SolX usually has something to say concerning the subject of the article, and I think the parsing of his assertion along the lines of truth values is excessive. I don't always agree with what he says, I might even mostly disagree, but he has something to contribute, and that is why I paused to say something in defense of that.
Cheers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanSolecki
I think it is fair to say, colloquially, that he was "expressing a great degree of certainty." Note, though, that this is ambiguous in terms of formal logic, in the same way that "a great degree of dead" would be, (that is, you can be dead or not dead, certain or not certain; this is a "light switch;" on or off, yes or no, true or false) but in casual use "a great degree of certainty" does have a use which we are familiar with.
More to the point, SolX usually has something to say concerning the subject of the article, and I think the parsing of his assertion along the lines of truth values is excessive. I don't always agree with what he says, I might even mostly disagree, but he has something to contribute, and that is why I paused to say something in defense of that.
Cheers.
When I said "a great deal of certainty" I was using your phrasing as I don't believe there's ambiguity in the statements "I see no other birds in the car" or "I see no other conclusions".
As I quoted, while SolX usually has something to say concerning the subject of an article, by his own admission he often simply skims the article as opposed to reading it...I would say that greatly degrades the value of his contributions leading to some silly questions and dubious assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If we assume the iMac makes up 25% of the Mac sales, then it would have sold 1.3 million units last year in Q1. This year's Q1 Mac sales were 4.1m vs 5.2m and the iMac was not on sale for 6-8 weeks. If they'd maintained their 25% growth, they'd have sold 6.5 million Macs, which without half of the iMac sales should have been about 5.6m units. Even if there was no growth, the Mac sales are still lower.
My impression was they were supply constrained with the MBPr as well for period.
Quote:
In the worst case but that wouldn't happen and it's small relative to what they make. All their prices are a balance between profit and volume. They could be losing $1b profit at any point by not pricing $200 higher if you just look at the pricing and nothing else but if they price too high, they lessen their appeal to buyers. They have to find the best margin that gives them the highest overall return taking into consideration what people are willing to pay for.
My assumption is that they have done just this relative to their supply constraints and costs. My recollection was that MBPrs were priced higher than the regular MBPs price points and are drifting back toward the price points that Apple has set.
Quote:
The iPad Mini is in high demand and already competitively priced. Having a 13" dual-core laptop starting at $1699 wasn't all that competitive. Clearly MBP buyers are willing to pay more but $400-500 more is pushing it.
I'm just saying that if Apple is willing to take a potential $1B hit then I would think that strategically doing so with the iPad Mini to be better. It is in high demand but also under greater competitive pressure and of greater strategic importance.
The 13" MBP is just has not been a good bang for the buck platform. If it were me and I were to take a $1B margin hit I'd rather add a GPU to the 13" MBP line and live with the cannibalization of the bottom end of the 15" MBP line. My ASPs drop either way but I preserve the 15" MBPr price points.
Quote:
It depends on how fast the Haswell GPU is. It's likely to be on par with a 640M. This makes it 70% the speed of the 650M. If they get it to match the 650M as one demo showed, even better. It would be like getting the 2012 model with a Retina display for the same price.
Except by then being on par with the 640M will be being on par with last years budget GPU. It would be like getting a 2012 model retina display for the same price in 2013...
With regard to my phrasing, I am only saying it's qualified as a coloquial usage (and there isn't anything wrong with that.) To evaluate some truth value, though, you would have to develop, or invoke, some specialized usage of the phrase "I see no other" that would be applied retroactively, which would be difficult to justify as it was not your expression, or mine, but his (and his intention is anyone's guess.) I think we should agree that "I see no other" does not mean absolutely that there CANNOT be, some other, but it may be used that way.
As to the latter point, SolX has contributed to discussions in the past that I recall as having merit. For a forum, that is about as much as you can ask.
They resolved the rMBP backlog by the end of August. I don't think they had any stock shortages throughout Q1 2013.
It would be nice to see a dedicated GPU in the 13" but I think Haswell is going to be enough. Apple really hasn't done enough to win over the Windows PC crowd and I can't see that happening without the price cuts. I pointed out an example some time ago with a Lenovo priced at $900 less than the old optical MBP with HDD:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155322/apple-now-selling-refurbished-15-retina-macbook-pros-at-over-550-off-list-price
Some people will pay a premium for Apple but few will pay double. They obviously shouldn't try and match Lenovo's crazy margins, nor lower build quality noticeably but there has to be a better starting price point than even $1799 for their 15" laptop so they can appeal to more customers.
Really? Then how do you explain this:
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/11/apples-share-of-u-s-pc-shipments-rises-to-12-in-2q-2012/
Specifically,
This news raises the question of whether they can shave $200 off the price before Haswell to make the retina 13" start at $1299.
That would probably be the point at which the non-retinas go away and the line turns to three flavours of 13" Retina MBP portables, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
All their prices are a balance between profit and volume. They could be losing $1b profit at any point by not pricing $200 higher if you just look at the pricing and nothing else but if they price too high, they lessen their appeal to buyers. They have to find the best margin that gives them the highest overall return taking into consideration what people are willing to pay for.
It's nice to see someone on here acknowledge that there's more to pricing than manufacturing cost.
Quote:
There was a model next to the base one for $1999 but they've moved it to be a BTO option.
It was $2200. They had a 2.6 version with the 1GB 650m for $2200, which was in line with prior pricing strategies. If you saw something else, they could have changed it more than once, but they've stuck to $1800 and $2200 as their price targets for some time. It seems like in cto form, you can upgrade the cpu for $200, so it's almost the same thing. I'm not sure why they go so skimpy on video memory. It's too easy to saturate 512 in anything that directly accesses the gpu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
My impression was they were supply constrained with the MBPr as well for period.
My assumption is that they have done just this relative to their supply constraints and costs. My recollection was that MBPrs were priced higher than the regular MBPs price points and are drifting back toward the price points that Apple has set.
Normally they do this at product refreshes. The new one is sometimes cheaper than the old one. It may be that they want to even out demand spikes somewhat. Demand normally spikes around product introductions and seasonal variables. Shifting price point shifts away from annual refreshes would be a different strategy. They did cut the first generation iphone pricing after the first couple months. That's the last time I can remember such a thing. With the mac pro, they only adjusted pricing after two years.