Oh heh...MacBook isn't classified as a laptop for some reason...it doesn't show at all in the notebook list.
Kinda negates that whole line of argument when you are #1, #2, and #3...
This also shows that the cheaper MacBooks are cannibalizing MacBookPro sales. Before the MacBook I recall the MBP being #1 and #2 with other notebooks trailing.
As backtomac pointed out the MBP isn't a value machine and likely has better margins than the MacBook since the specs are similar. Even lower end laptops would likely do the same to the MacBook.
Vinea
PS backtomac is it really $800? I remember doing that since I needed a new laptop and the Dell with my discount ended up more than the MBP with my discount.
Apple doesn't even have a 15.4" MacBook model. The cheapest 15.4" Apple laptop you can buy is $1999.
I am not saying that Apple's laptops aren't worth it. They have much better specs than the machines above. But most people aren't buying them. They are buying 15.4" widescreen laptops with less powerful processors. Apple should not ignore this section of the market.
If you looked at those specs, they both have 1280x800 screens and weigh over 6lbs. One has a 1.5hour battery life. Neither have Core Duos. Both have graphics chipsets slower than the MacBook. The Acer is abysmal (A G4 would run rings around it), the Tosh is a rip off and you'd be mad to not spend the $150 extra for a MacBook.
Neither of them run OSX though so the argument is kind of silly.
If it's the white one, can you post pictures when it arrives?
And that makes me think:
Why are Apple's product photos always so useless? Their machines have all these wonderful little design features and then they completely fail to show said features off on their website. What's that all about?
got white/superdrive upgraded to 100gig hd, and 1 gig mem. will be happy to post, tho pics of the white ones are finally starting to float around.
you're dead on with the product photos. they absolutely stink. was at genius bar today getting my g3/800 repaired, so i got a chance to look at them. black looks nicer in person than i thought it would, it doesn't photograph well. white not as nice as i thought (keyboard slightly grey), but i still like it better than the black.
oh, and the glossy screen didn't bother me nearly as much as i thought it would. and the keyboard's touch is not as much of a disaster as i thought it would be.
Neither of them run OSX though so the argument is kind of silly.
The real reason the argument is silly is that because the Toshiba isn't the number 1 notebook seller. It's outsold by a machines that Amazon can't even ship yet.
The premise of his argument is flawed.
Note: Mac Mini is #7 and the #1 desktop. So much for the idea that $100 made that much of a difference in mini sales and the spin being placed on the fact it outperformed expectations.
It doesn't have to sell a ton better. Look at iPod. Great design, easy intuitive user interface, models in all price points (and competitve with other MP3 players). I believe iPod has 75% of the MP3 player market. The shuffle is offered to give consumers an entry point into iPods. It may not sell the most and certainly isn't the most 'advanced' iPod but it completes the product lineup.
I think the ipod is a perfect example of my point. When it first shipped, it only came in expensive configurations. Many people complained and insisted that it wouldn't sell because it was overpriced, but it did fine. The cheaper models were only added months if not years later after the iPod had already gained a significant market share and apple wanted to expand the market further.
This is exactly the strategy I think they'll take with their computers. Their first wave of sales will come simply from having machines that way outperform the ones they replace.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Apple doesn't even have a 15.4" MacBook model. The cheapest 15.4" Apple laptop you can buy is $1999.
And anyone who doesn't want them should just get stuffed and buy a PC?
The 15 you mention is a celeron. Using that would require a completely different motherboard, and that's not going to happen considering that Apple is moving to an entirely new chipset. Don't forget, Apple is starting from scratch, while PC makers can simply sell machines that were higher end a year or two ago as today's budget machine. Apple doesn't have that option, but they increasingly will in the future.
I'm not sure why you're so eager for me to look at that list. There are barely any models less than the MB, and many are even more expensive. And I wouldn't use that list as an indication of market trends in general, considering Apple has 4 models in the top ten.
Products often include extras that not everyone will need. People just need to consider whether they are willing to pay extra for those features, it's a situaton presented by products all the time. "Get stuffed" is a bit theatrical for a product that simply has more bells and whistles included.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Even the Yonah based Celeron-M 4xx series ?
I've not seen a socket description for the new Celeron-M but I'd be surprised if it's not the same socket as the Core.
That's a big assumption to make without anything to back it up. Everything I've heard has said that the core is a new socket. If you find information showing this to be wrong, I'd appreciate the correction.
The one thing that makes the Amazon example important is the observation that someone who buys a computer from a website is at the very least computer literate and somewhat technical savvy.
Its not very likely the person who will walk into Walmart to buy a computer will be the same person who buys a computer from Amazon.
The computer literate and technical savvy are the market Apple wants to grow, not really so much the people who would be satisfied with a $300 POS from Walmart.
As backtomac pointed out the MBP isn't a value machine and likely has better margins than the MacBook since the specs are similar. Even lower end laptops would likely do the same to the MacBook.
Vinea
PS backtomac is it really $800? I remember doing that since I needed a new laptop and the Dell with my discount ended up more than the MBP with my discount.
Went to Dell and Apple websites and configured systems.
Dell Inspiron e1505
15.4 in xga screen
2.0 ghz ICD
Win XP Pro
1 GB Ram
100 GB Hard Drive
Wireless and Bluetooth
ATI x1300 video card with 128 MB
3 Year Dell Warranty
Win Office Basic
Price $1819.00
Apple MBP
15.4 in screen
2.0 ghz ICD
1 G B RAM
100 GB Hard Drive
iWork
Applecare
Price $2627.00
One could configure a system higher using xps machine but Dell offers comparable systems much cheaper. Apple needs to get some Merom chips ASPAP or drop prices a bit.
Even if Apple has an over all small marketshare. If Apple has a fairly significant portion of the well educated and higher income market, software developers will see this.
The well educated and higher income part of the market will more likely purchase expensive software.
The Dell has a ATI x1300 while the MBP has an ATI x1600. Is the Dell an inch thick and weigh 5.6 pounds.
The Dell does not have a built in camera, remote control, or iLife equivalent.
The comparison is valid. The question is whether those features(Built in camera, remote, and iLife) worth $800? As far as weight and thickness, I don't know. Yes I know that design is worth something but is all that worth $800? Can't Apple come down a little?
That's a big assumption to make without anything to back it up. Everything I've heard has said that the core is a new socket. If you find information showing this to be wrong, I'd appreciate the correction. [/B]
The Celeron-M 4xx series is based on the Yonah so I'd imagine they also kept the same socket as the Yonah. As I said, I've not seen a socket description of it though so I am just speculating.
Does that include Apple's higher-education discounts? In the UK, 3 year warranty (not full Apple Care) is standard (at no extra cost) for higher-education purchasers (makes the MacBooks and MacBook Pros a really sweet deal: can get the 1.83 GHz White with 1 gig of RAM and 3 year warranty for £703.30, or a 2 GHz MBpro with 1 gig RAM for £1,247.84)
Your link doesn't work. I didn't think the 950 was that bad a performer.
What makes you so sure that Apple could fit a dedicated GPU into the MacBook? Have you seen the take-apart photos? It's pretty tight in there. Also, there is the heat factor to take into account. Most reports I've seen state that the MacBook runs really hot as it is.
I think you should just save for longer and get a MacBook Pro.
Hey, thanks for the response. Unfortunately, the prices I quoted were with educational discounts. We do not receive any 3 year coverage without purchasing AppleCare (which on this unit costs 218 Canadian). So I am out of luck. Now about the graphics cards... Those are all integrated chipsets... and the link again is: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427
If the link doesn't work, check under the video section and check the archives for May 2005.
Simply looking at the performance differences is startling. What's even more appalling is that Ati's IG 200 chpset that is far older than the GMA 950 and still manages to do quite a bit better...
I don't think heat has anything to do with it. I think Apple got a cheaper rate from Intel.
If you are going to compare hardware you have to take the software out of the equation. I know I know everyone is gonna say MacOS is what makes it special and about iLife. You have to realize that in the Windows world software is such a small cost of the product that it's irrelevant. I remember back when a court ruled that you could get a refund if you didn't want a copy of Windows with a new computer, it came out to like 9 dollars or something. Software is probaby such a low cost for the actual computer hardware I don't think it should be involved in a comparison. Since Apple and other systems run on the same hardware so you can direcly compare them to each other now.
Becuase they are on the same hardware platform you can get a good idea of the cost to build the laptops themselves. The previous Dell comparison is good. With the exception of the graphics card, but lets just assume that to move from a x1300 to an x1600 is a $200 dollar upgrade (unlikey it is that expensive) The rest of the hardware is pretty much the same.
So you have a $600 dollar premium. Alright well what about the Camera and Remote. Lets assume $50 or so for both, again this is probably much more expensive then it really is to make. Sure there is R&D involved but Dell spends alot for R&D on their supply chain operations and how to stream line them.
Then there are the suggestions about form factor and size. We all know the 1 inch thin laptops are great. However they are hot and they have to underclock the video cards to a good degree to get them to operate in that small enclosure. That is simply unacceptable. For more then $2000 dollars on a laptop I expect maximium preformance.
However, I know this comment will just be refuted with, well it doesn't run MacOSX or this or that about iLife becuase many people can see the hardware and how much Apple prices are overly expensive. I don't care about software on either platforms, I just want to discuss the actual hardware differences and cost.
Becuase they are on the same hardware platform you can get a good idea of the cost to build the laptops themselves. The previous Dell comparison is good. With the exception of the graphics card, but lets just assume that to move from a x1300 to an x1600 is a $200 dollar upgrade (unlikey it is that expensive) The rest of the hardware is pretty much the same.
Actually, the Dell has a lower res screen standard too. 1280x800 on a 15.4" widescreen. The MacBook Pro is higher - 1440x900 IIRC.
Of course you could just compare the Dell to a MacBook and you'll find the MacBook is a couple of hundred cheaper.
Simply looking at the performance differences is startling. What's even more appalling is that Ati's IG 200 chpset that is far older than the GMA 950 and still manages to do quite a bit better...
At 3D gaming, many of which aren't available on MacOSX anyhow.
If 3D gaming is important to you, why even consider a Mac?
If you are going to compare hardware you have to take the software out of the equation.
I disagree. This is an analysis of total cost. With the Mac you are getting iLife in the total cost of the computer. With the Dell you are not.
If one were to look at the cost of equivalent software for Windows and deduct that from the cost of the Mac, then I could go along with the hardware comparison.
Quote:
The question is whether those features(Built in camera, remote, and iLife) worth $800? As far as weight and thickness, I don't know. Yes I know that design is worth something but is all that worth $800?
To design a thinner lighter laptop with an integrated camera, and integrated remote control costs something.
Is there a premium for the design, yes their is.
If there wasn't Dell would not be able to sell its X-men gaming machine for $10,000.
Software Value is subjective from person to person, which is why you cannot include it if you are trying to make a fair comparision. Which is the point I was trying to make looking at a hardware prespective Apple is still overpriced.
I also disagree with the notion that making thin laptops takes alot of R&D, I don't consider underclocking the GPU R&D, whereas they could of used a less powerful GPU to shave costs, for even more margins.
But that brings on a whole new issue that we have no idea the cost of development for the software, so we still cannot make a fair comparison. We have a good idea the cost of the individual components just based on what Intel and other manufacturers give on their cost charts, so we have something to go by. Since the major costs of the laptop are are the Chipset, Processor, GPU, Screen, Ram, and Hard Drive we can get a pretty good idea of the cost to build. Things like the iSight, MagSafe, the so called "innovative" touchpad, backlite keyboard, we can estimate, but these aren't major features that cost alot of money to make, so they don't factor in nearly as much.
My point still remains however concearning the underclocked card and the heat issues that are seen in the MBPs. Apple's designs are inefficent if you have to underclock your video card (which they don't tell you at the time of purchese, we would of never known if it wasn't for Boot Camp) and the laptop gets so hot it's uncomfortable to use. This is where the design fails. This is no way to spin the graphics issue that makes it look good, it's still deceptive and hurts consumers.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
From Amazon:
Top Seller:
...
Eh...Top Sellers Computers:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...241318-0059916
#1 MacBook 1.83
#2 MacBook 2.0
#3 MacBook 2.0 Black
#4 Toshiba
Oh heh...MacBook isn't classified as a laptop for some reason...it doesn't show at all in the notebook list.
Kinda negates that whole line of argument when you are #1, #2, and #3...
This also shows that the cheaper MacBooks are cannibalizing MacBookPro sales. Before the MacBook I recall the MBP being #1 and #2 with other notebooks trailing.
As backtomac pointed out the MBP isn't a value machine and likely has better margins than the MacBook since the specs are similar. Even lower end laptops would likely do the same to the MacBook.
Vinea
PS backtomac is it really $800? I remember doing that since I needed a new laptop and the Dell with my discount ended up more than the MBP with my discount.
Originally posted by Mr. H
From Amazon:
Top Seller:
Toshiba Satellite A105-S2716 15.4" Notebook PC (Intel Pentium M Processor 740 (Centrino), 1024 MB RAM, 100 GB Hard Drive, DVD SuperMulti Drive). Price $944.99
Number 4:
Acer Aspire 3004WLCi 15.4" Notebook PC (Mobile AMD Sempron 3100+, 512 MB RAM, 60 GB Hard Drive, CD-RW/DVD-ROM Combo Drive). Price $599.99
Apple doesn't even have a 15.4" MacBook model. The cheapest 15.4" Apple laptop you can buy is $1999.
I am not saying that Apple's laptops aren't worth it. They have much better specs than the machines above. But most people aren't buying them. They are buying 15.4" widescreen laptops with less powerful processors. Apple should not ignore this section of the market.
If you looked at those specs, they both have 1280x800 screens and weigh over 6lbs. One has a 1.5hour battery life. Neither have Core Duos. Both have graphics chipsets slower than the MacBook. The Acer is abysmal (A G4 would run rings around it), the Tosh is a rip off and you'd be mad to not spend the $150 extra for a MacBook.
Neither of them run OSX though so the argument is kind of silly.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Which one did you get?
If it's the white one, can you post pictures when it arrives?
And that makes me think:
Why are Apple's product photos always so useless? Their machines have all these wonderful little design features and then they completely fail to show said features off on their website. What's that all about?
got white/superdrive upgraded to 100gig hd, and 1 gig mem. will be happy to post, tho pics of the white ones are finally starting to float around.
you're dead on with the product photos. they absolutely stink. was at genius bar today getting my g3/800 repaired, so i got a chance to look at them. black looks nicer in person than i thought it would, it doesn't photograph well. white not as nice as i thought (keyboard slightly grey), but i still like it better than the black.
oh, and the glossy screen didn't bother me nearly as much as i thought it would. and the keyboard's touch is not as much of a disaster as i thought it would be.
Originally posted by vinea
Oh heh...MacBook isn't classified as a laptop for some reason...it doesn't show at all in the notebook list.
Geez...the reason is that its a pre-order...the pre-orders are outselling the Toshibas that can actually ship.
Vinea
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Neither of them run OSX though so the argument is kind of silly.
The real reason the argument is silly is that because the Toshiba isn't the number 1 notebook seller. It's outsold by a machines that Amazon can't even ship yet.
The premise of his argument is flawed.
Note: Mac Mini is #7 and the #1 desktop. So much for the idea that $100 made that much of a difference in mini sales and the spin being placed on the fact it outperformed expectations.
Vinea
Originally posted by backtomac
It doesn't have to sell a ton better. Look at iPod. Great design, easy intuitive user interface, models in all price points (and competitve with other MP3 players). I believe iPod has 75% of the MP3 player market. The shuffle is offered to give consumers an entry point into iPods. It may not sell the most and certainly isn't the most 'advanced' iPod but it completes the product lineup.
I think the ipod is a perfect example of my point. When it first shipped, it only came in expensive configurations. Many people complained and insisted that it wouldn't sell because it was overpriced, but it did fine. The cheaper models were only added months if not years later after the iPod had already gained a significant market share and apple wanted to expand the market further.
This is exactly the strategy I think they'll take with their computers. Their first wave of sales will come simply from having machines that way outperform the ones they replace.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Apple doesn't even have a 15.4" MacBook model. The cheapest 15.4" Apple laptop you can buy is $1999.
And anyone who doesn't want them should just get stuffed and buy a PC?
The 15 you mention is a celeron. Using that would require a completely different motherboard, and that's not going to happen considering that Apple is moving to an entirely new chipset. Don't forget, Apple is starting from scratch, while PC makers can simply sell machines that were higher end a year or two ago as today's budget machine. Apple doesn't have that option, but they increasingly will in the future.
I'm not sure why you're so eager for me to look at that list. There are barely any models less than the MB, and many are even more expensive. And I wouldn't use that list as an indication of market trends in general, considering Apple has 4 models in the top ten.
Products often include extras that not everyone will need. People just need to consider whether they are willing to pay extra for those features, it's a situaton presented by products all the time. "Get stuffed" is a bit theatrical for a product that simply has more bells and whistles included.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Even the Yonah based Celeron-M 4xx series ?
I've not seen a socket description for the new Celeron-M but I'd be surprised if it's not the same socket as the Core.
That's a big assumption to make without anything to back it up. Everything I've heard has said that the core is a new socket. If you find information showing this to be wrong, I'd appreciate the correction.
Its not very likely the person who will walk into Walmart to buy a computer will be the same person who buys a computer from Amazon.
The computer literate and technical savvy are the market Apple wants to grow, not really so much the people who would be satisfied with a $300 POS from Walmart.
Originally posted by vinea
As backtomac pointed out the MBP isn't a value machine and likely has better margins than the MacBook since the specs are similar. Even lower end laptops would likely do the same to the MacBook.
Vinea
PS backtomac is it really $800? I remember doing that since I needed a new laptop and the Dell with my discount ended up more than the MBP with my discount.
Went to Dell and Apple websites and configured systems.
Dell Inspiron e1505
15.4 in xga screen
2.0 ghz ICD
Win XP Pro
1 GB Ram
100 GB Hard Drive
Wireless and Bluetooth
ATI x1300 video card with 128 MB
3 Year Dell Warranty
Win Office Basic
Price $1819.00
Apple MBP
15.4 in screen
2.0 ghz ICD
1 G B RAM
100 GB Hard Drive
iWork
Applecare
Price $2627.00
One could configure a system higher using xps machine but Dell offers comparable systems much cheaper. Apple needs to get some Merom chips ASPAP or drop prices a bit.
The well educated and higher income part of the market will more likely purchase expensive software.
The Dell has a ATI x1300 while the MBP has an ATI x1600. Is the Dell an inch thick and weigh 5.6 pounds.
The Dell does not have a built in camera, remote control, or iLife equivalent.
Originally posted by TenoBell
These comparisons are impossible.
The Dell has a ATI x1300 while the MBP has an ATI x1600. Is the Dell an inch thick and weigh 5.6 pounds.
The Dell does not have a built in camera, remote control, or iLife equivalent.
The comparison is valid. The question is whether those features(Built in camera, remote, and iLife) worth $800? As far as weight and thickness, I don't know. Yes I know that design is worth something but is all that worth $800? Can't Apple come down a little?
Originally posted by minderbinder
That's a big assumption to make without anything to back it up. Everything I've heard has said that the core is a new socket. If you find information showing this to be wrong, I'd appreciate the correction. [/B]
The Celeron-M 4xx series is based on the Yonah so I'd imagine they also kept the same socket as the Yonah. As I said, I've not seen a socket description of it though so I am just speculating.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Does that include Apple's higher-education discounts? In the UK, 3 year warranty (not full Apple Care) is standard (at no extra cost) for higher-education purchasers (makes the MacBooks and MacBook Pros a really sweet deal: can get the 1.83 GHz White with 1 gig of RAM and 3 year warranty for £703.30, or a 2 GHz MBpro with 1 gig RAM for £1,247.84)
Your link doesn't work. I didn't think the 950 was that bad a performer.
What makes you so sure that Apple could fit a dedicated GPU into the MacBook? Have you seen the take-apart photos? It's pretty tight in there. Also, there is the heat factor to take into account. Most reports I've seen state that the MacBook runs really hot as it is.
I think you should just save for longer and get a MacBook Pro.
Hey, thanks for the response. Unfortunately, the prices I quoted were with educational discounts. We do not receive any 3 year coverage without purchasing AppleCare (which on this unit costs 218 Canadian). So I am out of luck. Now about the graphics cards... Those are all integrated chipsets... and the link again is: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427
If the link doesn't work, check under the video section and check the archives for May 2005.
Simply looking at the performance differences is startling. What's even more appalling is that Ati's IG 200 chpset that is far older than the GMA 950 and still manages to do quite a bit better...
I don't think heat has anything to do with it. I think Apple got a cheaper rate from Intel.
Becuase they are on the same hardware platform you can get a good idea of the cost to build the laptops themselves. The previous Dell comparison is good. With the exception of the graphics card, but lets just assume that to move from a x1300 to an x1600 is a $200 dollar upgrade (unlikey it is that expensive) The rest of the hardware is pretty much the same.
So you have a $600 dollar premium. Alright well what about the Camera and Remote. Lets assume $50 or so for both, again this is probably much more expensive then it really is to make. Sure there is R&D involved but Dell spends alot for R&D on their supply chain operations and how to stream line them.
Then there are the suggestions about form factor and size. We all know the 1 inch thin laptops are great. However they are hot and they have to underclock the video cards to a good degree to get them to operate in that small enclosure. That is simply unacceptable. For more then $2000 dollars on a laptop I expect maximium preformance.
However, I know this comment will just be refuted with, well it doesn't run MacOSX or this or that about iLife becuase many people can see the hardware and how much Apple prices are overly expensive. I don't care about software on either platforms, I just want to discuss the actual hardware differences and cost.
Originally posted by scavanger
Becuase they are on the same hardware platform you can get a good idea of the cost to build the laptops themselves. The previous Dell comparison is good. With the exception of the graphics card, but lets just assume that to move from a x1300 to an x1600 is a $200 dollar upgrade (unlikey it is that expensive) The rest of the hardware is pretty much the same.
Actually, the Dell has a lower res screen standard too. 1280x800 on a 15.4" widescreen. The MacBook Pro is higher - 1440x900 IIRC.
Of course you could just compare the Dell to a MacBook and you'll find the MacBook is a couple of hundred cheaper.
Originally posted by macaddict74
Simply looking at the performance differences is startling. What's even more appalling is that Ati's IG 200 chpset that is far older than the GMA 950 and still manages to do quite a bit better...
At 3D gaming, many of which aren't available on MacOSX anyhow.
If 3D gaming is important to you, why even consider a Mac?
If you are going to compare hardware you have to take the software out of the equation.
I disagree. This is an analysis of total cost. With the Mac you are getting iLife in the total cost of the computer. With the Dell you are not.
If one were to look at the cost of equivalent software for Windows and deduct that from the cost of the Mac, then I could go along with the hardware comparison.
The question is whether those features(Built in camera, remote, and iLife) worth $800? As far as weight and thickness, I don't know. Yes I know that design is worth something but is all that worth $800?
To design a thinner lighter laptop with an integrated camera, and integrated remote control costs something.
Is there a premium for the design, yes their is.
If there wasn't Dell would not be able to sell its X-men gaming machine for $10,000.
Can't Apple come down a little?
The MacBook.
I also disagree with the notion that making thin laptops takes alot of R&D, I don't consider underclocking the GPU R&D, whereas they could of used a less powerful GPU to shave costs, for even more margins.
This the whole reason we have a market system. We have choices. If what Apple sold was not reasonable for the market no one would buy it.
I haven't heard that the x1600 is underclocked to the point that Apple just as well used a lower priced GPU.
My point still remains however concearning the underclocked card and the heat issues that are seen in the MBPs. Apple's designs are inefficent if you have to underclock your video card (which they don't tell you at the time of purchese, we would of never known if it wasn't for Boot Camp) and the laptop gets so hot it's uncomfortable to use. This is where the design fails. This is no way to spin the graphics issue that makes it look good, it's still deceptive and hurts consumers.