And yet, somehow Apple manages to put a good GPU into their (even-thinner-than-MacBook) MacBook Pros.
So much for heat and power considerations.
The case is more thermally conducitve metal, the metal wall thickness is thinner than the plastic counterpart, the case is a little wider and longer, and I think MBP runs a little hotter too as a result of having that GPU. The MBP doesn't offer much, if any upgradeability either. I haven't looked, but the difference might just be whether they populate an extra surface mount memory IC location. There's no socket or module hardware to deal with on either model.
They aren't putting the GeForce 7600 in the MBP. Many people complain that Apple needs to move on from the X1600. ATI describes the X1600 being made especially for thin performance laptops because of its power conservation ability.
C'mon Teno... most potential MacBook users wanting a better GPU would jump at the chance to upgrade to the X1600, if the alternative is the stock GMA 950. And of course ATI is only going to come out with better and better portable GPUs going forward. Nits... picked.
Quote:
Its fine for you to wish Apple to offer the option for a discrete graphics card. I'm not even saying that Apple should not offer the option. I think its fine if they did. The funny thing is if Apple did offer the option whatever they offered people would complain that they should offer a better card.
On the other hand you have to acknowledge their is a reason why they don't offer the option. For most people it doesn't really matter. Apple would offer this for only a couple of people who actually cared. Fewer options also increases production efficiency and lowers the cost of needed components.
I don't think we're worlds apart here, and I certainly am aware of the arguments to the contrary. I just don't think we're doing Apple any favors by going 'yessir, bossir' to every decision they make.
I remember arguing a few years back for Apple to open up the iPod and sell it to the Windows side of the fence (even sent Jobs an email about it). I got called names by folks who thought that the iPod could somehow be an exclusive that would bump up Mac marketshare. They also made the argument that 'Apple knows best', and since Apple at the time was not selling iPods that were Windows-compatible, and since I was not currently running a multibillon dollar company, I should perhaps shut up. I think history shows how very short-sighted that line of reasoning was.
In any case, I respect your thoughts on the matter Teno, I just wish people on the AI forums were more willing to challenge Apple's line of thinking on various matters... some good ideas could result. 8)
Geez guys...the reason that the MBs don't have dedicated GPUs is because 15" MBP sales would get cannibalized. Not that many are going to pay an extra $500 for 0.16Ghz, 40GB of HD space and a little bit of screen real-estate if they both have a X1600.
If the X1600 was an option on the MB I would have bought one of those over my 17" MBP. The 15" is kinda too much a tweener machine. Too big to be really portable, too small to be a desktop replacement.
As far as choice goes there are 6 stock models from the 13" MB at $1099 to the 17" MBP at $2799. Dedicated GPUs start at $1999 so you aren't whining about choice so much as cost. That you can't buy a $1450 mac laptop with dedicated graphics doesn't mean that Apple doesn't offer one.
I find it easy to accuse people of Apple fanboyism.
Its easy to make the accusation, because, sadly, its often true. But it doesn't have to be. And contrary to what some rather shrill journalists have said, I don't think Apple fanboys, apologistas, whatever you wish to call them, are any worse than any other companies' apologistas. And there's a lot to be said for sticking up for the home team.
Quote:
Its easy to desire Apple to do some certain thing that makes life better for you. But Apple is designing its computers for millions of people around the world. Just because one person wants Apple to do something does not mean it will be particularly beneficial from a business stand point. Just because Dell does something does not mean it will benefit Apple to do the same.
But that's just it... it isn't 'one person' desiring, say, more BTO order options. Its far greater than that. Its an issue that comes up again and again and again, in discussion after discussion after discussion. At some point, even the most diehard 'company man' has to give the devil his due.
Quote:
Look at the fact that Apple just transitioned from Power PC to Intel.
That monumental event in and of itself shows that the Apple of 2006 is willing to radically change and adjust.
I'd argue that Apple made that change far later than they should have, and only because the alternative was looking incredibly dire.
Stevie J is actually a bit more conservative than a lot of us would like to believe. A lot of times, he only does things he needs to do when pushed. But I will give him that he does do the things that need doing... eventually.
As an addendum...if Apple offered a 13" MB with a 256MB X1600 for $1999 I'd probably buy that over the 15" MBP. Hopefully with both Black and White options. Preferably $1,799 but whatever.
But I bet folks would still be whining that they couldn't upgrade the $1299 white MB to a X1600 for $150.
For what it's worth, I do agree with you in some fashion. What I did was order a MBP from Apple's Recertified store. The cheapest MBP offered there is $1399 and I think it's quite a deal over any new Mac Book being sold, though the recertified MacBooks are starting at $850.
If the X1600 was an option on the MB I would have bought one of those over my 17" MBP.
Really? I think the 17" screen alone (vs the MB's 13") would've been differentiation enough. Not to mention all the other things you get with the MBP (way better speakers, Express Card slot, big hard drives, FW800, illuminated keyboard, full size DVI connector, etc).
Even with an option to upgrade GPU on the MB, I'd say the MB and MBP are sufficiently differentiated. Nor am I the first in this thread to say so. Even the 15.4" MBP screen is a strong selling point, compared to the MB's 'improved-over-iBook-but-still-kinda-sorta-small' screen.
Quote:
As far as choice goes there are 6 stock models from the 13" MB at $1099 to the 17" MBP at $2799. Dedicated GPUs start at $1999 so you aren't whining about choice so much as cost.
I think folks are complaining about both, actually. And I think potential customers that want to try the Mac platform but who end up disappointed on both the choice and cost fronts are opportunities lost.
Really? I think the 17" screen alone (vs the MB's 13") would've been differentiation enough.
Well, my theory is get a small enough laptop to take everywhere easily for which the MB is a tad large but the 15" even more so or get a laptop with a big enough screen not to feel too cramped for which the 17" works.
Quote:
Not to mention all the other things you get with the MBP (way better speakers,
Don't care. I use headphones, especially on a plane.
Quote:
Express Card slot,
No express card yet. Perhaps I'll get one of the Verizon cards.
Quote:
big hard drives
You can get 200GB on both the MB and MBP.
Quote:
FW800
Don't care. I use my laptop at home once in a while to transfer DV and do some iLife since its faster than my personal Quicksilver. FW400 is fast enough. I'm a "pro" user but not a "pro video" user.
Quote:
illuminated keyboard
Mmm...useful like once thus far. Didn't want to bother the person sitting next to me so didn't turn on the overhead light.
Quote:
full size DVI connector
Which you might have on a MB with a X1600 since I dunno that the mini-DVI supports dual-link.
Quote:
Even with an option to upgrade GPU on the MB, I'd say the MB and MBP are sufficiently differentiated. Nor am I the first in this thread to say so. Even the 15.4" MBP screen is a strong selling point, compared to the MB's 'improved-over-iBook-but-still-kinda-sorta-small' screen.
Eh. I'd rather have an even smaller screen but the 13" appears to be the near term replacement for the 12" PB. Perhaps they'll have a 7" UMPC or 11" Tablet in January.
Quote:
I think folks are complaining about both, actually. And I think potential customers that want to try the Mac platform but who end up disappointed on both the choice and cost fronts are opportunities lost.
Eh. The Mac is niche and high end. Complaining about the cost of a Mac is like complaining about the cost of a Porsche. The only choice I miss is a Sony VIAO UX Series competitor (UMPC) which was cooler than I expected and TX series (11" 2.76 lb ultra light).
The TX series is $2K-$2.4K and only comes with a GMA900. Oddly thier Core Duo based 15.4" widescreen N series also only comes with GMA950 as do many of the VIAO laptop models.
A $2000 11" lightweight MBP with X1600 would likely make a lot more folks happier than adding the X1600 as an option to the MB. A nice line up would then be something like $1999 for 11" MBP (1.83Ghz LV Core Duo), $2,399 for 15" MBP (2.33 Ghz Core 2 Duo) and $2,799 for 17" MBP (2.33 Ghz Core 2 Duo).
Eh. The Mac is niche and high end. Complaining about the cost of a Mac is like complaining about the cost of a Porsche.
No. That's late 1980s era Apple-thinking, under the bad old pre-Jobs CEOs. Its a large part of what almost got Apple killed.
They did eventually try to reverse that with the (god-awful) Performa line in the '90s, but too little, too late.
I think one of Stevie J's very best decisions was to try to hit some pricepoints (though he could be doing better still here). $999 iMacs, for example. Apple has become high end and upper midrange and sometimes even midrange, Porshe and BMW 3-series and sometimes even Honda Accord V6. 8)
If Apple sees itself as niche and high-end only, then it'll always be 2-3% worldwide marketshare, and in danger of getting wiped out should the market ever change radically against it. You can't alway be playing defense. Apple's currently expanding marketshare is not a result of 'niche' thinking.
Its easy to make the accusation, because, sadly, its often true.
Whose to make the decree that agreeing with Apple's decisions are pure fanboism?
I feel often the complaints people make are largely for what they personally wish Apple would do in the guise of a fault. Many of these are complaints are things that Apple could do but don't necessarily have to do.
Quote:
But that's just it... it isn't 'one person' desiring, say, more BTO order options. Its far greater than that. Its an issue that comes up again and again and again, in discussion after discussion after discussion.
People complain that Apple should do a lot of things. They cannot do it all and ultimately have to make a decision and go in that direction.
I can agree that Apple should offer more GPU options in Macs that have dedicated GPU cards. It should be fair enough for Apple to offer around three options for the iMac and MBP so that one can tailor the card to ones needs.
But the MacBook is not really targeted at this same market.
Quote:
I'd argue that Apple made that change far later than they should have, and only because the alternative was looking incredibly dire.
The IBM Power 4 architecture truly was superior to Intel Pentium in many ways. The only problem is that IBM did not prioritize the development of PowerPC desktop chips as quickly as Intel develops its new chips. Apple did not foresee IBM's delinquency.
Intel as abandoned Pentium architecture while IBM is continuing to successfully develop and profit from its Power architecture. It was good timing for Apple to skip Pentium and join Intel with the Core architecture.
Quote:
Stevie J is actually a bit more conservative than a lot of us would like to believe. A lot of times, he only does things he needs to do when pushed. But I will give him that he does do the things that need doing... eventually.
I'm not sure what you mean. The Macintosh was developed under Steve, NeXT was developed under Steve, OS X was developed under Steve, and the Intel transition has happened under Steve.
I would say all of these developments came to market pretty much at the right time. How was he belatedly pushed into it?
Whose to make the decree that agreeing with Apple's decisions are pure fanboism?
As with any form of zealotry, its an individual call that beyond a certain point becomes rather obvious to all but the zealots themselves.
Quote:
I feel often the complaints people make are largely for what they personally wish Apple would do in the guise of a fault. Many of these are complaints are things that Apple could do but don't necessarily have to do.
As I said before, "Success obscures a great many sins." Right now, Apple doesn't have to do anything different- it can "stay the course" and laugh all the way to the bank... for now. But it could be doing even better, and I'm concerned about the future.
Quote:
People complain that Apple should do a lot of things. They cannot do it all and ultimately have to make a decision and go in that direction.
Kind of a vague statement. I'm sure someone somewhere has suggested that Apple paint itself blue and bark at the moon. All ideas towards what Apple should be doing do not have equal weight- some are silly, some are 'nice idea, but impractical', and others are quite good ideas that Apple should be investigating and implementing.
Just shrugging and going, "Ah well, whatcha gonna do" isn't really a proactive management style. \
Quote:
I can agree that Apple should offer more GPU options in Macs that have dedicated GPU cards. It should be fair enough for Apple to offer around three options for the iMac and MBP so that one can tailor the card to ones needs.
But the MacBook is not really targeted at this same market.
No. Apple currently is willing to give some of its consumer-level customers the option to upgrade the GPU, and not others (consumer iMac line vs consumer MacBook line). Really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But I am glad to hear that you're in favor of more GPU options for at least some Macs.
Quote:
The IBM Power 4 architecture truly was superior to Intel Pentium in many ways. The only problem is that IBM did not prioritize the development of PowerPC desktop chips as quickly as Intel develops its new chips. Apple did not foresee IBM's delinquency.
It was a case of superior architecture by IBM vs superior investment by Intel. For a while the PPC kept pace, then fell behind and pretty much stayed behind. This was apparent for several years. And even keeping pace wasn't so hot, as it kept Apple from offering high performance Windows software-compatibility, as we see today with Boot Camp and Parallels. PPC should have been dumped awhile ago. But it was a scary move. Steve can be forgiven for being conservative here- up to a point.
Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean. The Macintosh was developed under Steve, NeXT was developed under Steve, OS X was developed under Steve, and the Intel transition has happened under Steve.
I would say all of these developments came to market pretty much at the right time. How was he belatedly pushed into it?
Steve wasn't really the instigator of Apple's GUI efforts- other folks at Apple were already developing it, he saw it and realized its potential, then jumped in. He deserves some credit for it, but it was very much a team effort. Far as NeXT goes, at one point IBM was actually hot to use the NeXT OS (being utterly sick of dealing with Microsoft at the time), but Steve didn't trust them, and a huge opportunity was lost. OS X development simply made sense, Apple was having a near-death moment and was disastrously overdue for a way forward from the MacOS, and Steve simply leveraged his NeXT assets (well). The Intel transition is great, but overdue.
Its fair to say that Steve is a great mover and shaker, but stunningly proactive and prescient? No, not always. But he does usually take advantage of the opportunities that wander his way (NeXT-IBM being a glaring exception). I'd say his strengths lie more in what he brings to Apple's corporate DNA (consumer focused-design), and his skills as an exceptional salesman and deal-maker. Steve could sell refrigerators to Eskimos, as the saying goes, and they would like it.
(before anyone says it- yes, I do know that Eskimos do use refrigerators- to keep items from freezing. And I'm also aware that some 'Eskimos' prefer to be referred to as Inuit. )
"Success obscures a great many sins." Right now, Apple doesn't have to do anything different- it can "stay the course" and laugh all the way to the bank...
Apple shakes up its line up on a regular basis. That's what makes its product launches so exciting. We never know what new product they will introduce, the new design of an existing product, or even the cancelation of a well selling product.
A year ago at this time we had a 12" PowerBook and iBook, 14" iBook, 15" and 17" PowerBook. Today none of those products are manufactured anymore. Next year this time we have no idea what Apple's laptop line up will be.
Quote:
Just shrugging and going, "Ah well, whatcha gonna do" isn't really a proactive management style
Pointing back to my example up above Apple certainly is not standing still.
On the MacBook wish lists that appear in these threads people post all types of wishes. From a 13" MBP, to a magnetic latch on the MBP, to MB keyboard on the MBP, to offering a light up keyboard on the MB, to getting rid of the trackpad and using a track ball, to selling a laptop version with no built in iSight, to offering a different keyboard layout, to offering a $800 17" laptop just like Dell does.
Depending on what it feels will work best Apple might implement some of these changes, certainly cannot do all of them.
Quote:
PPC should have been dumped awhile ago.
Pentium ended up being more of a dead end than PPC. Waiting for Core was the right move.
Quote:
Steve wasn't really the instigator of the original Mac- other folks at Apple were developing it, he saw it and realized its potential, then jumped in.
Well of course Steve doesn't design circuit boards or write any code. He's a leader. As the leader he had the wisdom to hire talented people who do design circuit boards and write code. He was able to recognize when they had a good idea and allowed that idea to flourish.
Quote:
Its fair to say that Steve is a great mover and shaker, but stunningly proactive and prescient? No, not always.
I agree he is not 100% perfect but no one is. You confuse the role of the leader with the role of the their workers. Its more often the workers are the people who do the most work, but that does not diminish the role of the leader who can manage that talent and deliver a great product.
Steve was the force that brought people together and was able to challenge them to develop and the wisdom to nourish the Macintosh, NeXT, and OS X. That requires no less the vision and talent of the people who actually did the work.
No other one person in the computer industry has delivered this level of innovation under their stewardship.
No. That's late 1980s era Apple-thinking, under the bad old pre-Jobs CEOs. Its a large part of what almost got Apple killed.
They did eventually try to reverse that with the (god-awful) Performa line in the '90s, but too little, too late.
No, pre-Jobs the business plan was to go after market share. Hence the Performa line and clones.
Quote:
I think one of Stevie J's very best decisions was to try to hit some pricepoints (though he could be doing better still here). $999 iMacs, for example. Apple has become high end and upper midrange and sometimes even midrange, Porshe and BMW 3-series and sometimes even Honda Accord V6. 8)
The cheapest laptops are around $500 and the cheapest MB is $1099.
Eh...that's midrange sorta but for sports cars a $45K Boxster is about the same ratio given that something like a Mustang starts around $20K.
As a brand Apple is far more like Porsche, BMW and Acrua than Toyota, Ford or Honda.
Quote:
If Apple sees itself as niche and high-end only, then it'll always be 2-3% worldwide marketshare, and in danger of getting wiped out should the market ever change radically against it. You can't alway be playing defense. Apple's currently expanding marketshare is not a result of 'niche' thinking.
Niche in as much as it caters to the upper end of the market. So long as they make some the best margins in the business they will stay profitable and healthy. They like marketshare but its not the focus of its business model like it is for Dell and HP.
Do they want to grow? Heck yes, but I think in terms of numbers they're looking more like 3-4M units per quarter @ 28% margins vs Dell like volumes with Dell like margins.
They were doing 3M a quarter not that long ago. They can get back there I think and maybe push a little further. I think high end machines like a 11" ultralight is far more in line with branding and strategy than more options at the low end.
As I said before, "Success obscures a great many sins." Right now, Apple doesn't have to do anything different- it can "stay the course" and laugh all the way to the bank... for now. But it could be doing even better, and I'm concerned about the future.
...
Just shrugging and going, "Ah well, whatcha gonna do" isn't really a proactive management style. \
I would say that saying that a company that took their most popular item (the iPod Mini) and replaced it something different at the peak of its game is somehow not proactive is a form of zealotry.
Apple "staying the course" would be to continue to innovate and try new markets in which to dominate. Apple changing course would be to sit pat.
Quote:
No. Apple currently is willing to give some of its consumer-level customers the option to upgrade the GPU, and not others (consumer iMac line vs consumer MacBook line). Really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But I am glad to hear that you're in favor of more GPU options for at least some Macs.
Doesn't make sense to you doesn't make it a bad practice.
Quote:
It was a case of superior architecture by IBM vs superior investment by Intel. For a while the PPC kept pace, then fell behind and pretty much stayed behind. This was apparent for several years. And even keeping pace wasn't so hot, as it kept Apple from offering high performance Windows software-compatibility, as we see today with Boot Camp and Parallels. PPC should have been dumped awhile ago. But it was a scary move. Steve can be forgiven for being conservative here- up to a point.
Given the guy took NeXT from the Motorolla family to the Intel family I don't think he was being conservative as much as waiting for the right moment. The time when the PPC was really running out of steam was also the time when the P4 architecture wasn't panning out and AMD was rising.
AMD as a smaller company was a risky move to transition to given a major problem Apple was having with IBM and Freescale was volume of chips. Why move to Intel when they were executing poorly? Why move to AMD when you could end up back in the "we don't have the volume we want" problem with a smaller company with fewer fabs?
Calling the transition overdue is zealotry given that the transition happened at a near optimum time. Apple rode the Core Duo wave right when Intel was finally executing well. They have a partner that they know can make good.
What is it with Apple naysayers that when the company is actually doing well that they have to insist that it could do sooo much better if they'd only listen to them? I asked another doom and gloomer what the heck they were saying in Q4 of 2000 when Apple posted the first unprofitable qtr since Steve returned, they shipped an abysmal number of units, the Cube tanked and the iPod still in the future. Comments must have been very special then.
Could they do better? In an perfect world sure. But we live in the real world run by real people. In an imperfect world they're doing a bang up job. Saying "success hides many sins" is true to a point but ultimately meaningless. You're trying to optimize something for which you have unclear understanding why its successful.
I'm sure Apple is looking at their tactical and operational sins. But strategic planning seems to be working out. Tinkering with that at this point seems premature.
Quote:
Its fair to say that Steve is a great mover and shaker, but stunningly proactive and prescient?
For a human CEO? He does pretty decent. Name a major computer company CEO that does better.
Quote:
But he does usually take advantage of the opportunities that wander his way (NeXT-IBM being a glaring exception).
Unlike say the management of Xerox. And I'm not certain that a NeXT-IBM partnership would have been so grand. It has some potential on paper but the clash of cultures would have been enormous. In reality the synergies would not likely have occured and NeXT wouldn't have been in position to be absorbed by Apple. That's hardly better than the actual outcome.
No, pre-Jobs the business plan was to go after market share. Hence the Performa line and clones.
Nope. Performa line didn't come along 'til 1992. Before that, even the folks running Apple at the time admitted that they were fatcats, "living off of the high margins." Performa was a belated attempt to win back marketshare, and it didn't really work.
Quote:
The cheapest laptops are around $500 and the cheapest MB is $1099.
Eh...that's midrange sorta but for sports cars a $45K Boxster is about the same ratio given that something like a Mustang starts around $20K.
As a brand Apple is far more like Porsche, BMW and Acrua than Toyota, Ford or Honda.
The cheapest laptops are more comparable to the cheapest cars... which, far as I know is the Chevy Aveo at $10K. Doing the ratios, cheapest MB is around a $22K car, or a Honda Accord. The Mustang isn't really a low-end car, by any stretch.
Apple does a little Honda, then some Beemer, then some Porsche.
Quote:
Niche in as much as it caters to the upper end of the market. So long as they make some the best margins in the business they will stay profitable and healthy. They like marketshare but its not the focus of its business model like it is for Dell and HP.
Do they want to grow? Heck yes, but I think in terms of numbers they're looking more like 3-4M units per quarter @ 28% margins vs Dell like volumes with Dell like margins.
They were doing 3M a quarter not that long ago. They can get back there I think and maybe push a little further. I think high end machines like a 11" ultralight is far more in line with branding and strategy than more options at the low end.
Now I understand. If we dont agree with you, or if we even post an observation than we must be a "fanboi" of some sort.
If we deny that, then we are a zeolot.
I'm so glad you are here to set us straight...
Oh please. I was asked a question. I did not say that anyone who disagreed with me was a 'fanboi' or anything else of the sort.
Please do not place words in my mouth and try to demonize me just because you do not happen to concur with my POV. Its exactly what you're (incorrectly) accusing me of. Can't we all just get along? \
Apple shakes up its line up on a regular basis. That's what makes its product launches so exciting.
They shake up their products, but they don't shake up how they sell them as much as they should. Slightly lower pricepoints (without going low-end), more BTO options, etc. would increase Apple's appeal, now that more folks are seriously taking a look at the Mac.
And speaking of product lines... a sub-notebook would seem to be a good idea. I personally detest tiny screen laptops, but even I admit that they're getting to be more and more popular.
Quote:
On the MacBook wish lists that appear in these threads people post all types of wishes. From a 13" MBP, to a magnetic latch on the MBP, to MB keyboard on the MBP, to offering a light up keyboard on the MB, to getting rid of the trackpad and using a track ball, to selling a laptop version with no built in iSight, to offering a different keyboard layout, to offering a $800 17" laptop just like Dell does.
Depending on what it feels will work best Apple might implement some of these changes, certainly cannot do all of them.
As I've already said, there's a variety of suggestions on what Apple should and should not do. Some of them have merit, some do not. I don't think anyone is saying that Apple should EVERYTHING that's suggested to them. But by the same token, to assume that Apple has all the answers doesn't seem wise either. I work for a company that deals with absolutely brutal global competition every day. To become complacent is to invite disaster. Or as Andy Grove famously put it, "Only the paranoid survive." \
Quote:
Pentium ended up being more of a dead end than PPC. Waiting for Core was the right move.
We'll never know. But I feel confident that things would've been better if the switch had been made sooner.
Quote:
I agree he is not 100% perfect but no one is. You confuse the role of the leader with the role of the their workers. Its more often the workers are the people who do the most work, but that does not diminish the role of the leader who can manage that talent and deliver a great product.
Steve was the force that brought people together and was able to challenge them to develop and the wisdom to nourish the Macintosh, NeXT, and OS X. That requires no less the vision and talent of the people who actually did the work.
No other one person in the computer industry has delivered this level of innovation under their stewardship.
Oh, I'm not attacking Steve. I like Steve a great deal, actually... he saved my favorite company.
I'm just saying that he is sometimes slow to do the right thing, and has certainly made his share of major mistakes in the past. Even the best CEOs have their blind spots, Steve is no different. But I do hope he's with us for a long time to come.
I have to say I completely, 100% agree with TBaggins. An extra drop-down menu to add a discrete ATI or Nvidia to the MacBook wont distract anyone after a stock model. I'm willing to pay for it, so please give me the choice Apple.
I can go to Dell.com right now and configure a near-identical laptop (with 17" LCD) and just run OSx86 on it.
I feel little loyalty to a hardware company who wont give me choice for utter simplicity's sake. Its 2006 Apple....and you're competing head on with Dell like never before. Grow up.
Thanks Mac-T. You and I are far from alone in thinking that Apple could (and should) offer a bit more customizability. Perhaps not Dell-level, but more than current Apple-level. 8)
Comments
And yet, somehow Apple manages to put a good GPU into their (even-thinner-than-MacBook) MacBook Pros.
So much for heat and power considerations.
The case is more thermally conducitve metal, the metal wall thickness is thinner than the plastic counterpart, the case is a little wider and longer, and I think MBP runs a little hotter too as a result of having that GPU. The MBP doesn't offer much, if any upgradeability either. I haven't looked, but the difference might just be whether they populate an extra surface mount memory IC location. There's no socket or module hardware to deal with on either model.
They aren't putting the GeForce 7600 in the MBP. Many people complain that Apple needs to move on from the X1600. ATI describes the X1600 being made especially for thin performance laptops because of its power conservation ability.
C'mon Teno... most potential MacBook users wanting a better GPU would jump at the chance to upgrade to the X1600, if the alternative is the stock GMA 950. And of course ATI is only going to come out with better and better portable GPUs going forward. Nits... picked.
Its fine for you to wish Apple to offer the option for a discrete graphics card. I'm not even saying that Apple should not offer the option. I think its fine if they did. The funny thing is if Apple did offer the option whatever they offered people would complain that they should offer a better card.
On the other hand you have to acknowledge their is a reason why they don't offer the option. For most people it doesn't really matter. Apple would offer this for only a couple of people who actually cared. Fewer options also increases production efficiency and lowers the cost of needed components.
I don't think we're worlds apart here, and I certainly am aware of the arguments to the contrary. I just don't think we're doing Apple any favors by going 'yessir, bossir' to every decision they make.
I remember arguing a few years back for Apple to open up the iPod and sell it to the Windows side of the fence (even sent Jobs an email about it). I got called names by folks who thought that the iPod could somehow be an exclusive that would bump up Mac marketshare. They also made the argument that 'Apple knows best', and since Apple at the time was not selling iPods that were Windows-compatible, and since I was not currently running a multibillon dollar company, I should perhaps shut up.
In any case, I respect your thoughts on the matter Teno, I just wish people on the AI forums were more willing to challenge Apple's line of thinking on various matters... some good ideas could result. 8)
.
If the X1600 was an option on the MB I would have bought one of those over my 17" MBP. The 15" is kinda too much a tweener machine. Too big to be really portable, too small to be a desktop replacement.
As far as choice goes there are 6 stock models from the 13" MB at $1099 to the 17" MBP at $2799. Dedicated GPUs start at $1999 so you aren't whining about choice so much as cost. That you can't buy a $1450 mac laptop with dedicated graphics doesn't mean that Apple doesn't offer one.
Vinea
I find it easy to accuse people of Apple fanboyism.
Its easy to make the accusation, because, sadly, its often true. But it doesn't have to be. And contrary to what some rather shrill journalists have said, I don't think Apple fanboys, apologistas, whatever you wish to call them, are any worse than any other companies' apologistas. And there's a lot to be said for sticking up for the home team.
Its easy to desire Apple to do some certain thing that makes life better for you. But Apple is designing its computers for millions of people around the world. Just because one person wants Apple to do something does not mean it will be particularly beneficial from a business stand point. Just because Dell does something does not mean it will benefit Apple to do the same.
But that's just it... it isn't 'one person' desiring, say, more BTO order options. Its far greater than that. Its an issue that comes up again and again and again, in discussion after discussion after discussion. At some point, even the most diehard 'company man' has to give the devil his due.
Look at the fact that Apple just transitioned from Power PC to Intel.
That monumental event in and of itself shows that the Apple of 2006 is willing to radically change and adjust.
I'd argue that Apple made that change far later than they should have, and only because the alternative was looking incredibly dire.
Stevie J is actually a bit more conservative than a lot of us would like to believe. A lot of times, he only does things he needs to do when pushed. But I will give him that he does do the things that need doing... eventually.
.
But I bet folks would still be whining that they couldn't upgrade the $1299 white MB to a X1600 for $150.
Vinea
For what it's worth, I do agree with you in some fashion. What I did was order a MBP from Apple's Recertified store. The cheapest MBP offered there is $1399 and I think it's quite a deal over any new Mac Book being sold, though the recertified MacBooks are starting at $850.
If the X1600 was an option on the MB I would have bought one of those over my 17" MBP.
Really? I think the 17" screen alone (vs the MB's 13") would've been differentiation enough. Not to mention all the other things you get with the MBP (way better speakers, Express Card slot, big hard drives, FW800, illuminated keyboard, full size DVI connector, etc).
Even with an option to upgrade GPU on the MB, I'd say the MB and MBP are sufficiently differentiated. Nor am I the first in this thread to say so. Even the 15.4" MBP screen is a strong selling point, compared to the MB's 'improved-over-iBook-but-still-kinda-sorta-small' screen.
As far as choice goes there are 6 stock models from the 13" MB at $1099 to the 17" MBP at $2799. Dedicated GPUs start at $1999 so you aren't whining about choice so much as cost.
I think folks are complaining about both, actually. And I think potential customers that want to try the Mac platform but who end up disappointed on both the choice and cost fronts are opportunities lost.
.
Really? I think the 17" screen alone (vs the MB's 13") would've been differentiation enough.
Well, my theory is get a small enough laptop to take everywhere easily for which the MB is a tad large but the 15" even more so or get a laptop with a big enough screen not to feel too cramped for which the 17" works.
Not to mention all the other things you get with the MBP (way better speakers,
Don't care. I use headphones, especially on a plane.
Express Card slot,
No express card yet. Perhaps I'll get one of the Verizon cards.
big hard drives
You can get 200GB on both the MB and MBP.
FW800
Don't care. I use my laptop at home once in a while to transfer DV and do some iLife since its faster than my personal Quicksilver. FW400 is fast enough. I'm a "pro" user but not a "pro video" user.
illuminated keyboard
Mmm...useful like once thus far. Didn't want to bother the person sitting next to me so didn't turn on the overhead light.
full size DVI connector
Which you might have on a MB with a X1600 since I dunno that the mini-DVI supports dual-link.
Even with an option to upgrade GPU on the MB, I'd say the MB and MBP are sufficiently differentiated. Nor am I the first in this thread to say so. Even the 15.4" MBP screen is a strong selling point, compared to the MB's 'improved-over-iBook-but-still-kinda-sorta-small' screen.
Eh. I'd rather have an even smaller screen but the 13" appears to be the near term replacement for the 12" PB. Perhaps they'll have a 7" UMPC or 11" Tablet in January.
I think folks are complaining about both, actually. And I think potential customers that want to try the Mac platform but who end up disappointed on both the choice and cost fronts are opportunities lost.
Eh. The Mac is niche and high end. Complaining about the cost of a Mac is like complaining about the cost of a Porsche. The only choice I miss is a Sony VIAO UX Series competitor (UMPC) which was cooler than I expected and TX series (11" 2.76 lb ultra light).
The TX series is $2K-$2.4K and only comes with a GMA900. Oddly thier Core Duo based 15.4" widescreen N series also only comes with GMA950 as do many of the VIAO laptop models.
A $2000 11" lightweight MBP with X1600 would likely make a lot more folks happier than adding the X1600 as an option to the MB. A nice line up would then be something like $1999 for 11" MBP (1.83Ghz LV Core Duo), $2,399 for 15" MBP (2.33 Ghz Core 2 Duo) and $2,799 for 17" MBP (2.33 Ghz Core 2 Duo).
Vinea
A $2000 11" lightweight MBP with X1600 would likely make a lot more folks happier than adding the X1600 as an option to the MB.
I do agree with this. I do feel that Apple needs to offer us an ultra lightweight laptop.
But if I'm paying $1600 to $2000 I do want a dedicated GPU.
Eh. The Mac is niche and high end. Complaining about the cost of a Mac is like complaining about the cost of a Porsche.
No. That's late 1980s era Apple-thinking, under the bad old pre-Jobs CEOs. Its a large part of what almost got Apple killed.
They did eventually try to reverse that with the (god-awful) Performa line in the '90s, but too little, too late.
I think one of Stevie J's very best decisions was to try to hit some pricepoints (though he could be doing better still here). $999 iMacs, for example. Apple has become high end and upper midrange and sometimes even midrange, Porshe and BMW 3-series and sometimes even Honda Accord V6. 8)
If Apple sees itself as niche and high-end only, then it'll always be 2-3% worldwide marketshare, and in danger of getting wiped out should the market ever change radically against it. You can't alway be playing defense. Apple's currently expanding marketshare is not a result of 'niche' thinking.
.
Its easy to make the accusation, because, sadly, its often true.
Whose to make the decree that agreeing with Apple's decisions are pure fanboism?
I feel often the complaints people make are largely for what they personally wish Apple would do in the guise of a fault. Many of these are complaints are things that Apple could do but don't necessarily have to do.
But that's just it... it isn't 'one person' desiring, say, more BTO order options. Its far greater than that. Its an issue that comes up again and again and again, in discussion after discussion after discussion.
People complain that Apple should do a lot of things. They cannot do it all and ultimately have to make a decision and go in that direction.
I can agree that Apple should offer more GPU options in Macs that have dedicated GPU cards. It should be fair enough for Apple to offer around three options for the iMac and MBP so that one can tailor the card to ones needs.
But the MacBook is not really targeted at this same market.
I'd argue that Apple made that change far later than they should have, and only because the alternative was looking incredibly dire.
The IBM Power 4 architecture truly was superior to Intel Pentium in many ways. The only problem is that IBM did not prioritize the development of PowerPC desktop chips as quickly as Intel develops its new chips. Apple did not foresee IBM's delinquency.
Intel as abandoned Pentium architecture while IBM is continuing to successfully develop and profit from its Power architecture. It was good timing for Apple to skip Pentium and join Intel with the Core architecture.
Stevie J is actually a bit more conservative than a lot of us would like to believe. A lot of times, he only does things he needs to do when pushed. But I will give him that he does do the things that need doing... eventually.
I'm not sure what you mean. The Macintosh was developed under Steve, NeXT was developed under Steve, OS X was developed under Steve, and the Intel transition has happened under Steve.
I would say all of these developments came to market pretty much at the right time. How was he belatedly pushed into it?
Whose to make the decree that agreeing with Apple's decisions are pure fanboism?
As with any form of zealotry, its an individual call that beyond a certain point becomes rather obvious to all but the zealots themselves.
I feel often the complaints people make are largely for what they personally wish Apple would do in the guise of a fault. Many of these are complaints are things that Apple could do but don't necessarily have to do.
As I said before, "Success obscures a great many sins." Right now, Apple doesn't have to do anything different- it can "stay the course" and laugh all the way to the bank... for now. But it could be doing even better, and I'm concerned about the future.
People complain that Apple should do a lot of things. They cannot do it all and ultimately have to make a decision and go in that direction.
Kind of a vague statement. I'm sure someone somewhere has suggested that Apple paint itself blue and bark at the moon. All ideas towards what Apple should be doing do not have equal weight- some are silly, some are 'nice idea, but impractical', and others are quite good ideas that Apple should be investigating and implementing.
Just shrugging and going, "Ah well, whatcha gonna do" isn't really a proactive management style.
I can agree that Apple should offer more GPU options in Macs that have dedicated GPU cards. It should be fair enough for Apple to offer around three options for the iMac and MBP so that one can tailor the card to ones needs.
But the MacBook is not really targeted at this same market.
No. Apple currently is willing to give some of its consumer-level customers the option to upgrade the GPU, and not others (consumer iMac line vs consumer MacBook line). Really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But I am glad to hear that you're in favor of more GPU options for at least some Macs.
The IBM Power 4 architecture truly was superior to Intel Pentium in many ways. The only problem is that IBM did not prioritize the development of PowerPC desktop chips as quickly as Intel develops its new chips. Apple did not foresee IBM's delinquency.
It was a case of superior architecture by IBM vs superior investment by Intel. For a while the PPC kept pace, then fell behind and pretty much stayed behind. This was apparent for several years. And even keeping pace wasn't so hot, as it kept Apple from offering high performance Windows software-compatibility, as we see today with Boot Camp and Parallels. PPC should have been dumped awhile ago. But it was a scary move. Steve can be forgiven for being conservative here- up to a point.
I'm not sure what you mean. The Macintosh was developed under Steve, NeXT was developed under Steve, OS X was developed under Steve, and the Intel transition has happened under Steve.
I would say all of these developments came to market pretty much at the right time. How was he belatedly pushed into it?
Steve wasn't really the instigator of Apple's GUI efforts- other folks at Apple were already developing it, he saw it and realized its potential, then jumped in. He deserves some credit for it, but it was very much a team effort. Far as NeXT goes, at one point IBM was actually hot to use the NeXT OS (being utterly sick of dealing with Microsoft at the time), but Steve didn't trust them, and a huge opportunity was lost. OS X development simply made sense, Apple was having a near-death moment and was disastrously overdue for a way forward from the MacOS, and Steve simply leveraged his NeXT assets (well). The Intel transition is great, but overdue.
Its fair to say that Steve is a great mover and shaker, but stunningly proactive and prescient? No, not always. But he does usually take advantage of the opportunities that wander his way (NeXT-IBM being a glaring exception). I'd say his strengths lie more in what he brings to Apple's corporate DNA (consumer focused-design), and his skills as an exceptional salesman and deal-maker. Steve could sell refrigerators to Eskimos, as the saying goes, and they would like it.
(before anyone says it- yes, I do know that Eskimos do use refrigerators- to keep items from freezing. And I'm also aware that some 'Eskimos' prefer to be referred to as Inuit.
.
"Success obscures a great many sins." Right now, Apple doesn't have to do anything different- it can "stay the course" and laugh all the way to the bank...
Apple shakes up its line up on a regular basis. That's what makes its product launches so exciting. We never know what new product they will introduce, the new design of an existing product, or even the cancelation of a well selling product.
A year ago at this time we had a 12" PowerBook and iBook, 14" iBook, 15" and 17" PowerBook. Today none of those products are manufactured anymore. Next year this time we have no idea what Apple's laptop line up will be.
Just shrugging and going, "Ah well, whatcha gonna do" isn't really a proactive management style
Pointing back to my example up above Apple certainly is not standing still.
On the MacBook wish lists that appear in these threads people post all types of wishes. From a 13" MBP, to a magnetic latch on the MBP, to MB keyboard on the MBP, to offering a light up keyboard on the MB, to getting rid of the trackpad and using a track ball, to selling a laptop version with no built in iSight, to offering a different keyboard layout, to offering a $800 17" laptop just like Dell does.
Depending on what it feels will work best Apple might implement some of these changes, certainly cannot do all of them.
PPC should have been dumped awhile ago.
Pentium ended up being more of a dead end than PPC. Waiting for Core was the right move.
Steve wasn't really the instigator of the original Mac- other folks at Apple were developing it, he saw it and realized its potential, then jumped in.
Well of course Steve doesn't design circuit boards or write any code. He's a leader. As the leader he had the wisdom to hire talented people who do design circuit boards and write code. He was able to recognize when they had a good idea and allowed that idea to flourish.
Its fair to say that Steve is a great mover and shaker, but stunningly proactive and prescient? No, not always.
I agree he is not 100% perfect but no one is. You confuse the role of the leader with the role of the their workers. Its more often the workers are the people who do the most work, but that does not diminish the role of the leader who can manage that talent and deliver a great product.
Steve was the force that brought people together and was able to challenge them to develop and the wisdom to nourish the Macintosh, NeXT, and OS X. That requires no less the vision and talent of the people who actually did the work.
No other one person in the computer industry has delivered this level of innovation under their stewardship.
No. That's late 1980s era Apple-thinking, under the bad old pre-Jobs CEOs. Its a large part of what almost got Apple killed.
They did eventually try to reverse that with the (god-awful) Performa line in the '90s, but too little, too late.
No, pre-Jobs the business plan was to go after market share. Hence the Performa line and clones.
I think one of Stevie J's very best decisions was to try to hit some pricepoints (though he could be doing better still here). $999 iMacs, for example. Apple has become high end and upper midrange and sometimes even midrange, Porshe and BMW 3-series and sometimes even Honda Accord V6. 8)
The cheapest laptops are around $500 and the cheapest MB is $1099.
Eh...that's midrange sorta but for sports cars a $45K Boxster is about the same ratio given that something like a Mustang starts around $20K.
As a brand Apple is far more like Porsche, BMW and Acrua than Toyota, Ford or Honda.
If Apple sees itself as niche and high-end only, then it'll always be 2-3% worldwide marketshare, and in danger of getting wiped out should the market ever change radically against it. You can't alway be playing defense. Apple's currently expanding marketshare is not a result of 'niche' thinking.
Niche in as much as it caters to the upper end of the market. So long as they make some the best margins in the business they will stay profitable and healthy. They like marketshare but its not the focus of its business model like it is for Dell and HP.
Do they want to grow? Heck yes, but I think in terms of numbers they're looking more like 3-4M units per quarter @ 28% margins vs Dell like volumes with Dell like margins.
They were doing 3M a quarter not that long ago. They can get back there I think and maybe push a little further. I think high end machines like a 11" ultralight is far more in line with branding and strategy than more options at the low end.
Vinea
As I said before, "Success obscures a great many sins." Right now, Apple doesn't have to do anything different- it can "stay the course" and laugh all the way to the bank... for now. But it could be doing even better, and I'm concerned about the future.
...
Just shrugging and going, "Ah well, whatcha gonna do" isn't really a proactive management style.
I would say that saying that a company that took their most popular item (the iPod Mini) and replaced it something different at the peak of its game is somehow not proactive is a form of zealotry.
Apple "staying the course" would be to continue to innovate and try new markets in which to dominate. Apple changing course would be to sit pat.
No. Apple currently is willing to give some of its consumer-level customers the option to upgrade the GPU, and not others (consumer iMac line vs consumer MacBook line). Really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But I am glad to hear that you're in favor of more GPU options for at least some Macs.
Doesn't make sense to you doesn't make it a bad practice.
It was a case of superior architecture by IBM vs superior investment by Intel. For a while the PPC kept pace, then fell behind and pretty much stayed behind. This was apparent for several years. And even keeping pace wasn't so hot, as it kept Apple from offering high performance Windows software-compatibility, as we see today with Boot Camp and Parallels. PPC should have been dumped awhile ago. But it was a scary move. Steve can be forgiven for being conservative here- up to a point.
Given the guy took NeXT from the Motorolla family to the Intel family I don't think he was being conservative as much as waiting for the right moment. The time when the PPC was really running out of steam was also the time when the P4 architecture wasn't panning out and AMD was rising.
AMD as a smaller company was a risky move to transition to given a major problem Apple was having with IBM and Freescale was volume of chips. Why move to Intel when they were executing poorly? Why move to AMD when you could end up back in the "we don't have the volume we want" problem with a smaller company with fewer fabs?
Calling the transition overdue is zealotry given that the transition happened at a near optimum time. Apple rode the Core Duo wave right when Intel was finally executing well. They have a partner that they know can make good.
What is it with Apple naysayers that when the company is actually doing well that they have to insist that it could do sooo much better if they'd only listen to them? I asked another doom and gloomer what the heck they were saying in Q4 of 2000 when Apple posted the first unprofitable qtr since Steve returned, they shipped an abysmal number of units, the Cube tanked and the iPod still in the future. Comments must have been very special then.
Could they do better? In an perfect world sure. But we live in the real world run by real people. In an imperfect world they're doing a bang up job. Saying "success hides many sins" is true to a point but ultimately meaningless. You're trying to optimize something for which you have unclear understanding why its successful.
I'm sure Apple is looking at their tactical and operational sins. But strategic planning seems to be working out. Tinkering with that at this point seems premature.
Its fair to say that Steve is a great mover and shaker, but stunningly proactive and prescient?
For a human CEO? He does pretty decent. Name a major computer company CEO that does better.
But he does usually take advantage of the opportunities that wander his way (NeXT-IBM being a glaring exception).
Unlike say the management of Xerox. And I'm not certain that a NeXT-IBM partnership would have been so grand. It has some potential on paper but the clash of cultures would have been enormous. In reality the synergies would not likely have occured and NeXT wouldn't have been in position to be absorbed by Apple. That's hardly better than the actual outcome.
Vinea
As with any form of zealotry, its an individual call that beyond a certain point becomes rather obvious to all but the zealots themselves.
.
Now I understand. If we dont agree with you, or if we even post an observation than we must be a "fanboi" of some sort.
If we deny that, then we are a zeolot.
I'm so glad you are here to set us straight...
No, pre-Jobs the business plan was to go after market share. Hence the Performa line and clones.
Nope. Performa line didn't come along 'til 1992. Before that, even the folks running Apple at the time admitted that they were fatcats, "living off of the high margins." Performa was a belated attempt to win back marketshare, and it didn't really work.
The cheapest laptops are around $500 and the cheapest MB is $1099.
Eh...that's midrange sorta but for sports cars a $45K Boxster is about the same ratio given that something like a Mustang starts around $20K.
As a brand Apple is far more like Porsche, BMW and Acrua than Toyota, Ford or Honda.
The cheapest laptops are more comparable to the cheapest cars... which, far as I know is the Chevy Aveo at $10K. Doing the ratios, cheapest MB is around a $22K car, or a Honda Accord. The Mustang isn't really a low-end car, by any stretch.
Apple does a little Honda, then some Beemer, then some Porsche.
Niche in as much as it caters to the upper end of the market. So long as they make some the best margins in the business they will stay profitable and healthy. They like marketshare but its not the focus of its business model like it is for Dell and HP.
Do they want to grow? Heck yes, but I think in terms of numbers they're looking more like 3-4M units per quarter @ 28% margins vs Dell like volumes with Dell like margins.
They were doing 3M a quarter not that long ago. They can get back there I think and maybe push a little further. I think high end machines like a 11" ultralight is far more in line with branding and strategy than more options at the low end.
Let's hope you're right. 8)
.
Now I understand. If we dont agree with you, or if we even post an observation than we must be a "fanboi" of some sort.
If we deny that, then we are a zeolot.
I'm so glad you are here to set us straight...
Oh please. I was asked a question. I did not say that anyone who disagreed with me was a 'fanboi' or anything else of the sort.
Please do not place words in my mouth and try to demonize me just because you do not happen to concur with my POV. Its exactly what you're (incorrectly) accusing me of. Can't we all just get along?
.
Apple shakes up its line up on a regular basis. That's what makes its product launches so exciting.
They shake up their products, but they don't shake up how they sell them as much as they should. Slightly lower pricepoints (without going low-end), more BTO options, etc. would increase Apple's appeal, now that more folks are seriously taking a look at the Mac.
And speaking of product lines... a sub-notebook would seem to be a good idea. I personally detest tiny screen laptops, but even I admit that they're getting to be more and more popular.
On the MacBook wish lists that appear in these threads people post all types of wishes. From a 13" MBP, to a magnetic latch on the MBP, to MB keyboard on the MBP, to offering a light up keyboard on the MB, to getting rid of the trackpad and using a track ball, to selling a laptop version with no built in iSight, to offering a different keyboard layout, to offering a $800 17" laptop just like Dell does.
Depending on what it feels will work best Apple might implement some of these changes, certainly cannot do all of them.
As I've already said, there's a variety of suggestions on what Apple should and should not do. Some of them have merit, some do not. I don't think anyone is saying that Apple should EVERYTHING that's suggested to them. But by the same token, to assume that Apple has all the answers doesn't seem wise either. I work for a company that deals with absolutely brutal global competition every day. To become complacent is to invite disaster. Or as Andy Grove famously put it, "Only the paranoid survive."
Pentium ended up being more of a dead end than PPC. Waiting for Core was the right move.
We'll never know. But I feel confident that things would've been better if the switch had been made sooner.
I agree he is not 100% perfect but no one is. You confuse the role of the leader with the role of the their workers. Its more often the workers are the people who do the most work, but that does not diminish the role of the leader who can manage that talent and deliver a great product.
Steve was the force that brought people together and was able to challenge them to develop and the wisdom to nourish the Macintosh, NeXT, and OS X. That requires no less the vision and talent of the people who actually did the work.
No other one person in the computer industry has delivered this level of innovation under their stewardship.
Oh, I'm not attacking Steve. I like Steve a great deal, actually... he saved my favorite company.
I'm just saying that he is sometimes slow to do the right thing, and has certainly made his share of major mistakes in the past. Even the best CEOs have their blind spots, Steve is no different. But I do hope he's with us for a long time to come.
.
I have to say I completely, 100% agree with TBaggins. An extra drop-down menu to add a discrete ATI or Nvidia to the MacBook wont distract anyone after a stock model. I'm willing to pay for it, so please give me the choice Apple.
I can go to Dell.com right now and configure a near-identical laptop (with 17" LCD) and just run OSx86 on it.
I feel little loyalty to a hardware company who wont give me choice for utter simplicity's sake. Its 2006 Apple....and you're competing head on with Dell like never before. Grow up.
Thanks Mac-T. You and I are far from alone in thinking that Apple could (and should) offer a bit more customizability. Perhaps not Dell-level, but more than current Apple-level. 8)
.