The nay sayers can sod off; I think Lemon Bon Bon paints a succinct picture of where Apple is and where they should be headed…
I agree, Lemon, who is the naysayer here, can sod off. However, I disagree that he is succinct given he spends several paragraphs to essentially say: Apple should make an xMac and update video cards more often.
MS is simply an easy target at the moment for ads. But Apple isn't seeking os market share at any cost but rather increasing share on its own terms. Those terms are highly profitable and elegant systems...not something you get from overclockers.com.
Ease up on LBB. He's right on the money. Apple's Mac portfolio is too rigid and has gaps that you could drive an 18 wheeler through. Low end tower is necessary; more frequent updates on graphics to keep systems fresh. C'mon, why is Apple so stubborn to be a little more flexible in their computing line? They have a wide variety of iPods for every need...
Why do I need to spend $1,999 for a 15" laptop screen? Why is Apple the only manufacturer that penalizes customers based on screen size? Give me a break!
Why? It's more of the same. The lineup is too expensive so make it cheaper.
Yes, he makes points that everyone can agree on (update vid cards more often, etc) but his recommended significant changes to Apple's line up is primarily to reduce price.
Yes, it's too bad you need to pay $1999 to get a 15" display and a dedicated GPU in a laptop. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the lineup or that compared to other $2K laptops the MacBook Pro is an exceedingly bad deal.
Same thing with the xMac. Folks want a cheaper Mac Pro.
Can Apple add more variation in their lineup? Sure. Will they? Doubtful.
But EVEN if they did it likely wouldn't be a game changer except that their profits go down. They simply don't care enough about share to reduce their prices or offer up other types of machines. THEY AREN'T OUT TO KILL MICROSOFT. Just ridicule it a bit and sell a few more highly profitable machines while MS makes a lot more cash for a whole lot more work to meet the commodity OS market of high volume and low margins.
Apple makes zero desktops. They make a SFF computer, an AIO computer and a Workstation. The make 2 models of laptops. Expensive and More Expensive.
Would I like that "Mini Pro" in that other thread? Sure. Do I expect it? Nah. Any mini rev will be fine by me at this point.
Ease up on LBB. He's right on the money. Apple's Mac portfolio is too rigid and has gaps that you could drive an 18 wheeler through. Low end tower is necessary; more frequent updates on graphics to keep systems fresh. C'mon, why is Apple so stubborn to be a little more flexible in their computing line? They have a wide variety of iPods for every need...
Again think about it from a business perspective and not a "gotta always have the latest tech" perspective.
Dell and HP are able to gain better economy of scale than Apple with computer component purchases.
Dell and HP buy far larger bulk of components than Apple does. Which means they can buy larger orders at a cheaper cost. Apple has figured out a way to make this work in their favor since the switch to Intel.
When a new updated Mac is introduced it is using the latest (most expensive) processors and chipsets available at the time. Generally using good if not the best of other components. To make using these expensive components work with making a healthy profit. Apple uses this same computer configuration for 6 to 8 months. Its very likely Apple is able to lock in a price for a bulk rate over that 6 to 8 months. By the end of that 6 to 8 months the components Apple is using are no longer the newest/expensive and the price has gone down.
At the end of the 6 to 8 months Apple has redesigned new machines that will again use the newest and most expensive processors and chip sets available from Intel. Newer GPU, HDD, RAM, etc.
The various computer components are always being improved and updated. If Apple were to change its manufacturing line everytime a new GPU or chipset, or whatever came up. That would prove disruptive to its scale of economy discounts. This would be far more expensive for Apple than it would be for Dell or HP.
We've had the low end tower debate for a couple of years now. I can see the usefulness of a low end tower but the current computer market does not support the absolute need for a low end tower. Notebook sales are the real growth in worldwide computer market. Desktop growth is slowing and some degree becoming flat. That disparity is growing wider every year. People seem to ignore this fact.
Quote:
Why do I need to spend $1,999 for a 15" laptop screen? Why is Apple the only manufacturer that penalizes customers based on screen size? Give me a break!
From what Apple says they base their notbeook configurations on what the majority of the consumer and professional markets want most. Apple's current notebook line up has been extremely successful. So I think they are doing something right.
I want to be the first to predict a LOW priced, watered down Macbook. I'm talking $699-$750.
How could Apple strip $350 to $400 out of a MacBook?
- Apple will not switch from LED-backlit to cheaper florescent-backlit LCDs.
- Apple will not drop the minimum RAM from 1GB to 512MB. The cost savings would be too small (roughly abou t $20) to justify the performance hit. Apple have almost completed the transition to 2GB as the minimum memory configuration offered.
- Apple could save about $30 or so by offering a slower processor.
- Most of the other features are integrated with the chipset, so there would be little savings in dropping support for USB, Ethernet, WiFi, etc. Dropping FireWire is conceivable.
- The biggest potential savings would come from dropping the internal optical drive.
My bet is that Apple will drop the internal optical drive and reduce prices by $100.
As far as increasing market share, I don't think anyone has mentioned the difference in gross margins between hardware/computer and software manufacturers(ie: Microsoft).
Microsoft's gross margins are in the 35% range consistently, which is the upper end of Apple's range. Dell's and HP's gross margins are currently in the 10% range.
Question is, how many more high margin sales of Mac OS X will be obtained for each 1% increase in market share? It's a balancing act for Apple who happens to be in the unique position to sell both the hardware and software.
Me personally, I'd like to see Apple to aggressively go after market share in order to capture higher Mac OS X sales with the higher margins that Microsoft enjoys. With iLife, Final Cut Express, Final Cut Pro, etc. etc. the effect IMHO would be startling. But since I don't run the company, I don't have to put my but on the line executing such a plan.
How could Apple strip $350 to $400 out of a MacBook?
- Apple will not switch from LED-backlit to cheaper florescent-backlit LCDs.
- Apple will not drop the minimum RAM from 1GB to 512MB. The cost savings would be too small (roughly abou t $20) to justify the performance hit. Apple have almost completed the transition to 2GB as the minimum memory configuration offered.
- Apple could save about $30 or so by offering a slower processor.
- Most of the other features are integrated with the chipset, so there would be little savings in dropping support for USB, Ethernet, WiFi, etc. Dropping FireWire is conceivable.
- The biggest potential savings would come from dropping the internal optical drive.
My bet is that Apple will drop the internal optical drive and reduce prices by $100.
The most obvious, like the post above me mentioned, is to cut the margins.
Me personally, I'd like to see Apple to aggressively go after market share in order to capture higher Mac OS X sales with the higher margins that Microsoft enjoys. With iLife, Final Cut Express, Final Cut Pro, etc. etc. the effect IMHO would be startling. But since I don't run the company, I don't have to put my but on the line executing such a plan.
I'm not sure how Apple can do that and still make money on their products. even if they had HP's worldwide marketshare of 22% that would still mean that MS would have almost 4x the OS marketshare that Apple has.
I think Apple is doing great acquiring the higher-end market of consumer PC users, but they are reaching a saturation point as they have about 70% of the >$1000 PC market, and that is with the cheapest MB starting at $1099. I think that we will see a $999 MB coming next month with a DL-DVD burner (finally).
I think Apple is doing great acquiring the higher-end market of consumer PC users, but they are reaching a saturation point as they have about 70% of the >$1000 PC market, and that is with the cheapest MB starting at $1099.
70% of the $1000 PC market. I hadn't heard that statistic, where is it from? That's pretty hard to believe.
It's for the US, not the world, but sicne Apple doesn't even sell Macs in most countries I didn't think to include that qualifier.
OK that makes more sense. Still seems a bit high to me though.
I can see Apple having 70% of the $1000 PC market in New York and California. I walk into my local cafe in Fort Green Brooklyn nearly every notebook using the free WiFi is an Apple. Anecdotally I've found Mac use to drop extremely in other parts of the country. I know people in the fly over states who could afford a Mac but are still uncertain about pulling the trigger because most people around them use the PC.
It's also only for RETAIL sales...but it sure does show that their strategy is working.
Quote:
With the exception of the Mac Mini, all Apple computers sell for more than $1,000. "If you don't give people a choice, people will spend more," Stephen said.
Apple's success above $1,000 defies some of the conventional retail thinking about PCs, where the emphasis is on lower pricing and greater features. "Consumers don't care about features," Stephen asserted. "People see a value proposition in an offering that gives them a great experience."
OK that makes more sense. Still seems a bit high to me though.
I can see Apple having 70% of the $1000 PC market in New York and California. I walk into my local cafe in Fort Green Brooklyn nearly every notebook using the free WiFi is an Apple. Anecdotally I've found Mac use to drop extremely in other parts of the country. I know people in the fly over states who could afford a Mac but are still uncertain about pulling the trigger because most people around them use the PC.
Apple is coming up to 10% in the US for all PC sales, which include all those cheap HP and Dells (notebooks for $400 and desktops for under $300) and all of the business sector, so it doesn't seem far fetched to me at all. Plus, the average non-Mac PC sale is around $800, compared to the Mac's $1500, so that shows at least a mean sales average under a $1000 for non-Macs.
I am debating purchasing a refurb macbook or waiting for the new ones to come out. The refurb price is attractive and I have had very good luck with refurbs in the past. Are the supposed macbook upgrades worth delaying my purchase, especially considering the price (about $1000) for a refurb.
I am debating purchasing a refurb macbook or waiting for the new ones to come out. The refurb price is attractive and I have had very good luck with refurbs in the past. Are the supposed macbook upgrades worth delaying my purchase, especially considering the price (about $1000) for a refurb.
Any opinion would be appreciated... Thanks!
At this point it is best to wait if you can. Even if you want to go with a refurbished after the new MacBooks come out in a few weeks you can get a refurbished one from the current lineup released in February 2008, not one that was first introduced a year ago in November 2007.
There is rumour of a price cut or lowered base model which may force Apple to lower the refurb models a little more, but there also may be new innovations that will may the additional $200 worth it.
Here is my list of what we can expect from a chip-over-chip update if we go by Intel's price sheet. The red triangle is an an unknown variable, but one that I assume Apple probably won't use.
As you can see, the lower-end, which I think you were buying is getting a nice speed boot, and both chips will at least get a nice reduction of wattage used, a better integrated GPU, and faster FSB.
I am debating purchasing a refurb macbook or waiting for the new ones to come out. The refurb price is attractive and I have had very good luck with refurbs in the past. Are the supposed macbook upgrades worth delaying my purchase, especially considering the price (about $1000) for a refurb.
Any opinion would be appreciated... Thanks!
One of the biggest Macbook rumors is that the thing will get a price cut. If that happens, the refurbished models will also go down in price... so I'd say it's worth waiting even if you decide not to get a new one.
Dell and HP are able to gain better economy of scale than Apple with computer component purchases.
Dell and HP buy far larger bulk of components than Apple does. Which means they can buy larger orders at a cheaper cost. Apple has figured out a way to make this work in their favor since the switch to Intel.
I beg to differ. Apple is like the 4th or 5th biggest computer builder in the world, hardly a "boutique" shop as somebody claimed here. Also, when you compare how small the number of configurations is, I think the bulk sizes of Apple approach if not exceed those of Dell and HP.
Dell has what, 15 different laptops? Apple has 4. You can put pretty much any processor, hard drive or graphics card available in a Dell laptop. With Apple, they just order a whole lot of 2,1 and 2,4 GHz C2D's and put them in their MacBooks. I'm pretty confident no PC manufacturer in the world orders more 2,4GHz C2D's like the ones in the MacBook than Apple does. I'm fairly confident that in terms of order quantities, Apple is in just as good a position to negotiate as Dell, HP or Acer
I beg to differ. Apple is like the 4th or 5th biggest computer builder in the world, hardly a "boutique" shop as somebody claimed here. Also, when you compare how small the number of configurations is, I think the bulk sizes of Apple approach if not exceed those of Dell and HP.
Dell has what, 15 different laptops? Apple has 4. You can put pretty much any processor, hard drive or graphics card available in a Dell laptop. With Apple, they just order a whole lot of 2,1 and 2,4 GHz C2D's and put them in their MacBooks. I'm pretty confident no PC manufacturer in the world orders more 2,4GHz C2D's like the ones in the MacBook than Apple does. I'm fairly confident that in terms of order quantities, Apple is in just as good a position to negotiate as Dell, HP or Acer
1) Boutique doesn't necessarily mean small, it can mean a specialized clientele, which OS X and Macs do cater to. Which is the whole point of the "I'm a Mac" ads. Macs are PCs, but they are so much more, too.
2) Worldwide, Macs are not in the top five, and since Toshiba at #5 is at 4.4% we know that Apple is somewhere below that. In the US Apple was #3, but they have since moved to #4 as Acquisition of Gateway and Packard Bell by Acer (I think I have that in right) has made them larger than Apple, but they still dropping marketshare so that lead won't last forever, unless they keep wasting money on buying other sinking ships.
3) Dell has a lot more than 15 laptops if you consider the models and the processor types for each, they use more than 15 processors, too, because they sell most of their machines using older chips, while Apple only uses the latest, top end Intel chips. Even at the same speed, Dell et all. will use current chips with lower FSB and L2 to sell medium grade machines for a little more money. Buyer beware.
4) It seems obvious that Apple is the single largest procurer from Intel for the few select chips that they use. This has to be a growing issue for Apple as they aren't going to continue to sell the old chips while advertising the new Intel chips as BTO option. They change their product line at once and they are usually in the store that day for demo and purchasing. Since they are growing so fast, they will have to continually wait for Intel to ramp up production while the HP, Sony, and Dell can advertise, like they are now, that they have Montevina/Penryn available for purchase. I think Apple is going to have to increase their product line in order to cope with this issue or they will have to continue to wait for Intel production to get going. I suppose they could get with Intel and prohibit the sale of the new chips until they are ready to supply to Apple, but that is not a viable business option for Intel.
5) As for negotiating, they are Intel's best friend. When it comes to unique products who else is better equipped to showcase a new chip than Apple. Pop one in MBA or Mac Pro and you have instant coverage across every tech site within an hour.
At this point it is best to wait if you can. Even if you want to go with a refurbished after the new MacBooks come out in a few weeks you can get a refurbished one from the current lineup released in February 2008, not one that was first introduced a year ago in November 2007.
There is rumour of a price cut or lowered base model which may force Apple to lower the refurb models a little more, but there also may be new innovations that will may the additional $200 worth it.
Here is my list of what we can expect from a chip-over-chip update if we go by Intel's price sheet. The red triangle is an an unknown variable, but one that I assume Apple probably won't use...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
One of the biggest Macbook rumors is that the thing will get a price cut. If that happens, the refurbished models will also go down in price... so I'd say it's worth waiting even if you decide not to get a new one.
Thanks for all of the advice! I think I will hold off on purchasing a macbook until after the upgrade.
Comments
The nay sayers can sod off; I think Lemon Bon Bon paints a succinct picture of where Apple is and where they should be headed…
I agree, Lemon, who is the naysayer here, can sod off. However, I disagree that he is succinct given he spends several paragraphs to essentially say: Apple should make an xMac and update video cards more often.
MS is simply an easy target at the moment for ads. But Apple isn't seeking os market share at any cost but rather increasing share on its own terms. Those terms are highly profitable and elegant systems...not something you get from overclockers.com.
really?
Really!
Why do I need to spend $1,999 for a 15" laptop screen? Why is Apple the only manufacturer that penalizes customers based on screen size? Give me a break!
Ease up on LBB.
Why? It's more of the same. The lineup is too expensive so make it cheaper.
Yes, he makes points that everyone can agree on (update vid cards more often, etc) but his recommended significant changes to Apple's line up is primarily to reduce price.
Yes, it's too bad you need to pay $1999 to get a 15" display and a dedicated GPU in a laptop. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the lineup or that compared to other $2K laptops the MacBook Pro is an exceedingly bad deal.
Same thing with the xMac. Folks want a cheaper Mac Pro.
Can Apple add more variation in their lineup? Sure. Will they? Doubtful.
But EVEN if they did it likely wouldn't be a game changer except that their profits go down. They simply don't care enough about share to reduce their prices or offer up other types of machines. THEY AREN'T OUT TO KILL MICROSOFT. Just ridicule it a bit and sell a few more highly profitable machines while MS makes a lot more cash for a whole lot more work to meet the commodity OS market of high volume and low margins.
Apple makes zero desktops. They make a SFF computer, an AIO computer and a Workstation. The make 2 models of laptops. Expensive and More Expensive.
Would I like that "Mini Pro" in that other thread? Sure. Do I expect it? Nah. Any mini rev will be fine by me at this point.
Ease up on LBB. He's right on the money. Apple's Mac portfolio is too rigid and has gaps that you could drive an 18 wheeler through. Low end tower is necessary; more frequent updates on graphics to keep systems fresh. C'mon, why is Apple so stubborn to be a little more flexible in their computing line? They have a wide variety of iPods for every need...
Again think about it from a business perspective and not a "gotta always have the latest tech" perspective.
Dell and HP are able to gain better economy of scale than Apple with computer component purchases.
Dell and HP buy far larger bulk of components than Apple does. Which means they can buy larger orders at a cheaper cost. Apple has figured out a way to make this work in their favor since the switch to Intel.
When a new updated Mac is introduced it is using the latest (most expensive) processors and chipsets available at the time. Generally using good if not the best of other components. To make using these expensive components work with making a healthy profit. Apple uses this same computer configuration for 6 to 8 months. Its very likely Apple is able to lock in a price for a bulk rate over that 6 to 8 months. By the end of that 6 to 8 months the components Apple is using are no longer the newest/expensive and the price has gone down.
At the end of the 6 to 8 months Apple has redesigned new machines that will again use the newest and most expensive processors and chip sets available from Intel. Newer GPU, HDD, RAM, etc.
The various computer components are always being improved and updated. If Apple were to change its manufacturing line everytime a new GPU or chipset, or whatever came up. That would prove disruptive to its scale of economy discounts. This would be far more expensive for Apple than it would be for Dell or HP.
We've had the low end tower debate for a couple of years now. I can see the usefulness of a low end tower but the current computer market does not support the absolute need for a low end tower. Notebook sales are the real growth in worldwide computer market. Desktop growth is slowing and some degree becoming flat. That disparity is growing wider every year. People seem to ignore this fact.
Why do I need to spend $1,999 for a 15" laptop screen? Why is Apple the only manufacturer that penalizes customers based on screen size? Give me a break!
From what Apple says they base their notbeook configurations on what the majority of the consumer and professional markets want most. Apple's current notebook line up has been extremely successful. So I think they are doing something right.
I want to be the first to predict a LOW priced, watered down Macbook. I'm talking $699-$750.
How could Apple strip $350 to $400 out of a MacBook?
- Apple will not switch from LED-backlit to cheaper florescent-backlit LCDs.
- Apple will not drop the minimum RAM from 1GB to 512MB. The cost savings would be too small (roughly abou t $20) to justify the performance hit. Apple have almost completed the transition to 2GB as the minimum memory configuration offered.
- Apple could save about $30 or so by offering a slower processor.
- Most of the other features are integrated with the chipset, so there would be little savings in dropping support for USB, Ethernet, WiFi, etc. Dropping FireWire is conceivable.
- The biggest potential savings would come from dropping the internal optical drive.
My bet is that Apple will drop the internal optical drive and reduce prices by $100.
Microsoft's gross margins are in the 35% range consistently, which is the upper end of Apple's range. Dell's and HP's gross margins are currently in the 10% range.
Question is, how many more high margin sales of Mac OS X will be obtained for each 1% increase in market share? It's a balancing act for Apple who happens to be in the unique position to sell both the hardware and software.
Me personally, I'd like to see Apple to aggressively go after market share in order to capture higher Mac OS X sales with the higher margins that Microsoft enjoys. With iLife, Final Cut Express, Final Cut Pro, etc. etc. the effect IMHO would be startling. But since I don't run the company, I don't have to put my but on the line executing such a plan.
How could Apple strip $350 to $400 out of a MacBook?
- Apple will not switch from LED-backlit to cheaper florescent-backlit LCDs.
- Apple will not drop the minimum RAM from 1GB to 512MB. The cost savings would be too small (roughly abou t $20) to justify the performance hit. Apple have almost completed the transition to 2GB as the minimum memory configuration offered.
- Apple could save about $30 or so by offering a slower processor.
- Most of the other features are integrated with the chipset, so there would be little savings in dropping support for USB, Ethernet, WiFi, etc. Dropping FireWire is conceivable.
- The biggest potential savings would come from dropping the internal optical drive.
My bet is that Apple will drop the internal optical drive and reduce prices by $100.
The most obvious, like the post above me mentioned, is to cut the margins.
Me personally, I'd like to see Apple to aggressively go after market share in order to capture higher Mac OS X sales with the higher margins that Microsoft enjoys. With iLife, Final Cut Express, Final Cut Pro, etc. etc. the effect IMHO would be startling. But since I don't run the company, I don't have to put my but on the line executing such a plan.
I'm not sure how Apple can do that and still make money on their products. even if they had HP's worldwide marketshare of 22% that would still mean that MS would have almost 4x the OS marketshare that Apple has.
I think Apple is doing great acquiring the higher-end market of consumer PC users, but they are reaching a saturation point as they have about 70% of the >$1000 PC market, and that is with the cheapest MB starting at $1099. I think that we will see a $999 MB coming next month with a DL-DVD burner (finally).
I think Apple is doing great acquiring the higher-end market of consumer PC users, but they are reaching a saturation point as they have about 70% of the >$1000 PC market, and that is with the cheapest MB starting at $1099.
70% of the $1000 PC market. I hadn't heard that statistic, where is it from? That's pretty hard to believe.
70% of the $1000 PC market. I hadn't heard that statistic, where is it from? That's pretty hard to believe.
It's for the US, not the world, but sicne Apple doesn't even sell Macs in most countries I didn't think to include that qualifier.
It's for the US, not the world, but sicne Apple doesn't even sell Macs in most countries I didn't think to include that qualifier.
OK that makes more sense. Still seems a bit high to me though.
I can see Apple having 70% of the $1000 PC market in New York and California. I walk into my local cafe in Fort Green Brooklyn nearly every notebook using the free WiFi is an Apple. Anecdotally I've found Mac use to drop extremely in other parts of the country. I know people in the fly over states who could afford a Mac but are still uncertain about pulling the trigger because most people around them use the PC.
With the exception of the Mac Mini, all Apple computers sell for more than $1,000. "If you don't give people a choice, people will spend more," Stephen said.
Apple's success above $1,000 defies some of the conventional retail thinking about PCs, where the emphasis is on lower pricing and greater features. "Consumers don't care about features," Stephen asserted. "People see a value proposition in an offering that gives them a great experience."
OK that makes more sense. Still seems a bit high to me though.
I can see Apple having 70% of the $1000 PC market in New York and California. I walk into my local cafe in Fort Green Brooklyn nearly every notebook using the free WiFi is an Apple. Anecdotally I've found Mac use to drop extremely in other parts of the country. I know people in the fly over states who could afford a Mac but are still uncertain about pulling the trigger because most people around them use the PC.
Apple is coming up to 10% in the US for all PC sales, which include all those cheap HP and Dells (notebooks for $400 and desktops for under $300) and all of the business sector, so it doesn't seem far fetched to me at all. Plus, the average non-Mac PC sale is around $800, compared to the Mac's $1500, so that shows at least a mean sales average under a $1000 for non-Macs.
I am debating purchasing a refurb macbook or waiting for the new ones to come out. The refurb price is attractive and I have had very good luck with refurbs in the past. Are the supposed macbook upgrades worth delaying my purchase, especially considering the price (about $1000) for a refurb.
Any opinion would be appreciated... Thanks!
Just wondering if I can get someones opinion...
I am debating purchasing a refurb macbook or waiting for the new ones to come out. The refurb price is attractive and I have had very good luck with refurbs in the past. Are the supposed macbook upgrades worth delaying my purchase, especially considering the price (about $1000) for a refurb.
Any opinion would be appreciated... Thanks!
At this point it is best to wait if you can. Even if you want to go with a refurbished after the new MacBooks come out in a few weeks you can get a refurbished one from the current lineup released in February 2008, not one that was first introduced a year ago in November 2007.
There is rumour of a price cut or lowered base model which may force Apple to lower the refurb models a little more, but there also may be new innovations that will may the additional $200 worth it.
Here is my list of what we can expect from a chip-over-chip update if we go by Intel's price sheet. The red triangle is an an unknown variable, but one that I assume Apple probably won't use. As you can see, the lower-end, which I think you were buying is getting a nice speed boot, and both chips will at least get a nice reduction of wattage used, a better integrated GPU, and faster FSB.
The other chip-over-chip comparisons...
Just wondering if I can get someones opinion...
I am debating purchasing a refurb macbook or waiting for the new ones to come out. The refurb price is attractive and I have had very good luck with refurbs in the past. Are the supposed macbook upgrades worth delaying my purchase, especially considering the price (about $1000) for a refurb.
Any opinion would be appreciated... Thanks!
One of the biggest Macbook rumors is that the thing will get a price cut. If that happens, the refurbished models will also go down in price... so I'd say it's worth waiting even if you decide not to get a new one.
Dell and HP are able to gain better economy of scale than Apple with computer component purchases.
Dell and HP buy far larger bulk of components than Apple does. Which means they can buy larger orders at a cheaper cost. Apple has figured out a way to make this work in their favor since the switch to Intel.
I beg to differ. Apple is like the 4th or 5th biggest computer builder in the world, hardly a "boutique" shop as somebody claimed here. Also, when you compare how small the number of configurations is, I think the bulk sizes of Apple approach if not exceed those of Dell and HP.
Dell has what, 15 different laptops? Apple has 4. You can put pretty much any processor, hard drive or graphics card available in a Dell laptop. With Apple, they just order a whole lot of 2,1 and 2,4 GHz C2D's and put them in their MacBooks. I'm pretty confident no PC manufacturer in the world orders more 2,4GHz C2D's like the ones in the MacBook than Apple does. I'm fairly confident that in terms of order quantities, Apple is in just as good a position to negotiate as Dell, HP or Acer
I beg to differ. Apple is like the 4th or 5th biggest computer builder in the world, hardly a "boutique" shop as somebody claimed here. Also, when you compare how small the number of configurations is, I think the bulk sizes of Apple approach if not exceed those of Dell and HP.
Dell has what, 15 different laptops? Apple has 4. You can put pretty much any processor, hard drive or graphics card available in a Dell laptop. With Apple, they just order a whole lot of 2,1 and 2,4 GHz C2D's and put them in their MacBooks. I'm pretty confident no PC manufacturer in the world orders more 2,4GHz C2D's like the ones in the MacBook than Apple does. I'm fairly confident that in terms of order quantities, Apple is in just as good a position to negotiate as Dell, HP or Acer
1) Boutique doesn't necessarily mean small, it can mean a specialized clientele, which OS X and Macs do cater to. Which is the whole point of the "I'm a Mac" ads. Macs are PCs, but they are so much more, too.
2) Worldwide, Macs are not in the top five, and since Toshiba at #5 is at 4.4% we know that Apple is somewhere below that. In the US Apple was #3, but they have since moved to #4 as Acquisition of Gateway and Packard Bell by Acer (I think I have that in right) has made them larger than Apple, but they still dropping marketshare so that lead won't last forever, unless they keep wasting money on buying other sinking ships.
3) Dell has a lot more than 15 laptops if you consider the models and the processor types for each, they use more than 15 processors, too, because they sell most of their machines using older chips, while Apple only uses the latest, top end Intel chips. Even at the same speed, Dell et all. will use current chips with lower FSB and L2 to sell medium grade machines for a little more money. Buyer beware.
4) It seems obvious that Apple is the single largest procurer from Intel for the few select chips that they use. This has to be a growing issue for Apple as they aren't going to continue to sell the old chips while advertising the new Intel chips as BTO option. They change their product line at once and they are usually in the store that day for demo and purchasing. Since they are growing so fast, they will have to continually wait for Intel to ramp up production while the HP, Sony, and Dell can advertise, like they are now, that they have Montevina/Penryn available for purchase. I think Apple is going to have to increase their product line in order to cope with this issue or they will have to continue to wait for Intel production to get going. I suppose they could get with Intel and prohibit the sale of the new chips until they are ready to supply to Apple, but that is not a viable business option for Intel.
5) As for negotiating, they are Intel's best friend. When it comes to unique products who else is better equipped to showcase a new chip than Apple. Pop one in MBA or Mac Pro and you have instant coverage across every tech site within an hour.
At this point it is best to wait if you can. Even if you want to go with a refurbished after the new MacBooks come out in a few weeks you can get a refurbished one from the current lineup released in February 2008, not one that was first introduced a year ago in November 2007.
There is rumour of a price cut or lowered base model which may force Apple to lower the refurb models a little more, but there also may be new innovations that will may the additional $200 worth it.
Here is my list of what we can expect from a chip-over-chip update if we go by Intel's price sheet. The red triangle is an an unknown variable, but one that I assume Apple probably won't use...
One of the biggest Macbook rumors is that the thing will get a price cut. If that happens, the refurbished models will also go down in price... so I'd say it's worth waiting even if you decide not to get a new one.
Thanks for all of the advice! I think I will hold off on purchasing a macbook until after the upgrade.