Absolutely. No one's even bothered to point out that a $799. MacBook kills the Mac Mini off entirely.
Well yes, they could either kill the Mini, or stop overcharging for it by $200-$300. Problem solved Hell, kill the Apple TV while they're at it and add an HDMI port to the Mac Mini, sell it for a reasonable $399 and let it serve both purposes.
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you, but perhaps people stay Mac users for life because Apple produces higher end computers. If it were to cut out features, maybe some of the Mac experience that you love so much would be cut out as well. Apple is selling more Macs then it ever has sold. I don't see any reason to sacrifice margins as long as this trend continues to hold. If it were to cut prices, it should be more because the US economy is hurting and it wants to make sure computers sell for the Holiday. I, however, am skeptical Apple is intending to sacrifice margins on it's Macs. I think Oppemheimer was referring to margin cuts in it's iPod lines. As we have seen Apple lowered the prices there, but increased the features. More specifically, I think he was referring to the iPod Touch.
Not really higher end computers... but a higher end computing experience, which has far more to do with the software than the hardware. And they can put that "experience" on any Mac, even one that is not extremely high-end. It will still be better than the PC competition, but instead of less than 10% of users getting that experience, Mac could come to dominate the market. Instead of 7%, think 70%. I think it's time for Apple to make it's move.
By competitor's standards, the current $1099 MacBook would be fairly-priced at $700, maybe $800 if you want to give Apple an extra benjamin for elegant design and software.
Eh, this seems aggressive to me; in many ways, those specs match or outshine Apple's $1999 offerings. A groin-burning aluminum case and LED backlighting isn't really enough to justify $999.
If you think that the Sony at $999 is worth more than the MB at $1099, then buy the Sony and be happy with your purchase. Though, I doubt that you really believe this is the case as you frequent an Apple forum. This means that the MB at $1099 is a better deal than the Sony at $999, regardless of the specs of the two computers.
If you think that the Sony at $999 is worth more than the MB at $1099, then buy the Sony and be happy with your purchase. Though, I doubt that you really believe this is the case as you frequent an Apple forum. This means that the MB at $1099 is a better deal than the Sony at $999, regardless of the specs of the two computers.
You can't be happy with a purchase when you know you are sacrificing something like the Mac OS.
I am with you, but unfortunately I doubt it. The consumer laptop gets consumer graphics.\
I wish I could pull the optical drive out of mine and swap it for a good graphics card.
unfortunately even that is wrong. Even high-end GPUs like ATI mobile 4800 series or Nvidia 8800/9800M series are consumer cards. Can you even get a professional Nvidia Quadro or ATI FireGL card on a Macbook PRo?
Finally some good news. But what about the MBP? And October 14 prediction for notebook updates does not seem to go well with this report.
Well I am curious with GPUs in upcoming MBs and MBPs. With Snow Leopard going to be released next year, which would supposedly take extra gigaflops from GPU to do some general purpose computation, I am wondering if Apple wants to put really good GPUs in MBs and MBPs. Otherwise people who buy notebooks now won't be able to harness the Snow Leopard, when it is going to be released in not so distant future.
unfortunately even that is wrong. Even high-end GPUs like ATI mobile 4800 series or Nvidia 8800/9800M series are consumer cards. Can you even get a professional Nvidia Quadro or ATI FireGL card on a Macbook PRo?
This is not true. There are no PC laptops (no trusted brands anyway) at $999 that have 4800 or 8800 chips. Most PC gaming laptops still use only a 9500 or 3600 Radeon.
I'm sick of the crying and whining about graphics chips when most MacBook buyers don't even need something as slow as the X3100. Why would anyone want to play serious games or do serious graphics work on a MacBook anyway?
I'm sick of the crying and whining about graphics chips when most MacBook buyers don't even need something as slow as the X3100. Why would anyone want to play serious games or do serious graphics work on a MacBook anyway?
I understand that the Macbook is a pound-and-a-half lighter, has more L2 cache, and Mac OS X/iLife 08, but seriously here. The MacBook costs 40% more than the Sony and has half the hard drive space, two inches less screen, and a third the RAM.
you are comparing the macbook that was released in February to a notebook that may have been released yesterday. when apple releases a new product it is always competitively priced. the problem with apple, and why this argument continues to work, is they don't incrementally update their laptops like other companies, so in 6 months when apple is offering the same laptop, sony or hp or dell have already had 4 or 5 revisions to their lineup. but in a few weeks when apple releases new laptops, they will be priced aggressively to what is out there now.
I want to be the first to predict a LOW priced, watered down Macbook. I'm talking $699-$750. Something to make people think even more about a Mac. We all know that a Mac, even with sub-entry-level specs, is better than a high end vista machine, but the general public doesn't, and when they are the same price, people will pick the machine with better harware.
I think Jobs & Co. realize this and will choose to market their MB to a wider range of consumers this time around.
Will be waiting awhile for them as they will be flying off the shelf. Will be hard to keep in stock for the first while.
If they come in anywhere near that will be buying one just because it is too good to pass up. Heck, might even get 2
If you think that the Sony at $999 is worth more than the MB at $1099, then buy the Sony and be happy with your purchase. Though, I doubt that you really believe this is the case as you frequent an Apple forum. This means that the MB at $1099 is a better deal than the Sony at $999, regardless of the specs of the two computers.
The Sony has a 2" larger screen, twice the hard drive space and three times more RAM for a 40% lower price than the MacBook! Is it that unreasonable to expect Apple close the price/performance gap to say, a 20% premium? I'm not going to buy the Sony; I'm going to wait until Apple's offerings are more in line with competition, and I would expect other smart shoppers to do the same. One has to draw the line somewhere, or we'd be back in the days when a 60Hz PowerPC with 8MB of RAM cost $2,000, without a monitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadisawesome
you are comparing the macbook that was released in February to a notebook that may have been released yesterday. when apple releases a new product it is always competitively priced. the problem with apple, and why this argument continues to work, is they don't incrementally update their laptops like other companies, so in 6 months when apple is offering the same laptop, sony or hp or dell have already had 4 or 5 revisions to their lineup. but in a few weeks when apple releases new laptops, they will be priced aggressively to what is out there now.
Right. I am showing where I would expect the new MacBook's to fall relative to the competition, and to highlight that $999 isn't really an aggressive pricepoint anymore. I think we lose sight of how cheap computer components have really gotten when we only observe our little Mac world.
I understand that the Macbook is a pound-and-a-half lighter, has more L2 cache, and Mac OS X/iLife 08, but seriously here. The MacBook costs 40% more than the Sony and has half the hard drive space, two inches less screen, and a third the RAM.
I agree with you. The mac laptops need to come down in price to stay competitive. Sure OSX/iLife is leaps and bounds beyond anything else. But if Apple wants to be competitive it needs to offer hardware with the same markups as Sony, Dell and others.
I agree with you. The mac laptops need to come down in price to stay competitive. Sure OSX/iLife is leaps and bounds beyond anything else. But if Apple wants to be competitive it needs to offer hardware with the same markups as Sony, Dell and others.
You're missing the part where he is comparing a Mac that came out in February to a Sony that is only available for pre-order. Or that the entry level price is to get you in the door and then up sell you on HW that costs the same but they charge more for because it looks like a better deal. It's all explained, right down to those Sony's using the old hat 65nm Merom processors. Since Apple's prices are consistent with their entire line since they don't do the bait and upsell or deal with older or inferior chipsets that appear to the layman as being "as good" you have to compare similar machines. If you aren't doing that then you are just fooling yourself. That is to say, if you did buy that Sony and didn't change anything on the build you would be getting a machine that is a better value than what Apple offers on a piece-by-piece comparison, but only on that single entry level configuration.
Comments
Absolutely. No one's even bothered to point out that a $799. MacBook kills the Mac Mini off entirely.
The Mac wha-
ohhhh
I keep forgetting that the Mini exists...
Absolutely. No one's even bothered to point out that a $799. MacBook kills the Mac Mini off entirely.
Well yes, they could either kill the Mini, or stop overcharging for it by $200-$300. Problem solved
Let's just hope they do SOMETHING.
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you, but perhaps people stay Mac users for life because Apple produces higher end computers. If it were to cut out features, maybe some of the Mac experience that you love so much would be cut out as well. Apple is selling more Macs then it ever has sold. I don't see any reason to sacrifice margins as long as this trend continues to hold. If it were to cut prices, it should be more because the US economy is hurting and it wants to make sure computers sell for the Holiday. I, however, am skeptical Apple is intending to sacrifice margins on it's Macs. I think Oppemheimer was referring to margin cuts in it's iPod lines. As we have seen Apple lowered the prices there, but increased the features. More specifically, I think he was referring to the iPod Touch.
Not really higher end computers... but a higher end computing experience, which has far more to do with the software than the hardware. And they can put that "experience" on any Mac, even one that is not extremely high-end. It will still be better than the PC competition, but instead of less than 10% of users getting that experience, Mac could come to dominate the market. Instead of 7%, think 70%. I think it's time for Apple to make it's move.
By competitor's standards, the current $1099 MacBook would be fairly-priced at $700, maybe $800 if you want to give Apple an extra benjamin for elegant design and software.
Eh, this seems aggressive to me; in many ways, those specs match or outshine Apple's $1999 offerings. A groin-burning aluminum case and LED backlighting isn't really enough to justify $999.
If you think that the Sony at $999 is worth more than the MB at $1099, then buy the Sony and be happy with your purchase. Though, I doubt that you really believe this is the case as you frequent an Apple forum. This means that the MB at $1099 is a better deal than the Sony at $999, regardless of the specs of the two computers.
If you think that the Sony at $999 is worth more than the MB at $1099, then buy the Sony and be happy with your purchase. Though, I doubt that you really believe this is the case as you frequent an Apple forum. This means that the MB at $1099 is a better deal than the Sony at $999, regardless of the specs of the two computers.
You can't be happy with a purchase when you know you are sacrificing something like the Mac OS.
I am with you, but unfortunately I doubt it. The consumer laptop gets consumer graphics.
I wish I could pull the optical drive out of mine and swap it for a good graphics card.
unfortunately even that is wrong. Even high-end GPUs like ATI mobile 4800 series or Nvidia 8800/9800M series are consumer cards. Can you even get a professional Nvidia Quadro or ATI FireGL card on a Macbook PRo?
Well I am curious with GPUs in upcoming MBs and MBPs. With Snow Leopard going to be released next year, which would supposedly take extra gigaflops from GPU to do some general purpose computation, I am wondering if Apple wants to put really good GPUs in MBs and MBPs. Otherwise people who buy notebooks now won't be able to harness the Snow Leopard, when it is going to be released in not so distant future.
$999 with solid state drives would be awesome. I just hope they don't skimp on the graphics again.
I would be astounded if the new MacBook doesn't have the Intel 4500 (yuck), great for battery life though.
unfortunately even that is wrong. Even high-end GPUs like ATI mobile 4800 series or Nvidia 8800/9800M series are consumer cards. Can you even get a professional Nvidia Quadro or ATI FireGL card on a Macbook PRo?
This is not true. There are no PC laptops (no trusted brands anyway) at $999 that have 4800 or 8800 chips. Most PC gaming laptops still use only a 9500 or 3600 Radeon.
I'm sick of the crying and whining about graphics chips when most MacBook buyers don't even need something as slow as the X3100. Why would anyone want to play serious games or do serious graphics work on a MacBook anyway?
I'm sick of the crying and whining about graphics chips when most MacBook buyers don't even need something as slow as the X3100. Why would anyone want to play serious games or do serious graphics work on a MacBook anyway?
Sims 3 + Spore
Ah well.
http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/edi...y_adcon_B-R_F6
Now that's what I call aggressive pricing.
The article says that $650 gets you:
15.4" 1280x800 screen
2Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
3GB RAM
250GB hard drive
webcam, integrated graphics
And that $999 gets you:
15.4" 1280x800 screen
2Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB RAM
250GB hard drive
Blu-Ray reader, DVD & CD burning capabilities
webcam, integrated graphics
Presently with Apple, $1099 gets you:
13" 1280x800 screen
2.1Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB RAM
120GB hard drive
DVD reader with CD burning capabilities
webcam, integrated graphics
I understand that the Macbook is a pound-and-a-half lighter, has more L2 cache, and Mac OS X/iLife 08, but seriously here. The MacBook costs 40% more than the Sony and has half the hard drive space, two inches less screen, and a third the RAM.
you are comparing the macbook that was released in February to a notebook that may have been released yesterday. when apple releases a new product it is always competitively priced. the problem with apple, and why this argument continues to work, is they don't incrementally update their laptops like other companies, so in 6 months when apple is offering the same laptop, sony or hp or dell have already had 4 or 5 revisions to their lineup. but in a few weeks when apple releases new laptops, they will be priced aggressively to what is out there now.
I want to be the first to predict a LOW priced, watered down Macbook. I'm talking $699-$750. Something to make people think even more about a Mac. We all know that a Mac, even with sub-entry-level specs, is better than a high end vista machine, but the general public doesn't, and when they are the same price, people will pick the machine with better harware.
I think Jobs & Co. realize this and will choose to market their MB to a wider range of consumers this time around.
Will be waiting awhile for them as they will be flying off the shelf. Will be hard to keep in stock for the first while.
If they come in anywhere near that will be buying one just because it is too good to pass up. Heck, might even get 2
If you think that the Sony at $999 is worth more than the MB at $1099, then buy the Sony and be happy with your purchase. Though, I doubt that you really believe this is the case as you frequent an Apple forum. This means that the MB at $1099 is a better deal than the Sony at $999, regardless of the specs of the two computers.
The Sony has a 2" larger screen, twice the hard drive space and three times more RAM for a 40% lower price than the MacBook! Is it that unreasonable to expect Apple close the price/performance gap to say, a 20% premium? I'm not going to buy the Sony; I'm going to wait until Apple's offerings are more in line with competition, and I would expect other smart shoppers to do the same. One has to draw the line somewhere, or we'd be back in the days when a 60Hz PowerPC with 8MB of RAM cost $2,000, without a monitor.
you are comparing the macbook that was released in February to a notebook that may have been released yesterday. when apple releases a new product it is always competitively priced. the problem with apple, and why this argument continues to work, is they don't incrementally update their laptops like other companies, so in 6 months when apple is offering the same laptop, sony or hp or dell have already had 4 or 5 revisions to their lineup. but in a few weeks when apple releases new laptops, they will be priced aggressively to what is out there now.
Right. I am showing where I would expect the new MacBook's to fall relative to the competition, and to highlight that $999 isn't really an aggressive pricepoint anymore. I think we lose sight of how cheap computer components have really gotten when we only observe our little Mac world.
I'm going to wait until Apple's offerings are more in line with competition, and I would expect other smart shoppers to do the same.
Exactly right. It's getting a little extreme.
The article says that $650 gets you:
15.4" 1280x800 screen
2Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
3GB RAM
250GB hard drive
webcam, integrated graphics
And that $999 gets you:
15.4" 1280x800 screen
2Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB RAM
250GB hard drive
Blu-Ray reader, DVD & CD burning capabilities
webcam, integrated graphics
Presently with Apple, $1099 gets you:
13" 1280x800 screen
2.1Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB RAM
120GB hard drive
DVD reader with CD burning capabilities
webcam, integrated graphics
I understand that the Macbook is a pound-and-a-half lighter, has more L2 cache, and Mac OS X/iLife 08, but seriously here. The MacBook costs 40% more than the Sony and has half the hard drive space, two inches less screen, and a third the RAM.
I agree with you. The mac laptops need to come down in price to stay competitive. Sure OSX/iLife is leaps and bounds beyond anything else. But if Apple wants to be competitive it needs to offer hardware with the same markups as Sony, Dell and others.
Exactly right. It's getting a little extreme.
I agree with you. The mac laptops need to come down in price to stay competitive. Sure OSX/iLife is leaps and bounds beyond anything else. But if Apple wants to be competitive it needs to offer hardware with the same markups as Sony, Dell and others.
You're missing the part where he is comparing a Mac that came out in February to a Sony that is only available for pre-order. Or that the entry level price is to get you in the door and then up sell you on HW that costs the same but they charge more for because it looks like a better deal. It's all explained, right down to those Sony's using the old hat 65nm Merom processors. Since Apple's prices are consistent with their entire line since they don't do the bait and upsell or deal with older or inferior chipsets that appear to the layman as being "as good" you have to compare similar machines. If you aren't doing that then you are just fooling yourself. That is to say, if you did buy that Sony and didn't change anything on the build you would be getting a machine that is a better value than what Apple offers on a piece-by-piece comparison, but only on that single entry level configuration.