I've been looking at MacBooks since they first arrived, and though I like the price and feature set the screens are just to small for these old eyes. So the larger screen is desired simply to make the machine more usable.
I would strongly prefer Intel GPU's for one reason and only one reason. That is that they have released the specs on the GPU to support driver development. This is something that is very important if you primarily run Linux. Going to the Santa Rosa Platform and take advantage of better performance would really make me smile.
That is a minimal improvement that I'd like to see. Hopefully by going to Santa Rosa we will have much better 64 bit support. A low end laptop that can be configured to operate with 4 giga bytes of RAM would be very nice. I think this is doable on a small laptop. I'd also like to see a card bus slot also. Either that or a bunch more USB ports.
I'd also like to see Apple standardize the power input on its laptops and minis around one connector and voltage range. The idea here is maximizing operational flexibility. For example if Apple could come up with a standardized power input range of like 10 to 38 volts DC one could then operate their hardware in a number of environments without expensive DC to DC converters. For example directly off a cars or boats electrical system, a solar panel or a super cap. A simple and easy hook up to a solar panel would be great for people that enjoy the great outdoors but still want a PC around.
In any event everyone here must realize that the Mac Books will be revised soon. The interesting question is will the feature set change dramatically, that is beyond the screen. At this point I guess not.
Yep, but the point is, you can run Windows software on a Mac.
That's only a selling point to people who are already interested in using OS X. The far majority of people don't care.
Quote:
Better pricing, more BTO flexibility, and filling the major (not all) product line gaps would be good for that.
The only way better pricing would work to increase market share with people who care about price is if Apple sold below $1000 computers.
The only time I ever hear about BTO options is on the internet. Or from people who like to build their own machines. As indicated in Dells quarterly sales most of the computers it sells are its cheapest with little to no expensive upgrading.
Apple streamlines its costs by offering little differentiation.
(The ability to run Windows is) only a selling point to people who are already interested in using OS X. The far majority of people don't care.
Apple doesn't need the vast majority of people to care. Their worldwide marketshare is only 2.5% or thereabouts. So if even 2.5% of people care (a very reachable number), they can potentially double their marketshare, which is huge.
Quote:
The only way better pricing would work to increase market share with people who care about price is if Apple sold below $1000 computers.
No. But Apple already sells sub-$1000 computers (iMac, Mac mini).
You don't have to be at a bottom-end pricepoint to care about pricing and value. Look at this 15" Macbook story we're commenting about, for example. A 15" MB wouldn't be a low-end product... best guess is that it'd probably take the place of the black Macbook and go for around $1499. And its a big deal because, sans that product appearing, you have to shell out $2000 to get a Mac notebook with that screen size.
Whereas on the PC side, you can get a Dell notebook with a 15" screen and 1680x1050 resolution for around $1000 (though most 15" PC notebooks are priced a bit higher).
Yes, the Apple notebook offers better design, a better OS, etc. Probably even better reliability, from what I've seen of Dells. But is it really $1000 better? Diehards like you and me might say yes. The vast majority of potential switchers and folks new to the market would probably say no.
So, reducing the Mac-PC price delta to something a lot more reasonable is a big deal, and helps Apple's marketshare, since currently about half of Mac sales are to folks who are new to the platform, not diehards like you and I.
Perceived value is important, and pricing is part of that- and not just at the low-end.
Quote:
The only time I ever hear about BTO options is on the internet.
Which is chock full of folks who tend to be more tech-savvy than average, and who probably spend more on computers and tech equipment than average.
Also... since this is not 1991, a ton of people are on the Internet... right?
Quote:
Or from people who like to build their own machines. As indicated in Dells quarterly sales most of the computers it sells are its cheapest with little to no expensive upgrading.
Apple streamlines its costs by offering little differentiation.
Apple may realize some savings from limited BTO, but if you go to their site you can still come up with quite a number of configuration combinations. Given that, how much is saved from having approx 2,000 combinations as Apple does, as opposed to full-on BTO? I doubt that much, especially since, as you say, many people do not use BTO. So why half-ass it?
They don't have to go to Dell's extreme, since beyond a certain point it gets confusing to mainstream customers, but there's things they could do without going to extremes which would make Macs a more appealing choice to switchers. Such as being able to upgrade the GPU on MBs, for instance.(though some will say that would cannibalize MBP sales. Those same folks, however, are always the ones who say that 'no one cares about graphics' except gamers, thus negating their own point. )
I have a MBP - 2G Core Duo and a PB G4 1.25G, i will probably replace the PB with a 13" MB instead of MBP because i wanted better portability for this unit. It can drive a 24" at full res (1920x1200), i dont use graphics intensive apps - so i hope the IG wont be a drag.
But i do agree a 15" MB will be a sales winner for Apple.
Look, Apple has to do something. The fact that it's a $600 jump from the top of the line 13-inch MacBook to the 15-inch MacBook Pro is bad for consumers. Most consumers want the larger display. Otherwise they wouldn't be the most popular LCD screen size. The PC manufacturers have already figured this out. Although I think Apple already knows this, but was just trying to get everything over to Intel from PPC and have it look similar to show a seamless transition.
Ideally the pic your own screen size and BTO-it is the way to go. I wish Apple would have one notebook form factor and let YOU decide whether you want Integrated graphics, etc.
Wonder if the 15,4" MacBook will come with integrated graphicscard too? That's sort of what's kept me from buying the MacBook, i'm not convinced yet if the 13,3" MacBooks graphicscard is powerful enough. I sort of wish the MacBook will get revised too, or that there will be a 13,3" MacBook Pro
If Apple uses an Intel chipset then the rumored MacBooks will have the GMA X3000, the successor to the GMA 950 currently used. This newer IGP is now available on desktop G965 motherboards and will be used for the upcoming Santa Rosa platform for laptops. The performance under Windows is quite good for an IGP and Intel has open sourced its drivers for Linux. Apple has reportedly done a good job with the GMA 950 drivers so I expect good things for the X3000.
El Reg recently did a comparative review between the X3000 and nVidia IGPs. Check it out.
I'll buy one of these 15.4" MacBooks in an instant if it weighs less than 6 lbs. I don't care about the size as much as the weight. The GMA X3000 GPU can handle Windows Vista just fine so I'm sure Apple can extract even better performance out of it.
But aside from Leopard, what is particularly new and exciting in the Mac space?
The entire switch to Intel is new and exciting. Apple having sold nearly 2 million computers in 2006, many people seem to agree.
Quote:
So if even 2.5% of people care (a very reachable number), they can potentially double their marketshare, which is huge.
I believe Apple's market share growth is based on the strength and acceptance of OS X and its software more than the configuration of its hardware.
Quote:
So, reducing the Mac-PC price delta to something a lot more reasonable is a big deal, and helps Apple's marketshare, since currently about half of Mac sales are to folks who are new to the platform, not diehards like you and I.
I think its fine they offer more laptop options. I'm just saying they should not follow Dell.
Quote:
Which is chock full of folks who tend to be more tech-savvy than average, and who probably spend more on computers and tech equipment than average.
Its hard to tell I hear a lot more bellyaching about Apple pricing on this board than I hear out in regular life.
Quote:
Such as being able to upgrade the GPU on MBs,
Ultimately only Apple knows the feasibility of this, I'm sure their are some pretty strict heat tolerances in Apple's notebooks. What would be the point of putting in a faster GPU but forced to under-clock it to keep the heat manageable.
Quote:
Ideally the pic your own screen size and BTO-it is the way to go. I wish Apple would have one notebook form factor and let YOU decide whether you want Integrated graphics, etc.
I agree Apple should broaden its notebook offers, which it sounds as if they are doing. But I don't see he point of offering a 17" laptop with MacBook innards.
I don't see he point of offering a 17" laptop with MacBook innards.
Why not? You can buy a low-end 17-inch notebook from just about every other manufacturer. If you want a 17-inch screen, you shouldn't have to pay a fortune to get features (innards) that you won't use. This is the same argument and reasoning with the 15.4-inch display on the MacBook.
I suspect Apple might put in a low-end GPU just to make the 15" MacBook (if it's real) the bridge system they want it to be. I can almost see the specs now (keeping in mind that these are based on CPU and graphics tech we know is coming out):
1440x900 display
2.2GHz Core 2 Duo (Santa Rosa platform)
1GB of RAM
8X dual-layer Superdrive (assuming improvements/size help out)
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the reason that the 17-inch MacBook Pro is not as popular as the 15-inch isn't as much about the size as it is the fact that its price is out of range for ordinary people? With the Intel IG x3000 a 17-inch model at $1,799 would be Apple-priced and still a little too expensive, but what an average consumer would want.
Apple admitted in their last quarterly conference call that they were upselling consumers to the 15-inch MacBook Pro. That tells me that people want more choice — other than JUST 13.3-inch displays.
Pardon if this is off topic, but from what you all know, is the rumored update to the MacBook Pro (LED backlight... and ... anything else?) a BIG deal? In other words, is it an update truly waiting until optimistically Q2 for? I ask because I'm interested in how much a difference an LED backlight will truly make (and also because I'm deliberating buying one now )
Pardon if this is off topic, but from what you all know, is the rumored update to the MacBook Pro (LED backlight... and ... anything else?) a BIG deal? In other words, is it an update truly waiting until optimistically Q2 for? I ask because I'm interested in how much a difference an LED backlight will truly make (and also because I'm deliberating buying one now )
It's a question no one has the answer to other than Apple. I didn't think LED backlight was coming this next generation anyway though.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the reason that the 17-inch MacBook Pro is not as popular as the 15-inch isn't as much about the size as it is the fact that its price is out of range for ordinary people?
Yes its not made for ordinary people. 17" MBP is intended as a desktop replacement targeted at professionals.
Dell and HP are fighting for market share. Neither are as brand or product conscious and are more willing to do anything. That certainly does not make their strategies the best to follow.
Quote:
Apple admitted in their last quarterly conference call that they were upselling consumers to the 15-inch MacBook Pro. That tells me that people want more choice — other than JUST 13.3-inch displays.
I'm sure there is a healthy market for 15" form factor. Looking at it logically though more people would prefer the size and weight of the 13" over the 17".
Look, Apple has to do something. The fact that it's a $600 jump from the top of the line 13-inch MacBook to the 15-inch MacBook Pro is bad for consumers. Most consumers want the larger display. Otherwise they wouldn't be the most popular LCD screen size. The PC manufacturers have already figured this out. Although I think Apple already knows this, but was just trying to get everything over to Intel from PPC and have it look similar to show a seamless transition.
Exactly. The transition to Intel is complete...it's now just a matter of differentiating the product lines a bit more clearly. And for that to happen, Intel had to provide the road map in terms of chip hierarchy.
A 15" MB would be a welcome addition. My guess is Apple will soon use the Santa Rosa chips for MacBook Pros and Merom chips for MB's.
Anything higher than 1440x900 for the MBP? This res is too big, an res independent apps are gona take foreva. I want a higher res option thanks and more USB ports an 2x eSATA.
Maybe not. Dell now offers cheap 15" notebooks (sub-$1000) that do 1680x1050. Apple would have to frak things up pretty extensively to not offer an equivalent res what is likely to be a considerably more expensive product.
That said, I, like you, have seen them be arrogant/complacent before on matters such as this.
.
I'd think that putting a 1680x1050 screen on a 15" laptop would be a good sign of them having lost their marbles. That's a ridiculous resolution without a resolution independent OS and applications.
You may WANT a 15" laptop but I bet you don't want a 1280x800 screen and integrated graphics like almost every cheap consumer widescreen laptop out there. I suspect that would be what Apple would give you otherwise there would be little reason to buy a Pro.
Comments
I would strongly prefer Intel GPU's for one reason and only one reason. That is that they have released the specs on the GPU to support driver development. This is something that is very important if you primarily run Linux. Going to the Santa Rosa Platform and take advantage of better performance would really make me smile.
That is a minimal improvement that I'd like to see. Hopefully by going to Santa Rosa we will have much better 64 bit support. A low end laptop that can be configured to operate with 4 giga bytes of RAM would be very nice. I think this is doable on a small laptop. I'd also like to see a card bus slot also. Either that or a bunch more USB ports.
I'd also like to see Apple standardize the power input on its laptops and minis around one connector and voltage range. The idea here is maximizing operational flexibility. For example if Apple could come up with a standardized power input range of like 10 to 38 volts DC one could then operate their hardware in a number of environments without expensive DC to DC converters. For example directly off a cars or boats electrical system, a solar panel or a super cap. A simple and easy hook up to a solar panel would be great for people that enjoy the great outdoors but still want a PC around.
In any event everyone here must realize that the Mac Books will be revised soon. The interesting question is will the feature set change dramatically, that is beyond the screen. At this point I guess not.
Dave
Yep, but the point is, you can run Windows software on a Mac.
That's only a selling point to people who are already interested in using OS X. The far majority of people don't care.
Better pricing, more BTO flexibility, and filling the major (not all) product line gaps would be good for that.
The only way better pricing would work to increase market share with people who care about price is if Apple sold below $1000 computers.
The only time I ever hear about BTO options is on the internet. Or from people who like to build their own machines. As indicated in Dells quarterly sales most of the computers it sells are its cheapest with little to no expensive upgrading.
Apple streamlines its costs by offering little differentiation.
(The ability to run Windows is) only a selling point to people who are already interested in using OS X. The far majority of people don't care.
Apple doesn't need the vast majority of people to care. Their worldwide marketshare is only 2.5% or thereabouts. So if even 2.5% of people care (a very reachable number), they can potentially double their marketshare, which is huge.
The only way better pricing would work to increase market share with people who care about price is if Apple sold below $1000 computers.
No. But Apple already sells sub-$1000 computers (iMac, Mac mini).
You don't have to be at a bottom-end pricepoint to care about pricing and value. Look at this 15" Macbook story we're commenting about, for example. A 15" MB wouldn't be a low-end product... best guess is that it'd probably take the place of the black Macbook and go for around $1499. And its a big deal because, sans that product appearing, you have to shell out $2000 to get a Mac notebook with that screen size.
Whereas on the PC side, you can get a Dell notebook with a 15" screen and 1680x1050 resolution for around $1000 (though most 15" PC notebooks are priced a bit higher).
Yes, the Apple notebook offers better design, a better OS, etc. Probably even better reliability, from what I've seen of Dells. But is it really $1000 better? Diehards like you and me might say yes. The vast majority of potential switchers and folks new to the market would probably say no.
So, reducing the Mac-PC price delta to something a lot more reasonable is a big deal, and helps Apple's marketshare, since currently about half of Mac sales are to folks who are new to the platform, not diehards like you and I.
Perceived value is important, and pricing is part of that- and not just at the low-end.
The only time I ever hear about BTO options is on the internet.
Which is chock full of folks who tend to be more tech-savvy than average, and who probably spend more on computers and tech equipment than average.
Also... since this is not 1991, a ton of people are on the Internet... right?
Or from people who like to build their own machines. As indicated in Dells quarterly sales most of the computers it sells are its cheapest with little to no expensive upgrading.
Apple streamlines its costs by offering little differentiation.
Apple may realize some savings from limited BTO, but if you go to their site you can still come up with quite a number of configuration combinations. Given that, how much is saved from having approx 2,000 combinations as Apple does, as opposed to full-on BTO? I doubt that much, especially since, as you say, many people do not use BTO. So why half-ass it?
They don't have to go to Dell's extreme, since beyond a certain point it gets confusing to mainstream customers, but there's things they could do without going to extremes which would make Macs a more appealing choice to switchers. Such as being able to upgrade the GPU on MBs, for instance.(though some will say that would cannibalize MBP sales. Those same folks, however, are always the ones who say that 'no one cares about graphics' except gamers, thus negating their own point.
.
But i do agree a 15" MB will be a sales winner for Apple.
Ideally the pic your own screen size and BTO-it is the way to go. I wish Apple would have one notebook form factor and let YOU decide whether you want Integrated graphics, etc.
Wonder if the 15,4" MacBook will come with integrated graphicscard too? That's sort of what's kept me from buying the MacBook, i'm not convinced yet if the 13,3" MacBooks graphicscard is powerful enough. I sort of wish the MacBook will get revised too, or that there will be a 13,3" MacBook Pro
If Apple uses an Intel chipset then the rumored MacBooks will have the GMA X3000, the successor to the GMA 950 currently used. This newer IGP is now available on desktop G965 motherboards and will be used for the upcoming Santa Rosa platform for laptops. The performance under Windows is quite good for an IGP and Intel has open sourced its drivers for Linux. Apple has reportedly done a good job with the GMA 950 drivers so I expect good things for the X3000.
El Reg recently did a comparative review between the X3000 and nVidia IGPs. Check it out.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12...md_integrated/
But aside from Leopard, what is particularly new and exciting in the Mac space?
The entire switch to Intel is new and exciting. Apple having sold nearly 2 million computers in 2006, many people seem to agree.
So if even 2.5% of people care (a very reachable number), they can potentially double their marketshare, which is huge.
I believe Apple's market share growth is based on the strength and acceptance of OS X and its software more than the configuration of its hardware.
So, reducing the Mac-PC price delta to something a lot more reasonable is a big deal, and helps Apple's marketshare, since currently about half of Mac sales are to folks who are new to the platform, not diehards like you and I.
I think its fine they offer more laptop options. I'm just saying they should not follow Dell.
Which is chock full of folks who tend to be more tech-savvy than average, and who probably spend more on computers and tech equipment than average.
Its hard to tell I hear a lot more bellyaching about Apple pricing on this board than I hear out in regular life.
Such as being able to upgrade the GPU on MBs,
Ultimately only Apple knows the feasibility of this, I'm sure their are some pretty strict heat tolerances in Apple's notebooks. What would be the point of putting in a faster GPU but forced to under-clock it to keep the heat manageable.
Ideally the pic your own screen size and BTO-it is the way to go. I wish Apple would have one notebook form factor and let YOU decide whether you want Integrated graphics, etc.
I agree Apple should broaden its notebook offers, which it sounds as if they are doing. But I don't see he point of offering a 17" laptop with MacBook innards.
I don't see he point of offering a 17" laptop with MacBook innards.
Why not? You can buy a low-end 17-inch notebook from just about every other manufacturer. If you want a 17-inch screen, you shouldn't have to pay a fortune to get features (innards) that you won't use. This is the same argument and reasoning with the 15.4-inch display on the MacBook.
Apple must see ample demand in 15" notebooks.
1440x900 display
2.2GHz Core 2 Duo (Santa Rosa platform)
1GB of RAM
8X dual-layer Superdrive (assuming improvements/size help out)
120GB hard drive
128MB Mobility Radeon X2300 video
I'd buy it.
Apple admitted in their last quarterly conference call that they were upselling consumers to the 15-inch MacBook Pro. That tells me that people want more choice — other than JUST 13.3-inch displays.
Pardon if this is off topic, but from what you all know, is the rumored update to the MacBook Pro (LED backlight... and ... anything else?) a BIG deal? In other words, is it an update truly waiting until optimistically Q2 for? I ask because I'm interested in how much a difference an LED backlight will truly make (and also because I'm deliberating buying one now
It's a question no one has the answer to other than Apple. I didn't think LED backlight was coming this next generation anyway though.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the reason that the 17-inch MacBook Pro is not as popular as the 15-inch isn't as much about the size as it is the fact that its price is out of range for ordinary people?
Yes its not made for ordinary people. 17" MBP is intended as a desktop replacement targeted at professionals.
Dell and HP are fighting for market share. Neither are as brand or product conscious and are more willing to do anything. That certainly does not make their strategies the best to follow.
Apple admitted in their last quarterly conference call that they were upselling consumers to the 15-inch MacBook Pro. That tells me that people want more choice — other than JUST 13.3-inch displays.
I'm sure there is a healthy market for 15" form factor. Looking at it logically though more people would prefer the size and weight of the 13" over the 17".
Look, Apple has to do something. The fact that it's a $600 jump from the top of the line 13-inch MacBook to the 15-inch MacBook Pro is bad for consumers. Most consumers want the larger display. Otherwise they wouldn't be the most popular LCD screen size. The PC manufacturers have already figured this out. Although I think Apple already knows this, but was just trying to get everything over to Intel from PPC and have it look similar to show a seamless transition.
Exactly. The transition to Intel is complete...it's now just a matter of differentiating the product lines a bit more clearly. And for that to happen, Intel had to provide the road map in terms of chip hierarchy.
A 15" MB would be a welcome addition. My guess is Apple will soon use the Santa Rosa chips for MacBook Pros and Merom chips for MB's.
Maybe not. Dell now offers cheap 15" notebooks (sub-$1000) that do 1680x1050. Apple would have to frak things up pretty extensively to not offer an equivalent res what is likely to be a considerably more expensive product.
That said, I, like you, have seen them be arrogant/complacent before on matters such as this.
.
I'd think that putting a 1680x1050 screen on a 15" laptop would be a good sign of them having lost their marbles. That's a ridiculous resolution without a resolution independent OS and applications.
You may WANT a 15" laptop but I bet you don't want a 1280x800 screen and integrated graphics like almost every cheap consumer widescreen laptop out there. I suspect that would be what Apple would give you otherwise there would be little reason to buy a Pro.
What if the present MBP became the new MB and the new MBP incorporated the rumored above with the new Santa Rosa chip set?