Rather than think of it as far far away from the top-of-the-line MacBook, think of it as very, very close to an ultraportable with no optical drive...
I've had CD and then DVD burners on my computers since they came out. It's been so painful to do system backups this way that I've only done it a couple of times. Not to mention expensive.
Using optical media for backups or file transfers is so backwards these days. This also seems to be Apple's thoughts on the matter. A DVD burner would be expensive, as well as the media to go with it. You could get an external drive or a flash drive, probably for the same money.
You could set up Time Machine with an external drive for backups, just plug it in at night and let it do its thing. If you need to transfer files, use a flash drive or wifi.
Dude, that's not the point. Of course no one is forcing anyone to buy the black model. But the fact that you purchase an equally-equipped white MacBook for $125 less JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
Nice looking clothing costs more than ugly clothing.
Nice looking furniture costs more than ugly furniture.
Nice looking cars cost more than ugly cars.
Nice looking paintings cost more than ugly paintings.
I agree that "nice looking" can be subjective, but now you can add computers to the list. Black is a style choice - obviously you feel strongly that black is nicer, so why not charge more for something they know their customers feel strongly about?
Okay, I guarantee that the black finish does not cost anywhere near $25, much less $125 more than the white finish.
Retail price has nothing to do with what something costs to make, except that it has to be more. It has to do with the consumer demand, and what the market will bear.
Quote:
The fact that SOMEHOW Apple can convince people to buy the black model for a premium is baffling to me. And since they can make a profit on it, it makes sense in a monetary sense... and I don't blame them for doing so.
Actually, most likely they did consumer research, found that there was a huge demand for the black color, tested it by offering it for the additional $150, found that it sold like crazy, and continue to do so. It's that simple. It works two ways - those who want the "top of the line" get the black color so that everyone knows they bought the top of the line, and conversely, those who just wanted the black color feel less guilty because they also got other features with it and can justify it by thinking it is more future-proof.
Does anyone else care to (try to) justify to me why the Black Tax is okay?
It's all part of capitalism. You charge what you can, to make money. At the same time you try to avoid the perception that you're gouging your customers making them buy from the competition. It's a fine line. Apple offers a choice of black and white MacBooks. What's wrong with that?
Listing an example of a similar occurence of this phenomenon does not justify Apple. In fact, $10,000 of a $200k car is a 5% premium. $175 of a $1500 computer is 11%. So what Apple is doing is twice as bad a Ferrari.
Besides, I wouldn't call a $1500 laptop (nor the color black) a "luxury item" anyway.-Clive
I wasn't making a one-to-one example price-wise; what I was pointing out is that the color "black" has been charged for more across-the-board for years now in various luxury situations. And although you may not consider a $1500 laptop a luxury, part of what Apple sells is the "luxury experience."
The reason I got a PowerBook (originally, and now a MBP) was everyone in Iceland (I was working on a series up there) had one and they were the sexiest laptops I had ever seen. Pure visual envy. Then I tried the keyboards (my most important piece of equipment in some ways, as I write mostly). Then I saw all my apps could be had on the Mac. Then I bought. But it was the luxuriousness, the sexiness that drew me to it.
Listing an example of a similar occurence of this phenomenon does not justify Apple. In fact, $10,000 of a $200k car is a 5% premium. $175 of a $1500 computer is 11%. So what Apple is doing is twice as bad a Ferrari.
Besides, I wouldn't call a $1500 laptop (nor the color black) a "luxury item" anyway.
This is such an unimportant issue. I'm amazed at how much bile is pouring out about it.
Quote:
So then, why wouldn't it be the other way around? Since white is less popular, have it carry the premium price tag. That's like charging $4/bag on Cheese Dorritos but $3/bag on the less-popular Garlic-Onion-Ranch-BBQ Doritos.
I repeat: IT MAKES NO SENSE!
It may make no sense to you, but it does make sense.
You're saying that Apple should charge more for the less desirable model?
No, that would make no sense!
Quote:
Does anyone else care to (try to) justify to me why the Black Tax is okay?
-Clive
This "tax" bit is getting tired. It's not a tax. You don't have to buy it. Apple charges what they think it's worth. You don't have to agree. I see a fair amount of people with one, so obviously they think it's worth it.
Does anyone else care to (try to) justify to me why the Black Tax is okay?
We've done it already but you are ignoring us.
The black colour serves no functional purpose whatsoever. It is purely aesthetic, you can buy a white one with the same functionality for less if you want. The choice is yours. There's no point whining about it because Apple are not withholding for ransom functionality delivered by the competition. If you want the black but don't think it is worth it, don't buy it.
looks like EVERYONE here happy to pay $200 more for MBB and give all kinda of excuses, but i am seeing the sales LOST due to not having white and black models on $1099, $1299, $1499 price structure with appropriate specs difference between them ...
the white case is not better than black for following reasons
*it gets dirt easily
*sore in the eye
*White is gone from the entire Product line may be except mouse, airport extreme station
*display on the black background standsout from white background
*it is long enough iBook aka MacBook needs go away from white
the entire issues stops if they came out in Grey and Black color like iPod classic then it is upto Apple to differentiate between $1299 and $1499 model assuming $1099 keeps COMBO DRIVE FOREVER!
well, even though i am Apple fanboy i differ in this issue ... i know many of you differ in this issue, this is my humble opinion. it is not about the price not having a choice!
This is such an unimportant issue. I'm amazed at how much bile is pouring out about it.
It may make no sense to you, but it does make sense.
You're saying that Apple should charge more for the less desirable model?
No, that would make no sense!
This "tax" bit is getting tired. It's not a tax. You don't have to buy it. Apple charges what they think it's worth. You don't have to agree. I see a fair amount of people with one, so obviously they think it's worth it.
only Sales figures of $1099, $1299 or $1499 will tell the story what customers are buying/prefering ....
looks like EVERYONE here happy to pay $200 more for MBB and give all kinda of excuses, but i am seeing the sales LOST due to not having white and black models on $1099, $1299, $1499 price structure with appropriate specs difference between them ...
the white case is not better than black for following reasons
*it gets dirt easily
*sore in the eye
*White is gone from the entire Product line may be except mouse, airport extreme station
*display on the black background standsout from white background
*it is long enough iBook aka MacBook needs go away from white
the entire issues stops if they came out in Grey and Black color like iPod classic then it is upto Apple to differentiate between $1299 and $1499 model assuming $1099 keeps COMBO DRIVE FOREVER!
well, even though i am Apple fanboy i differ in this issue ... i know many of you differ in this issue, this is my humble opinion. it is not about the price not having a choice!
I can't find even one thing you said here that makes sense.
only Sales figures of $1099, $1299 or $1499 will tell the story what customers are buying/prefering ....
As with most of Apple's products, it's likely the more expensive models that sell the best, except where schools are concerned, which would tend to skew the figures.
Nice looking clothing costs more than ugly clothing.
Nice looking furniture costs more than ugly furniture.
Nice looking cars cost more than ugly cars.
Nice looking paintings cost more than ugly paintings.
I agree that "nice looking" can be subjective, but now you can add computers to the list. Black is a style choice - obviously you feel strongly that black is nicer, so why not charge more for something they know their customers feel strongly about?
It's not about nice-looking and ugly-looking... In every other way the MacBooks are the same. If your favorite color was green and you found a blue shirt you loved at $20, how eager would you be to pay $25 for the EXACT SAME SHIRT in green?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy
Retail price has nothing to do with what something costs to make, except that it has to be more. It has to do with the consumer demand, and what the market will bear.
Actually, most likely they did consumer research, found that there was a huge demand for the black color, tested it by offering it for the additional $150, found that it sold like crazy, and continue to do so. It's that simple. It works two ways - those who want the "top of the line" get the black color so that everyone knows they bought the top of the line, and conversely, those who just wanted the black color feel less guilty because they also got other features with it and can justify it by thinking it is more future-proof.
I want the top of the line as well, but I'll buy the white model and upgrade it myself. Like I said before, those who buy a certain color MacBook as a status symbol or "just because the want black" have a level of vanity I do not understand.
I'd be willing to bet that very few, blackbook purchasers justify themselves with the "future-proof argument."
And if the black color premium was just to test the demand, why is Apple still doing it two years later? It's no longer a test. It's a tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iDave
It's all part of capitalism. You charge what you can, to make money. At the same time you try to avoid the perception that you're gouging your customers making them buy from the competition. It's a fine line. Apple offers a choice of black and white MacBooks. What's wrong with that?
Like I said earlier, I don't blame Apple for capitalizing on it. If people are vain enough (or just swimming in ample money) to pay for the black MacBook, then shouldn't Apple capitalize on it? I just think it's idiotic of buyers and mean of Apple to do so. Why not just offer black and white side-by-side? I know there's the opportunity to make money on black, but it just seems ridiculous. As I said above: a clothing manufacturer wouldn't charge different prices on the same item in different colors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzaslove
I wasn't making a one-to-one example price-wise; what I was pointing out is that the color "black" has been charged for more across-the-board for years now in various luxury situations. And although you may not consider a $1500 laptop a luxury, part of what Apple sells is the "luxury experience."
The reason I got a PowerBook (originally, and now a MBP) was everyone in Iceland (I was working on a series up there) had one and they were the sexiest laptops I had ever seen. Pure visual envy. Then I tried the keyboards (my most important piece of equipment in some ways, as I write mostly). Then I saw all my apps could be had on the Mac. Then I bought. But it was the luxuriousness, the sexiness that drew me to it.
Apple sells that.
Apple sells the "luxury experience???" Via the color black?
Let's back the truck up.
If Apple sells the "luxury experience" on all of their systems, then the tax would be between Macs and PCs. This premium between Macs and PCs is justifiable because the advantages of using a Mac are beyond aesthetic.
If Apple sells the "luxury experience" between whitebooks and blackbooks,
It may make no sense to you, but it does make sense.
You're saying that Apple should charge more for the less desirable model?
No, that would make no sense!
No... I'm saying Apple shouldn't charge a premium for a color. It's a color for Trogdor's sake, not a fashion statement (at least not to me).
I'm not saying that it isn't wise from a monetary respect, because Apple CAN (and does) make money off of it. It's just very lame of them to do so. That's why it makes no sense to me. Why charge more for something so lame as a color.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
We've done it already but you are ignoring us.
The black colour serves no functional purpose whatsoever. It is purely aesthetic, you can buy a white one with the same functionality for less if you want. The choice is yours. There's no point whining about it because Apple are not withholding for ransom functionality delivered by the competition. If you want the black but don't think it is worth it, don't buy it.
Dude, I don't even want Black. In fact, I'd rather have white. I'm just baffled by the situation. I don't understand why Apple would want to charge more for a certain color (aside from "because they can"); I don't understand why people would allow Apple to charge them more for for black; and, lastly, I don't understand why people would PAY more for black.
You've got yourself in quite a pickle haven't you! You have your answer - Apple do it because they make more money that way - and yet you are still going on about it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
I'm just baffled by the situation. I don't understand why Apple would want to charge more for a certain color (aside from "because they can")
There is no other reason besides "because they can". In fact it would be a really dumb business move to remove the premium given that people are willing to pay it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
I don't understand why people would PAY more for black.
I agree with you on that one. A $125 premium doesn't seem worth it to me.
Apple sells the "luxury experience???" Via the color black?
Let's back the truck up.
If Apple sells the "luxury experience" on all of their systems, then the tax would be between Macs and PCs. This premium between Macs and PCs is justifiable because the advantages of using a Mac are beyond aesthetic.
If Apple sells the "luxury experience" between whitebooks and blackbooks,
As I said earlier, black has been considered a luxury color for quite awhile on various things from cars to fashion. Apple partially sells on luxury (my computer's cooler than your computer). They sell luxury over most PC's, and they are differentiating the "top" MacBook with the color black. It's a status thang. Why a Mercedes over a Volvo? Why a "name" jean over a Levis? Why a Glen Scotia over... wait, Glen Scotia's better than that. There are many reasons to take a Mac over a PC, but one of them is the aesthetic. Black is cooler (according to the trend), and they charge accordingly. Me, I took the red Ferrari (granted, I was in my twenties, so what did I know?).
I don't understand why Apple would want to charge more for a certain color (aside from "because they can");
-Clive
Didn't you know? Apple has always charged more for certain colors. Remember the original iMacs? Flower Power, anyone? People would walk in and say, "Ooo, I want the blue one!" They had no idea that the specs were different on each color model. They would pay whatever the price was for the color they wanted. I saw this happen more times than I could count. Did you want a black iPod nano with that? Yes, that will cost $50 more than the generic silver one. The spec differences in Apple's color line-up has always been specious. Since the first color options rolled out, this has always been the case. I don't see any sign of it stopping now. This is not some new aberrant behavior that started with the MacBook. This is just business as usual.
I am not disputing the correctness of what you are saying, but you should take issue with the media, as every single source I have read refers to the architecture in the Macbook Pros and now the MacBooks as Santa Rosa. Currently, both of Apple's notebooks use the GMA X3100 graphics, 800mhz front side bus, and other attributes of the Santa Rosa architecture.
It would be helpful if you provided a reliable link explaining this difference, as I have never heard of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
* Santa Rosa is the code-name of the latest Centrino "platform". Apple does not use this is any of their laptops, as it includes Intel's wireless chips which Apple don't use. The Santa Rosa platform consists of Merom CPU, Mobile 965 Express chipset (code-named Crestline), GMA X3100 graphics, and the Intel Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN (a/b/g/draft-n) mini-PCIe Wi-Fi adapter.
Strictly speaking, the MacBook Pro and MacBook should be referred to as "Crestline" machines rather than "Santa Rosa" machines.
Comments
Rather than think of it as far far away from the top-of-the-line MacBook, think of it as very, very close to an ultraportable with no optical drive...
I've had CD and then DVD burners on my computers since they came out. It's been so painful to do system backups this way that I've only done it a couple of times. Not to mention expensive.
Using optical media for backups or file transfers is so backwards these days. This also seems to be Apple's thoughts on the matter. A DVD burner would be expensive, as well as the media to go with it. You could get an external drive or a flash drive, probably for the same money.
You could set up Time Machine with an external drive for backups, just plug it in at night and let it do its thing. If you need to transfer files, use a flash drive or wifi.
Dude, that's not the point. Of course no one is forcing anyone to buy the black model. But the fact that you purchase an equally-equipped white MacBook for $125 less JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
Nice looking clothing costs more than ugly clothing.
Nice looking furniture costs more than ugly furniture.
Nice looking cars cost more than ugly cars.
Nice looking paintings cost more than ugly paintings.
I agree that "nice looking" can be subjective, but now you can add computers to the list. Black is a style choice - obviously you feel strongly that black is nicer, so why not charge more for something they know their customers feel strongly about?
Okay, I guarantee that the black finish does not cost anywhere near $25, much less $125 more than the white finish.
Retail price has nothing to do with what something costs to make, except that it has to be more. It has to do with the consumer demand, and what the market will bear.
The fact that SOMEHOW Apple can convince people to buy the black model for a premium is baffling to me. And since they can make a profit on it, it makes sense in a monetary sense... and I don't blame them for doing so.
Actually, most likely they did consumer research, found that there was a huge demand for the black color, tested it by offering it for the additional $150, found that it sold like crazy, and continue to do so. It's that simple. It works two ways - those who want the "top of the line" get the black color so that everyone knows they bought the top of the line, and conversely, those who just wanted the black color feel less guilty because they also got other features with it and can justify it by thinking it is more future-proof.
Does anyone else care to (try to) justify to me why the Black Tax is okay?
It's all part of capitalism. You charge what you can, to make money. At the same time you try to avoid the perception that you're gouging your customers making them buy from the competition. It's a fine line. Apple offers a choice of black and white MacBooks. What's wrong with that?
Listing an example of a similar occurence of this phenomenon does not justify Apple. In fact, $10,000 of a $200k car is a 5% premium. $175 of a $1500 computer is 11%. So what Apple is doing is twice as bad a Ferrari.
Besides, I wouldn't call a $1500 laptop (nor the color black) a "luxury item" anyway.-Clive
I wasn't making a one-to-one example price-wise; what I was pointing out is that the color "black" has been charged for more across-the-board for years now in various luxury situations. And although you may not consider a $1500 laptop a luxury, part of what Apple sells is the "luxury experience."
The reason I got a PowerBook (originally, and now a MBP) was everyone in Iceland (I was working on a series up there) had one and they were the sexiest laptops I had ever seen. Pure visual envy. Then I tried the keyboards (my most important piece of equipment in some ways, as I write mostly). Then I saw all my apps could be had on the Mac. Then I bought. But it was the luxuriousness, the sexiness that drew me to it.
Apple sells that.
Listing an example of a similar occurence of this phenomenon does not justify Apple. In fact, $10,000 of a $200k car is a 5% premium. $175 of a $1500 computer is 11%. So what Apple is doing is twice as bad a Ferrari.
Besides, I wouldn't call a $1500 laptop (nor the color black) a "luxury item" anyway.
This is such an unimportant issue. I'm amazed at how much bile is pouring out about it.
So then, why wouldn't it be the other way around? Since white is less popular, have it carry the premium price tag. That's like charging $4/bag on Cheese Dorritos but $3/bag on the less-popular Garlic-Onion-Ranch-BBQ Doritos.
I repeat: IT MAKES NO SENSE!
It may make no sense to you, but it does make sense.
You're saying that Apple should charge more for the less desirable model?
No, that would make no sense!
Does anyone else care to (try to) justify to me why the Black Tax is okay?
-Clive
This "tax" bit is getting tired. It's not a tax. You don't have to buy it. Apple charges what they think it's worth. You don't have to agree. I see a fair amount of people with one, so obviously they think it's worth it.
Does anyone else care to (try to) justify to me why the Black Tax is okay?
We've done it already but you are ignoring us.
The black colour serves no functional purpose whatsoever. It is purely aesthetic, you can buy a white one with the same functionality for less if you want. The choice is yours. There's no point whining about it because Apple are not withholding for ransom functionality delivered by the competition. If you want the black but don't think it is worth it, don't buy it.
the white case is not better than black for following reasons
*it gets dirt easily
*sore in the eye
*White is gone from the entire Product line may be except mouse, airport extreme station
*display on the black background standsout from white background
*it is long enough iBook aka MacBook needs go away from white
the entire issues stops if they came out in Grey and Black color like iPod classic then it is upto Apple to differentiate between $1299 and $1499 model assuming $1099 keeps COMBO DRIVE FOREVER!
well, even though i am Apple fanboy i differ in this issue ... i know many of you differ in this issue, this is my humble opinion. it is not about the price not having a choice!
This is such an unimportant issue. I'm amazed at how much bile is pouring out about it.
It may make no sense to you, but it does make sense.
You're saying that Apple should charge more for the less desirable model?
No, that would make no sense!
This "tax" bit is getting tired. It's not a tax. You don't have to buy it. Apple charges what they think it's worth. You don't have to agree. I see a fair amount of people with one, so obviously they think it's worth it.
only Sales figures of $1099, $1299 or $1499 will tell the story what customers are buying/prefering ....
looks like EVERYONE here happy to pay $200 more for MBB and give all kinda of excuses, but i am seeing the sales LOST due to not having white and black models on $1099, $1299, $1499 price structure with appropriate specs difference between them ...
the white case is not better than black for following reasons
*it gets dirt easily
*sore in the eye
*White is gone from the entire Product line may be except mouse, airport extreme station
*display on the black background standsout from white background
*it is long enough iBook aka MacBook needs go away from white
the entire issues stops if they came out in Grey and Black color like iPod classic then it is upto Apple to differentiate between $1299 and $1499 model assuming $1099 keeps COMBO DRIVE FOREVER!
well, even though i am Apple fanboy i differ in this issue ... i know many of you differ in this issue, this is my humble opinion. it is not about the price not having a choice!
I can't find even one thing you said here that makes sense.
only Sales figures of $1099, $1299 or $1499 will tell the story what customers are buying/prefering ....
As with most of Apple's products, it's likely the more expensive models that sell the best, except where schools are concerned, which would tend to skew the figures.
I can't find even one thing you said here that makes sense.
Nice looking clothing costs more than ugly clothing.
Nice looking furniture costs more than ugly furniture.
Nice looking cars cost more than ugly cars.
Nice looking paintings cost more than ugly paintings.
I agree that "nice looking" can be subjective, but now you can add computers to the list. Black is a style choice - obviously you feel strongly that black is nicer, so why not charge more for something they know their customers feel strongly about?
It's not about nice-looking and ugly-looking... In every other way the MacBooks are the same. If your favorite color was green and you found a blue shirt you loved at $20, how eager would you be to pay $25 for the EXACT SAME SHIRT in green?
Retail price has nothing to do with what something costs to make, except that it has to be more. It has to do with the consumer demand, and what the market will bear.
Actually, most likely they did consumer research, found that there was a huge demand for the black color, tested it by offering it for the additional $150, found that it sold like crazy, and continue to do so. It's that simple. It works two ways - those who want the "top of the line" get the black color so that everyone knows they bought the top of the line, and conversely, those who just wanted the black color feel less guilty because they also got other features with it and can justify it by thinking it is more future-proof.
I want the top of the line as well, but I'll buy the white model and upgrade it myself. Like I said before, those who buy a certain color MacBook as a status symbol or "just because the want black" have a level of vanity I do not understand.
I'd be willing to bet that very few, blackbook purchasers justify themselves with the "future-proof argument."
And if the black color premium was just to test the demand, why is Apple still doing it two years later? It's no longer a test. It's a tax.
It's all part of capitalism. You charge what you can, to make money. At the same time you try to avoid the perception that you're gouging your customers making them buy from the competition. It's a fine line. Apple offers a choice of black and white MacBooks. What's wrong with that?
Like I said earlier, I don't blame Apple for capitalizing on it. If people are vain enough (or just swimming in ample money) to pay for the black MacBook, then shouldn't Apple capitalize on it? I just think it's idiotic of buyers and mean of Apple to do so. Why not just offer black and white side-by-side? I know there's the opportunity to make money on black, but it just seems ridiculous. As I said above: a clothing manufacturer wouldn't charge different prices on the same item in different colors.
I wasn't making a one-to-one example price-wise; what I was pointing out is that the color "black" has been charged for more across-the-board for years now in various luxury situations. And although you may not consider a $1500 laptop a luxury, part of what Apple sells is the "luxury experience."
The reason I got a PowerBook (originally, and now a MBP) was everyone in Iceland (I was working on a series up there) had one and they were the sexiest laptops I had ever seen. Pure visual envy. Then I tried the keyboards (my most important piece of equipment in some ways, as I write mostly). Then I saw all my apps could be had on the Mac. Then I bought. But it was the luxuriousness, the sexiness that drew me to it.
Apple sells that.
Apple sells the "luxury experience???" Via the color black?
Let's back the truck up.
If Apple sells the "luxury experience" on all of their systems, then the tax would be between Macs and PCs. This premium between Macs and PCs is justifiable because the advantages of using a Mac are beyond aesthetic.
If Apple sells the "luxury experience" between whitebooks and blackbooks,
It may make no sense to you, but it does make sense.
You're saying that Apple should charge more for the less desirable model?
No, that would make no sense!
No... I'm saying Apple shouldn't charge a premium for a color. It's a color for Trogdor's sake, not a fashion statement (at least not to me).
I'm not saying that it isn't wise from a monetary respect, because Apple CAN (and does) make money off of it. It's just very lame of them to do so. That's why it makes no sense to me. Why charge more for something so lame as a color.
We've done it already but you are ignoring us.
The black colour serves no functional purpose whatsoever. It is purely aesthetic, you can buy a white one with the same functionality for less if you want. The choice is yours. There's no point whining about it because Apple are not withholding for ransom functionality delivered by the competition. If you want the black but don't think it is worth it, don't buy it.
Dude, I don't even want Black. In fact, I'd rather have white. I'm just baffled by the situation. I don't understand why Apple would want to charge more for a certain color (aside from "because they can"); I don't understand why people would allow Apple to charge them more for for black; and, lastly, I don't understand why people would PAY more for black.
-Clive
I'm just baffled by the situation. I don't understand why Apple would want to charge more for a certain color (aside from "because they can")
There is no other reason besides "because they can". In fact it would be a really dumb business move to remove the premium given that people are willing to pay it.
I don't understand why people would PAY more for black.
I agree with you on that one. A $125 premium doesn't seem worth it to me.
Apple sells the "luxury experience???" Via the color black?
Let's back the truck up.
If Apple sells the "luxury experience" on all of their systems, then the tax would be between Macs and PCs. This premium between Macs and PCs is justifiable because the advantages of using a Mac are beyond aesthetic.
If Apple sells the "luxury experience" between whitebooks and blackbooks,
As I said earlier, black has been considered a luxury color for quite awhile on various things from cars to fashion. Apple partially sells on luxury (my computer's cooler than your computer). They sell luxury over most PC's, and they are differentiating the "top" MacBook with the color black. It's a status thang. Why a Mercedes over a Volvo? Why a "name" jean over a Levis? Why a Glen Scotia over... wait, Glen Scotia's better than that. There are many reasons to take a Mac over a PC, but one of them is the aesthetic. Black is cooler (according to the trend), and they charge accordingly. Me, I took the red Ferrari (granted, I was in my twenties, so what did I know?).
I don't understand why Apple would want to charge more for a certain color (aside from "because they can");
-Clive
Didn't you know? Apple has always charged more for certain colors. Remember the original iMacs? Flower Power, anyone? People would walk in and say, "Ooo, I want the blue one!" They had no idea that the specs were different on each color model. They would pay whatever the price was for the color they wanted. I saw this happen more times than I could count. Did you want a black iPod nano with that? Yes, that will cost $50 more than the generic silver one. The spec differences in Apple's color line-up has always been specious. Since the first color options rolled out, this has always been the case. I don't see any sign of it stopping now. This is not some new aberrant behavior that started with the MacBook. This is just business as usual.
It would be helpful if you provided a reliable link explaining this difference, as I have never heard of it.
* Santa Rosa is the code-name of the latest Centrino "platform". Apple does not use this is any of their laptops, as it includes Intel's wireless chips which Apple don't use. The Santa Rosa platform consists of Merom CPU, Mobile 965 Express chipset (code-named Crestline), GMA X3100 graphics, and the Intel Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN (a/b/g/draft-n) mini-PCIe Wi-Fi adapter.
Strictly speaking, the MacBook Pro and MacBook should be referred to as "Crestline" machines rather than "Santa Rosa" machines.
It would be helpful if you provided a reliable link explaining this difference, as I have never heard of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrin...orm_.282007.29