With both the Playstation I and II, when technological advances allowed for it, Sony released far slimmer versions with the same capabilities. Likewise, advances in technology has allowed Apple to make 2006's computer components (processor, motherboard) much smaller. The only difference is, Sony sold their far slimmer Playstations for considerably less than the original bulkier models, while Apple charges twice as much, and removes half the capabilities in the process.
Sigh!
You really don't see the difference, do you?
Sony is building a static product. From the beginning of the manufacturing cycle to the end, the specs remain EXACTLY the same. The difference that allowed them to build smaller, less expensive, models was because they sold about 110 million of the things. The same things.
The R&D costs were paid off after a couple of yeasrs. Then the price could be dropped a fair amount over what they were dropped because of manufacturing efficiencies, because of the large sales volume.
After that, while maintaining the same exact specs, several years later, smaller chip process technology allowed the SAME EXACT chips to be manufactured at much less cost, and to use less power, resulting in machines that were smaller, and simpler (smaller power supplies, less cooling). That alowed a smaller, cheaper case, and allowed smaller, cheaper packaging, which, in turn means lower shipping costs, etc.
So, the price can drop to a third of the original price.
So, what does this comparison you made have anything to do with the Mac Air?
There is stuff that goes into the tapered volume. The antennas, wiring, IR reciever, both wireless modules, latches, ports, camera and even the battery seems to go into the taper a bit. Some But maybe the taper could be a bit steeper.
Half of the taper can be removed without changing the machine.
Sony is building a static product. From the beginning of the manufacturing cycle to the end, the specs remain EXACTLY the same. The difference that allowed them to build smaller, less expensive, models was because they sold about 110 million of the things. The same things.
The R&D costs were paid off after a couple of yeasrs. Then the price could be dropped a fair amount over what they were dropped because of manufacturing efficiencies, because of the large sales volume.
After that, while maintaining the same exact specs, several years later, smaller chip process technology allowed the SAME EXACT chips to be manufactured at much less cost, and to use less power, resulting in machines that were smaller, and simpler (smaller power supplies, less cooling). That alowed a smaller, cheaper case, and allowed smaller, cheaper packaging, which, in turn means lower shipping costs, etc.
So, the price can drop to a third of the original price.
So, what does this comparison you made have anything to do with the Mac Air?
Nothing!!!
You're right. Apart from volume, I don't see the difference. The motherboard and processor of the MacBook Air are a smaller cheaper version of what could be found in millions of notebooks two years ago. And if they're not cheaper, then surely eliminating half the components found in a consumer MacBook two years ago is enough to balance out the cost. People would scoff at paying double for the iPod Nano over the iPod Classic, so I don't know why paying double for the Macbook Air makes sense to anyone.
You're right. Apart from volume, I don't see the difference. The motherboard and processor of the MacBook Air are a smaller cheaper version of what could be found in millions of notebooks two years ago. And if they're not cheaper, then surely eliminating half the components found in a consumer MacBook two years ago is enough to balance out the cost. People would scoff at paying double for the iPod Nano over the iPod Classic, so I don't know why paying double for the Macbook Air makes sense to anyone.
Nothing you've said is fact.
These are new components. The processor is a special, for Apple, though it MAY go into production for others, after a time. Apple is paying the price for that. MOBOs don't get cheaper. Look at the mobo's made for PC's and sold by third parties. The prices have risen over the years, not gone down.
It also uses an LED backlit display, which, as we all know, is more expensive than the CFL display backlights. No cheaper computers use them.
You're making geeralized statements that are easy to make, but aren't being backed up by any specific information.
You're also not bothering to refute anything I'm saying, leaving yourself to ignore it, and just come out with, "but its got to be cheaper, it's two years later than computers made two years ago!"
These are new components. The processor is a special, for Apple, though it MAY go into production for others, after a time. Apple is paying the price for that.
It doesn't really matter to the end user if the Dalai Lama hand-crafts each processor himself, they still run at a clockspeed that was considered the low-end two years ago. If the MacBook Air got some phenomenal 8hrs of battery life there would be a consumer advantage here, but as it is we're just being charged more for a painfully slow processor because this time it's apparently more special.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
MOBOs don't get cheaper. Look at the mobo's made for PC's and sold by third parties. The prices have risen over the years, not gone down.
So tell me again why Sony can have a smaller, cheaper motherboard made for their Playstation and Playstation II after the tech is old, but no one else can?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It also uses an LED backlit display, which, as we all know, is more expensive than the CFL display backlights. No cheaper computers use them.
Again, where's the significant battery life improvement that makes this of value? Just like the processor, if there's little to no perceivable improvement over two year old tech, then why pay twice as much for it?
If Apple replaced the clip on the back of the iPod Shuffle's with ones ionized in aluminum mined from the surface of Mars, would it suddenly make sense to pay $800 for a 1GB iPod Shuffle? It'd still clip the same.
It doesn't really matter to the end user if the Dalai Lama hand-crafts each processor himself, they still run at a clockspeed that was considered the low-end two years ago. If the MacBook Air got some phenomenal 8hrs of battery life there would be a consumer advantage here, but as it is we're just being charged more for a painfully slow processor because this time it's apparently more special.
So now you're changing what you're saying. You admit it's a new chip, and just being sold to Apple right now.
Give it up!
You can backtrack all you want. you are still not giving a real reason, just showing your lack of understanding.
Quote:
So tell me again why Sony can have a smaller, cheaper motherboard made for their Playstation and Playstation II after the tech is old, but no one else can?
Because it enables no new circuitry, sells in the tens of millions, and Sony is willing to accept smaller profits than other companies making products that don't rely on sales of tens of millions of highly profitable games each year.
Quote:
Again, where's the significant battery life improvement that makes this of value? Just like the processor, if there's little to no perceivable improvement over two year old tech, then why pay twice as much for it?
Do you know anything at all about what would have happened if they didn't use these new, low power chips, which weren't available even a year ago, much less two years ago? Or the LED backlight, which also gives the screen a much better color gamut.
Where were the 3 pound portables with equivalent specs two years ago?
Quote:
If Apple replaced the clip on the back of the iPod Shuffle's with ones ionized in aluminum mined from the surface of Mars, would it suddenly make sense to pay $800 for a 1GB iPod Shuffle? It'd still clip the same.
The word is anodized. If the metal lasted longer, or had some other characteristic that was better, in a noticeable way, and people were willing to pay for that, then it would be worth it.
But, as you know, that's a pretty far out, and I might say, silly, example.
How is it obvious? [that the Air is a high margin machine]
Take a $1099 MacBook
Remove the optical drive (-$50)
Remove the firewire port (-$0.5)
Remove a USB port (-$0.1)
Remove optical audio in and out (-$0.5)
Remove audio in (-$0.1)
Remove ethernet (-$0.2)
As well as all these things providing obvious savings in terms of cost of the physical drive/connectors (noted above in brackets), there's also the saving in IC count on the motherboard - there's no Firewire chip (-$7), no ethernet chip (-$1) and a smaller, cheaper audio chip (-$1). The Air's motherboard is therefore much smaller than the standard MacBook's (-$10 for smaller PCB).
So, we've saved money on all these things. The machine is also smaller and lighter so packaging and shipping is cheaper than the MacBook (-$10).
So, that's savings of $79.40
Now, what's going to be potentially more expensive?
The HDD is a 1.8" drive rather than a 2.5" drive.
The processor is a small-form-factor Merom.
The keyboard has a backlight.
The case is aluminium.
The screen is L.E.D. backlit rather than CFL.
Manufacture is probably more expensive.
Let's take each in turn:
1.8" HDD Vs. 2.5" HDD:
\tThe HDD in the $1099 MacBook has a capacity of 120 GB. The cheapest 120 GB SATA HDD costs $63 at newegg. The 80 GB iPod, which uses the same HDD as the MacBook Air, costs $249. I reckon the 1.8" HDD probably costs Apple $20 more than the 120 GB HDD.
Custom processor:
\tThere are two things that determine the price of the CPU: the cost of the die, and the cost of the packaging.
\tStarting with the die: Intel's standard line of Core 2 Duos comes in three different voltage specifications: "Normal", Low Voltage (LV), and Ultra-low Voltage (ULV). There's nothing particularly special about the LV and ULV in terms of silicon, they are simply the highest-performing dies from a given wafer. As such, LV and ULV effective yields are low and the price correspondingly higher than the "normal" voltage CPU.
\tFrom Intel's latest price list, a "normal" 1.83 GHz Merom costs $241, a 1.6 LV Merom costs $284. The voltage rating of the MacBook Air's processor is between "normal" and "LV". It therefore stands to reason that the die of the Air's processor costs somewhere between the cost of the normal die and the cost of an LV die.
\tOn the packaging front, I've really no idea. It'll be nice when Intel finally releases the processor properly so we can find out, but I reckon the 1.6 version of the Air's processor costs no more than $300. (cheaper die than the 1.6 LV, but more expensive package).
\tThe processor in the current $1099 MacBook costs $209, so that's a $91 premium for the CPU.
Backlit keyboard:
\tLet's say this is $20 more than the standard keyboard
Aluminium case:
\tThere are rumours that the whole line is going to switch to aluminium, and when the iMac went aluminium, its price didn't go up. I reckon the difference is therefore pretty small. Let's say $10.
L.E.D. backlight:
\tWhen the 15" MacBook Pro went L.E.D., the price didn't go up. L.E.D. is more expensive but not that much more. We all know that the whole line of Apple displays will go L.E.D. by the end of this year (Apple effectively said as much when they promised no mercury in their displays by the end of 2008) and I don't expect the price of the MacBook to increase when that happens. Let's say $5 more for L.E.D. backlighting.
Higher manufacturing costs:
\tLet's say $25.
O.K. so that's increased costs of $171.
Take away the savings of $79.40, and you are left with an overall cost increase of $91.60. But the retail price is $700 more than the MacBook. That makes for much higher margins.
It doesn't really matter to the end user if the Dalai Lama hand-crafts each processor himself, they still run at a clockspeed that was considered the low-end two years ago. If the MacBook Air got some phenomenal 8hrs of battery life there would be a consumer advantage here, but as it is we're just being charged more for a painfully slow processor because this time it's apparently more special.
Painfully slow processor?
You do know that other ultra-portables have maximum CPU speeds of 1.3 GHz, right?
I don't know what's funnier, tired old macbook air hate at this point in the game or someone "breaking out the costs" to identify the margin....amusing.
Personally, I sold my macbook once the air came out, and I have to say, the base model air is the best laptop I've ever owned, for my use. In fact, after giving it a shot, I actually put my 24" iMac up for sale, transferred my iTunes library to my time capsule, synced it all to my appletvs and moved stuff off to my PS3 and got rid of my desktop altogether. The form factor, keyboard quality, and screen quality are RIDICULOUS and its low heat profile means actually USING it isn't a compromise at all, which is something that's often missed.
The ONLY thing it doesn't do well for me is play games, but that's intel, and the what, 85% of consumer laptops being sold with the X3100 all share the same issue. And even then, you can still play Starcraft, Diablo, Desktop Tower Defense, and Peggle just fine.
If you have lofty requirements for a system, that's one thing, and Apple still makes the standard Macbook and Pro, plus their desktop line. However, for MY uses, the air is perfect, and MAN do I love having an ultraportable road warrior that I can also use at home quite ideally.
I've been saying this since the beginning, but so much of the Air hate is because it doesn't meet the hater's needs, as if someone was forcing it upon them. I have no need or use to carry around an optical drive with me. I would never use a parallel port or a firewire port or anything. All that stuff is useless to me 99% of the time, and being able to hook up an optical drive ONLY when I need it is great since I need it so rarely. If your needs differ, super! There are PLENTY of lappers out there for you. What I love is that there's now one out there for me.
Oh, and anyone who complains about the speed of the processor or the HDD speed really hasn't used the system to any significant degree or has pro needs and shouldn't be buying the air in the first place. The system, in the REAL WORLD, is actually really snappy. Clock speed isn't everything, the C2D is a GREAT processor and it has a huge cache.
That's fine. If people don't like it, they don't have to buy it. The Air didn't replace the whole of Apple's portable line, it's just another model.
Besides, I have no idea how I get away with using mine without a firewire port or an ethernet port. Probably because I don't own a firewire device and I have wireless in the house.
As well as all these things providing obvious savings in terms of cost of the physical drive/connectors (noted above in brackets), there's also the saving in IC count on the motherboard - there's no Firewire chip (-$7), no ethernet chip (-$1) and a smaller, cheaper audio chip (-$1). The Air's motherboard is therefore much smaller than the standard MacBook's (-$10 for smaller PCB).
So, we've saved money on all these things. The machine is also smaller and lighter so packaging and shipping is cheaper than the MacBook (-$10).
So, that's savings of $79.40
Now, what's going to be potentially more expensive?
The HDD is a 1.8" drive rather than a 2.5" drive.
The processor is a small-form-factor Merom.
The keyboard has a backlight.
The case is aluminium.
The screen is L.E.D. backlit rather than CFL.
Manufacture is probably more expensive.
Let's take each in turn:
1.8" HDD Vs. 2.5" HDD:
\tThe HDD in the $1099 MacBook has a capacity of 120 GB. The cheapest 120 GB SATA HDD costs $63 at newegg. The 80 GB iPod, which uses the same HDD as the MacBook Air, costs $249. I reckon the 1.8" HDD probably costs Apple $20 more than the 120 GB HDD.
Custom processor:
\tThere are two things that determine the price of the CPU: the cost of the die, and the cost of the packaging.
\tStarting with the die: Intel's standard line of Core 2 Duos comes in three different voltage specifications: "Normal", Low Voltage (LV), and Ultra-low Voltage (ULV). There's nothing particularly special about the LV and ULV in terms of silicon, they are simply the highest-performing dies from a given wafer. As such, LV and ULV effective yields are low and the price correspondingly higher than the "normal" voltage CPU.
\tFrom Intel's latest price list, a "normal" 1.83 GHz Merom costs $241, a 1.6 LV Merom costs $284. The voltage rating of the MacBook Air's processor is between "normal" and "LV". It therefore stands to reason that the die of the Air's processor costs somewhere between the cost of the normal die and the cost of an LV die.
\tOn the packaging front, I've really no idea. It'll be nice when Intel finally releases the processor properly so we can find out, but I reckon the 1.6 version of the Air's processor costs no more than $300. (cheaper die than the 1.6 LV, but more expensive package).
\tThe processor in the current $1099 MacBook costs $209, so that's a $91 premium for the CPU.
Backlit keyboard:
\tLet's say this is $20 more than the standard keyboard
Aluminium case:
\tThere are rumours that the whole line is going to switch to aluminium, and when the iMac went aluminium, its price didn't go up. I reckon the difference is therefore pretty small. Let's say $10.
L.E.D. backlight:
\tWhen the 15" MacBook Pro went L.E.D., the price didn't go up. L.E.D. is more expensive but not that much more. We all know that the whole line of Apple displays will go L.E.D. by the end of this year (Apple effectively said as much when they promised no mercury in their displays by the end of 2008) and I don't expect the price of the MacBook to increase when that happens. Let's say $5 more for L.E.D. backlighting.
Higher manufacturing costs:
\tLet's say $25.
O.K. so that's increased costs of $171.
Take away the savings of $79.40, and you are left with an overall cost increase of $91.60. But the retail price is $700 more than the MacBook. That makes for much higher margins.
A number of your costs are suspect. How does one figure the price of an optical drive, for example? A player alone would cost Apple (even a thin one) $5. A recorder, a combo drive $25. A DVD recorder about $40.
The rest of the costs remaining to be removed are trivial. likely even less than you wrote.
The other estimates are just guesses as well, except for the drive, which is likely close.
The size of a mobo has little to do with its costs. There's more to it than that.
Estimates as to the cost for the processor are impossible to make, as so far, it is being produced in small quantities, the R&D for the new mount is not yet paid off (way too new for that), and so we can't say anything about it other that it will cost more than the equivalent cpu on the standard substrate.
An estimate for the case would be closer to $50 than $10.
The estimate for LED backlighting for a screen of that size is between $75 and $100 more than CFL lighting, not $5. which is so far off, its not imaginable. If it were even close to that, every Macbook would be using LED from January, or further back. And certainly the 17" MBP would have gotten one way back.
Add in Apple's R&D, which as I keep mentioning, is front loading prices, and you get much higher costs.
What's more, Apple management appeared upbeat in stating that the Air has thus far shown little to no cannibalization effect on the company's other notebook offerings and thus could be considered largely responsible for helping push Mac unit growth to its highest rate in nearly two decades.
Something is wrong here. Didn't I read 3.4 gazillion posts on this forum and others when the Air was introduced that it was going to prove to be Apple "biggest blunder" since the Cube? Wasn't it going to be a catastrophic failure and cost the company millions if not billions (I never quite figured out how it would do that even if it hardly sold, but whatever)?
This sensationalistic article implies that Apple and those pesky financial analysts are actually PLEASED with how the Air is selling and contributing to the bottom line. Who are we to believe????
Disclaimer: I ordered mine the day it was announced and love it and get nothing but envious comments from my IT collegues.
Something is wrong here. Didn't I read 3.4 gazillion posts on this forum and others when the Air was introduced that it was going to prove to be Apple "biggest blunder" since the Cube? Wasn't it going to be a catastrophic failure and cost the company millions if not billions (I never quite figured out how it would do that even if it hardly sold, but whatever)?
This sensationalistic article implies that Apple and those pesky financial analysts are actually PLEASED with how the Air is selling and contributing to the bottom line. Who are we to believe????
Disclaimer: I ordered mine the day it was announced and love it and get nothing but envious comments from my IT collegues.
No, you didn't. A few people may have said that, but not a lot.
The size of a mobo has little to do with its costs. There's more to it than that.
You do like to have it both ways don't you? Whenever we debate the xMac and I use the Mini as a comparison, I state that a larger motherboard would cost about $20 more. Then you say, "no, a bigger motherboard would be much more than that".
So which is it? If you want to be consistent, you have to tell me that my -$10 for a smaller PCB is an underestimate, not over. Or would you like to re-open discussions on the costs of an xMac and stick to your assertion that changing the size of a PCB doesn't do much to the cost of it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The estimate for LED backlighting for a screen of that size is between $75 and $100 more than CFL lighting
Bull. Total bull. If that's accurate, why did the price of the 15" MacBook Pro (which presumably would be more by virtue of being larger) not increase when it switched to L.E.D. backlighting from CFL?
Also, the 17" (which should be even more expensive again to switch from CFL to L.E.D.) has a high-resolution L.E.D. backlit display as an option. That screen costs $100 more than the standard version. The previous generation also had an optional high-res screen, but that wasn't LED backlit and IIRC, it cost $80 more. So that's $20 retail price of LED backlighting a 17" screen.
I stand by my $5 estimate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
not $5. which is so far off, its not imaginable. If it were even close to that, every Macbook would be using LED from January
I'm 100% confident that the next MacBook revision will see a switch to L.E.D. backlighting with no increase in price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Add in Apple's R&D.
R&D has got nothing to do with margins.
Margin % = ((retail price - cost of manufacture)/retail price)*100
R&D doesn't figure anywhere in that.
A large R&D expenditure might require high margins in order for you to make an overall profit, but it does not intrinsically cause high margins, and it's the margins of the machine that we're discussing.
Even if we take your cost estimates instead of mine, we're left with cost of manufacture increases of $350 Vs. a $700 increase in price. If you think the $1099 MacBook has a 50% margin, then that means the MacBook Air has the same margin as the MacBook. However, we know that Apple's usual computer margins are in the high twenties, so the MacBook Air is higher than this.
What it comes down to is that this "analyst" is totally wrong. Apple's overall margin reduction has nothing to do with the MacBook Air, since its margins are at least as high as Apple's other machines, and likely much higher.
Comments
With both the Playstation I and II, when technological advances allowed for it, Sony released far slimmer versions with the same capabilities. Likewise, advances in technology has allowed Apple to make 2006's computer components (processor, motherboard) much smaller. The only difference is, Sony sold their far slimmer Playstations for considerably less than the original bulkier models, while Apple charges twice as much, and removes half the capabilities in the process.
Sigh!
You really don't see the difference, do you?
Sony is building a static product. From the beginning of the manufacturing cycle to the end, the specs remain EXACTLY the same. The difference that allowed them to build smaller, less expensive, models was because they sold about 110 million of the things. The same things.
The R&D costs were paid off after a couple of yeasrs. Then the price could be dropped a fair amount over what they were dropped because of manufacturing efficiencies, because of the large sales volume.
After that, while maintaining the same exact specs, several years later, smaller chip process technology allowed the SAME EXACT chips to be manufactured at much less cost, and to use less power, resulting in machines that were smaller, and simpler (smaller power supplies, less cooling). That alowed a smaller, cheaper case, and allowed smaller, cheaper packaging, which, in turn means lower shipping costs, etc.
So, the price can drop to a third of the original price.
So, what does this comparison you made have anything to do with the Mac Air?
Nothing!!!
There is stuff that goes into the tapered volume. The antennas, wiring, IR reciever, both wireless modules, latches, ports, camera and even the battery seems to go into the taper a bit. Some But maybe the taper could be a bit steeper.
Half of the taper can be removed without changing the machine.
Sigh!
You really don't see the difference, do you?
Sony is building a static product. From the beginning of the manufacturing cycle to the end, the specs remain EXACTLY the same. The difference that allowed them to build smaller, less expensive, models was because they sold about 110 million of the things. The same things.
The R&D costs were paid off after a couple of yeasrs. Then the price could be dropped a fair amount over what they were dropped because of manufacturing efficiencies, because of the large sales volume.
After that, while maintaining the same exact specs, several years later, smaller chip process technology allowed the SAME EXACT chips to be manufactured at much less cost, and to use less power, resulting in machines that were smaller, and simpler (smaller power supplies, less cooling). That alowed a smaller, cheaper case, and allowed smaller, cheaper packaging, which, in turn means lower shipping costs, etc.
So, the price can drop to a third of the original price.
So, what does this comparison you made have anything to do with the Mac Air?
Nothing!!!
You're right. Apart from volume, I don't see the difference. The motherboard and processor of the MacBook Air are a smaller cheaper version of what could be found in millions of notebooks two years ago. And if they're not cheaper, then surely eliminating half the components found in a consumer MacBook two years ago is enough to balance out the cost. People would scoff at paying double for the iPod Nano over the iPod Classic, so I don't know why paying double for the Macbook Air makes sense to anyone.
You're right. Apart from volume, I don't see the difference. The motherboard and processor of the MacBook Air are a smaller cheaper version of what could be found in millions of notebooks two years ago. And if they're not cheaper, then surely eliminating half the components found in a consumer MacBook two years ago is enough to balance out the cost. People would scoff at paying double for the iPod Nano over the iPod Classic, so I don't know why paying double for the Macbook Air makes sense to anyone.
Nothing you've said is fact.
These are new components. The processor is a special, for Apple, though it MAY go into production for others, after a time. Apple is paying the price for that. MOBOs don't get cheaper. Look at the mobo's made for PC's and sold by third parties. The prices have risen over the years, not gone down.
It also uses an LED backlit display, which, as we all know, is more expensive than the CFL display backlights. No cheaper computers use them.
You're making geeralized statements that are easy to make, but aren't being backed up by any specific information.
You're also not bothering to refute anything I'm saying, leaving yourself to ignore it, and just come out with, "but its got to be cheaper, it's two years later than computers made two years ago!"
Which means nothing.
Nothing you've said is fact.
These are new components. The processor is a special, for Apple, though it MAY go into production for others, after a time. Apple is paying the price for that.
It doesn't really matter to the end user if the Dalai Lama hand-crafts each processor himself, they still run at a clockspeed that was considered the low-end two years ago. If the MacBook Air got some phenomenal 8hrs of battery life there would be a consumer advantage here, but as it is we're just being charged more for a painfully slow processor because this time it's apparently more special.
MOBOs don't get cheaper. Look at the mobo's made for PC's and sold by third parties. The prices have risen over the years, not gone down.
So tell me again why Sony can have a smaller, cheaper motherboard made for their Playstation and Playstation II after the tech is old, but no one else can?
It also uses an LED backlit display, which, as we all know, is more expensive than the CFL display backlights. No cheaper computers use them.
Again, where's the significant battery life improvement that makes this of value? Just like the processor, if there's little to no perceivable improvement over two year old tech, then why pay twice as much for it?
If Apple replaced the clip on the back of the iPod Shuffle's with ones ionized in aluminum mined from the surface of Mars, would it suddenly make sense to pay $800 for a 1GB iPod Shuffle? It'd still clip the same.
It doesn't really matter to the end user if the Dalai Lama hand-crafts each processor himself, they still run at a clockspeed that was considered the low-end two years ago. If the MacBook Air got some phenomenal 8hrs of battery life there would be a consumer advantage here, but as it is we're just being charged more for a painfully slow processor because this time it's apparently more special.
So now you're changing what you're saying. You admit it's a new chip, and just being sold to Apple right now.
Give it up!
You can backtrack all you want. you are still not giving a real reason, just showing your lack of understanding.
So tell me again why Sony can have a smaller, cheaper motherboard made for their Playstation and Playstation II after the tech is old, but no one else can?
Because it enables no new circuitry, sells in the tens of millions, and Sony is willing to accept smaller profits than other companies making products that don't rely on sales of tens of millions of highly profitable games each year.
Again, where's the significant battery life improvement that makes this of value? Just like the processor, if there's little to no perceivable improvement over two year old tech, then why pay twice as much for it?
Do you know anything at all about what would have happened if they didn't use these new, low power chips, which weren't available even a year ago, much less two years ago? Or the LED backlight, which also gives the screen a much better color gamut.
Where were the 3 pound portables with equivalent specs two years ago?
If Apple replaced the clip on the back of the iPod Shuffle's with ones ionized in aluminum mined from the surface of Mars, would it suddenly make sense to pay $800 for a 1GB iPod Shuffle? It'd still clip the same.
The word is anodized. If the metal lasted longer, or had some other characteristic that was better, in a noticeable way, and people were willing to pay for that, then it would be worth it.
But, as you know, that's a pretty far out, and I might say, silly, example.
I'm sure you know that.
Another sign that you have no good response.
How is it obvious? [that the Air is a high margin machine]
Take a $1099 MacBook
Remove the optical drive (-$50)
Remove the firewire port (-$0.5)
Remove a USB port (-$0.1)
Remove optical audio in and out (-$0.5)
Remove audio in (-$0.1)
Remove ethernet (-$0.2)
As well as all these things providing obvious savings in terms of cost of the physical drive/connectors (noted above in brackets), there's also the saving in IC count on the motherboard - there's no Firewire chip (-$7), no ethernet chip (-$1) and a smaller, cheaper audio chip (-$1). The Air's motherboard is therefore much smaller than the standard MacBook's (-$10 for smaller PCB).
So, we've saved money on all these things. The machine is also smaller and lighter so packaging and shipping is cheaper than the MacBook (-$10).
So, that's savings of $79.40
Now, what's going to be potentially more expensive?
The HDD is a 1.8" drive rather than a 2.5" drive.
The processor is a small-form-factor Merom.
The keyboard has a backlight.
The case is aluminium.
The screen is L.E.D. backlit rather than CFL.
Manufacture is probably more expensive.
Let's take each in turn:
- 1.8" HDD Vs. 2.5" HDD:
\tThe HDD in the $1099 MacBook has a capacity of 120 GB. The cheapest 120 GB SATA HDD costs $63 at newegg. The 80 GB iPod, which uses the same HDD as the MacBook Air, costs $249. I reckon the 1.8" HDD probably costs Apple $20 more than the 120 GB HDD.- Custom processor:
\tThere are two things that determine the price of the CPU: the cost of the die, and the cost of the packaging.\tStarting with the die: Intel's standard line of Core 2 Duos comes in three different voltage specifications: "Normal", Low Voltage (LV), and Ultra-low Voltage (ULV). There's nothing particularly special about the LV and ULV in terms of silicon, they are simply the highest-performing dies from a given wafer. As such, LV and ULV effective yields are low and the price correspondingly higher than the "normal" voltage CPU.
\tFrom Intel's latest price list, a "normal" 1.83 GHz Merom costs $241, a 1.6 LV Merom costs $284. The voltage rating of the MacBook Air's processor is between "normal" and "LV". It therefore stands to reason that the die of the Air's processor costs somewhere between the cost of the normal die and the cost of an LV die.
\tOn the packaging front, I've really no idea. It'll be nice when Intel finally releases the processor properly so we can find out, but I reckon the 1.6 version of the Air's processor costs no more than $300. (cheaper die than the 1.6 LV, but more expensive package).
\tThe processor in the current $1099 MacBook costs $209, so that's a $91 premium for the CPU.
- Backlit keyboard:
\tLet's say this is $20 more than the standard keyboard- Aluminium case:
\tThere are rumours that the whole line is going to switch to aluminium, and when the iMac went aluminium, its price didn't go up. I reckon the difference is therefore pretty small. Let's say $10.- L.E.D. backlight:
\tWhen the 15" MacBook Pro went L.E.D., the price didn't go up. L.E.D. is more expensive but not that much more. We all know that the whole line of Apple displays will go L.E.D. by the end of this year (Apple effectively said as much when they promised no mercury in their displays by the end of 2008) and I don't expect the price of the MacBook to increase when that happens. Let's say $5 more for L.E.D. backlighting.- Higher manufacturing costs:
\tLet's say $25.O.K. so that's increased costs of $171.
Take away the savings of $79.40, and you are left with an overall cost increase of $91.60. But the retail price is $700 more than the MacBook. That makes for much higher margins.
It doesn't really matter to the end user if the Dalai Lama hand-crafts each processor himself, they still run at a clockspeed that was considered the low-end two years ago. If the MacBook Air got some phenomenal 8hrs of battery life there would be a consumer advantage here, but as it is we're just being charged more for a painfully slow processor because this time it's apparently more special.
Painfully slow processor?
You do know that other ultra-portables have maximum CPU speeds of 1.3 GHz, right?
Personally, I sold my macbook once the air came out, and I have to say, the base model air is the best laptop I've ever owned, for my use. In fact, after giving it a shot, I actually put my 24" iMac up for sale, transferred my iTunes library to my time capsule, synced it all to my appletvs and moved stuff off to my PS3 and got rid of my desktop altogether. The form factor, keyboard quality, and screen quality are RIDICULOUS and its low heat profile means actually USING it isn't a compromise at all, which is something that's often missed.
The ONLY thing it doesn't do well for me is play games, but that's intel, and the what, 85% of consumer laptops being sold with the X3100 all share the same issue. And even then, you can still play Starcraft, Diablo, Desktop Tower Defense, and Peggle just fine.
If you have lofty requirements for a system, that's one thing, and Apple still makes the standard Macbook and Pro, plus their desktop line. However, for MY uses, the air is perfect, and MAN do I love having an ultraportable road warrior that I can also use at home quite ideally.
I've been saying this since the beginning, but so much of the Air hate is because it doesn't meet the hater's needs, as if someone was forcing it upon them. I have no need or use to carry around an optical drive with me. I would never use a parallel port or a firewire port or anything. All that stuff is useless to me 99% of the time, and being able to hook up an optical drive ONLY when I need it is great since I need it so rarely. If your needs differ, super! There are PLENTY of lappers out there for you. What I love is that there's now one out there for me.
Oh, and anyone who complains about the speed of the processor or the HDD speed really hasn't used the system to any significant degree or has pro needs and shouldn't be buying the air in the first place. The system, in the REAL WORLD, is actually really snappy. Clock speed isn't everything, the C2D is a GREAT processor and it has a huge cache.
a painfully slow processor
I'm going to have to call you a whiner. A dual core 1.6GHz notebook is painfully slow? Exactly what is in your notebook, and what do you do with it?
And 1.6GHz was not low end for 2006. It was mid- to upper-mid-range for the notebook line-up
So, Steve Jobs walked into their offices and said: 'Get me something thin, I don't care about the rest".
(Why do people always have to exaggerate their often valid points to such a degree that they come across as ludicrous?)
Actually, that sounds like a very plausible quote from Steve "Fuck 'Em" Jobs.
When the dispshit who wrote the AT&T "Chilondoscow" campaign showed him a posterboard with "THINNOVATION" written on it--I think that sealed the deal.
Everyone that does this doesn't own a Macbook Air.
yada yada yada blah blah blah hate hate hate whine whine whine...
Everyone that does this doesn't own a Macbook Air.
Makes for quite a majority.
Actually, that sounds like a very plausible quote from Steve "Fuck 'Em" Jobs.
When the dispshit who wrote the AT&T "Chilondoscow" campaign showed him a posterboard with "THINNOVATION" written on it--I think that sealed the deal.
I will have to say that I agree there, "thinnovation" is pretty lame. Somebody got a little too uppity there.
Makes for quite a majority.
That's fine. If people don't like it, they don't have to buy it. The Air didn't replace the whole of Apple's portable line, it's just another model.
Besides, I have no idea how I get away with using mine without a firewire port or an ethernet port. Probably because I don't own a firewire device and I have wireless in the house.
Makes for quite a majority.
So what?
Most people don't have the performance leading high end MBP either.
Different strokes for different folks (now, that REALLY dates me!
Take a $1099 MacBook
Remove the optical drive (-$50)
Remove the firewire port (-$0.5)
Remove a USB port (-$0.1)
Remove optical audio in and out (-$0.5)
Remove audio in (-$0.1)
Remove ethernet (-$0.2)
As well as all these things providing obvious savings in terms of cost of the physical drive/connectors (noted above in brackets), there's also the saving in IC count on the motherboard - there's no Firewire chip (-$7), no ethernet chip (-$1) and a smaller, cheaper audio chip (-$1). The Air's motherboard is therefore much smaller than the standard MacBook's (-$10 for smaller PCB).
So, we've saved money on all these things. The machine is also smaller and lighter so packaging and shipping is cheaper than the MacBook (-$10).
So, that's savings of $79.40
Now, what's going to be potentially more expensive?
The HDD is a 1.8" drive rather than a 2.5" drive.
The processor is a small-form-factor Merom.
The keyboard has a backlight.
The case is aluminium.
The screen is L.E.D. backlit rather than CFL.
Manufacture is probably more expensive.
Let's take each in turn:
- 1.8" HDD Vs. 2.5" HDD:
\tThe HDD in the $1099 MacBook has a capacity of 120 GB. The cheapest 120 GB SATA HDD costs $63 at newegg. The 80 GB iPod, which uses the same HDD as the MacBook Air, costs $249. I reckon the 1.8" HDD probably costs Apple $20 more than the 120 GB HDD.- Custom processor:
\tThere are two things that determine the price of the CPU: the cost of the die, and the cost of the packaging.\tStarting with the die: Intel's standard line of Core 2 Duos comes in three different voltage specifications: "Normal", Low Voltage (LV), and Ultra-low Voltage (ULV). There's nothing particularly special about the LV and ULV in terms of silicon, they are simply the highest-performing dies from a given wafer. As such, LV and ULV effective yields are low and the price correspondingly higher than the "normal" voltage CPU.
\tFrom Intel's latest price list, a "normal" 1.83 GHz Merom costs $241, a 1.6 LV Merom costs $284. The voltage rating of the MacBook Air's processor is between "normal" and "LV". It therefore stands to reason that the die of the Air's processor costs somewhere between the cost of the normal die and the cost of an LV die.
\tOn the packaging front, I've really no idea. It'll be nice when Intel finally releases the processor properly so we can find out, but I reckon the 1.6 version of the Air's processor costs no more than $300. (cheaper die than the 1.6 LV, but more expensive package).
\tThe processor in the current $1099 MacBook costs $209, so that's a $91 premium for the CPU.
- Backlit keyboard:
\tLet's say this is $20 more than the standard keyboard- Aluminium case:
\tThere are rumours that the whole line is going to switch to aluminium, and when the iMac went aluminium, its price didn't go up. I reckon the difference is therefore pretty small. Let's say $10.- L.E.D. backlight:
\tWhen the 15" MacBook Pro went L.E.D., the price didn't go up. L.E.D. is more expensive but not that much more. We all know that the whole line of Apple displays will go L.E.D. by the end of this year (Apple effectively said as much when they promised no mercury in their displays by the end of 2008) and I don't expect the price of the MacBook to increase when that happens. Let's say $5 more for L.E.D. backlighting.- Higher manufacturing costs:
\tLet's say $25.O.K. so that's increased costs of $171.
Take away the savings of $79.40, and you are left with an overall cost increase of $91.60. But the retail price is $700 more than the MacBook. That makes for much higher margins.
A number of your costs are suspect. How does one figure the price of an optical drive, for example? A player alone would cost Apple (even a thin one) $5. A recorder, a combo drive $25. A DVD recorder about $40.
The rest of the costs remaining to be removed are trivial. likely even less than you wrote.
The other estimates are just guesses as well, except for the drive, which is likely close.
The size of a mobo has little to do with its costs. There's more to it than that.
Estimates as to the cost for the processor are impossible to make, as so far, it is being produced in small quantities, the R&D for the new mount is not yet paid off (way too new for that), and so we can't say anything about it other that it will cost more than the equivalent cpu on the standard substrate.
An estimate for the case would be closer to $50 than $10.
The estimate for LED backlighting for a screen of that size is between $75 and $100 more than CFL lighting, not $5. which is so far off, its not imaginable. If it were even close to that, every Macbook would be using LED from January, or further back. And certainly the 17" MBP would have gotten one way back.
Add in Apple's R&D, which as I keep mentioning, is front loading prices, and you get much higher costs.
What's more, Apple management appeared upbeat in stating that the Air has thus far shown little to no cannibalization effect on the company's other notebook offerings and thus could be considered largely responsible for helping push Mac unit growth to its highest rate in nearly two decades.
Something is wrong here. Didn't I read 3.4 gazillion posts on this forum and others when the Air was introduced that it was going to prove to be Apple "biggest blunder" since the Cube? Wasn't it going to be a catastrophic failure and cost the company millions if not billions (I never quite figured out how it would do that even if it hardly sold, but whatever)?
This sensationalistic article implies that Apple and those pesky financial analysts are actually PLEASED with how the Air is selling and contributing to the bottom line. Who are we to believe????
Disclaimer: I ordered mine the day it was announced and love it and get nothing but envious comments from my IT collegues.
Something is wrong here. Didn't I read 3.4 gazillion posts on this forum and others when the Air was introduced that it was going to prove to be Apple "biggest blunder" since the Cube? Wasn't it going to be a catastrophic failure and cost the company millions if not billions (I never quite figured out how it would do that even if it hardly sold, but whatever)?
This sensationalistic article implies that Apple and those pesky financial analysts are actually PLEASED with how the Air is selling and contributing to the bottom line. Who are we to believe????
Disclaimer: I ordered mine the day it was announced and love it and get nothing but envious comments from my IT collegues.
No, you didn't. A few people may have said that, but not a lot.
The size of a mobo has little to do with its costs. There's more to it than that.
You do like to have it both ways don't you? Whenever we debate the xMac and I use the Mini as a comparison, I state that a larger motherboard would cost about $20 more. Then you say, "no, a bigger motherboard would be much more than that".
So which is it? If you want to be consistent, you have to tell me that my -$10 for a smaller PCB is an underestimate, not over. Or would you like to re-open discussions on the costs of an xMac and stick to your assertion that changing the size of a PCB doesn't do much to the cost of it?
The estimate for LED backlighting for a screen of that size is between $75 and $100 more than CFL lighting
Bull. Total bull. If that's accurate, why did the price of the 15" MacBook Pro (which presumably would be more by virtue of being larger) not increase when it switched to L.E.D. backlighting from CFL?
Also, the 17" (which should be even more expensive again to switch from CFL to L.E.D.) has a high-resolution L.E.D. backlit display as an option. That screen costs $100 more than the standard version. The previous generation also had an optional high-res screen, but that wasn't LED backlit and IIRC, it cost $80 more. So that's $20 retail price of LED backlighting a 17" screen.
I stand by my $5 estimate.
not $5. which is so far off, its not imaginable. If it were even close to that, every Macbook would be using LED from January
I'm 100% confident that the next MacBook revision will see a switch to L.E.D. backlighting with no increase in price.
Add in Apple's R&D.
R&D has got nothing to do with margins.
Margin % = ((retail price - cost of manufacture)/retail price)*100
R&D doesn't figure anywhere in that.
A large R&D expenditure might require high margins in order for you to make an overall profit, but it does not intrinsically cause high margins, and it's the margins of the machine that we're discussing.
Even if we take your cost estimates instead of mine, we're left with cost of manufacture increases of $350 Vs. a $700 increase in price. If you think the $1099 MacBook has a 50% margin, then that means the MacBook Air has the same margin as the MacBook. However, we know that Apple's usual computer margins are in the high twenties, so the MacBook Air is higher than this.
What it comes down to is that this "analyst" is totally wrong. Apple's overall margin reduction has nothing to do with the MacBook Air, since its margins are at least as high as Apple's other machines, and likely much higher.