I've been working on a glossy 24" iMac for the past 12 months. It took me five minutes - at most - to find the optimal position on my desk to minimise reflection from the window that I sit in front of. Then I simply arranged my clutter around the iMac. I have to actively look for reflections - they are there, just, but you simply don't notice them.
I love the screen, but would never expect to do professional grading on it. I think Steve is right, most people want the glossy screen, and the issue with reflections can be overcome/circumvented quite simply.
I like the new aesthetics of the mbp. there are pro's and con's spec-wise, but i don't see the point whining - work-arounds will be found for the shortcomings, whilst the positives are, well, positive.
How much hotter do you guys think the 320 GB 7200 RPM drive will be compared to the 320 GB 5400 RPM drive? I was thinking it would be worth upgrading for $50, but I wanted to know how much hotter it will make it. Also, will it effect the battery life much?
Also, would the 2.8 ghz processor make it much hotter and effect the battery life as well? I wasn't going to upgrade to the 2.8 ghz processor, but I'm planning on using this computer for 4 years (until I get out of college).
I have to say, I'm pretty happy with this update. I've been waiting for this design change for over a year!
I too am amazed that they're carving the MacBook and MacBook Pro cases as per the rumors. To me, I can't imagine this process being anything but expensive. The carved out metal cannot be used again unless extracted from the liquid, dried, cleaned, and melted back into a block.
Anyway, the new MacBooks seem great.
But what was Apple smoking when they designed the new display. I had a feeling that an iSight would be built-in if a new display was ever released. But speakers!?
Apple you're overloading the monitor with useless shit and making it artificially more expensive. Who at Apple had the bright idea of putting speakers instead of Front Row + remote support? Holy shit. I hate it when Apple puts out overloaded products that don't answer to any particular needs.
If this display is truly marketed towards MacBook users, why is there an iSight built-in? And if it isn't marketed towards MacBook users why the hell isn't Front Row support built-in?
Apple, if you actually care, you're going to make a display WITHOUT the iSight and speakers and put IR + remote in your stinkin' displays.
edit: alright, now I realize that Apple is marketing this display towards MacBook users since only these computers currently have DisplayPorts. This pretty much means that you're going from the MacBook's built-in iSight to the display's built-in iSight, and from the MacBook's tiny speakers to the display's tiny speakers. IS APPLE FUCKING DUMB!? Only numbskulls would buy a monitor with a price tag that is unnecessarily propped up by a second iSight and a second set of speakers. Fuck you, Apple. After all this wait, you slap everyone in the face with such a useless product.
Apple has completely lost touch with reality. With the economy going down the crapper, they're putting out products like the 24" display which looks like a very product until you see all the shit they tacked on to it like iSight, speakers, Magsafe power. Way to go, Apple...way to go.
They put the iSight in even though the MacBooks have iSight so that if you wish to use the MB in closed lid mode you can use the Cinema Display. That's why.
That's it, for the first time in 13 years as a Mac user I hate or cant afford all of their computers. I hate, HATE glass screens and I Hate HATE Glossy Screens. Now I have no choice except a Mac Pro which I can't afford. I hope my 2 year old MacBook Pro last long enough for me to figure out how to build my own laptop.
Fuck You Apple, You just lost me. I now feel the pain of your bull shit locked system.
The Blu-ray drive is tray loading. Apple only uses slot loading. BD drives require more DRM, are slower, and cost more.
Slot-Load 12.7mm Notebook Blu-Ray drives came out before 2006. To get a laptop from Dell with slot notebook Blu-Ray drive it is an extra $250.
Blu-Ray drives DO NOT require more DRM. You can put a Blu-Ray drive in a Pismo (for 1k) if you want and it will still work. Now, to play a commercial Blu-Ray video disk, you may need additional DRM such as HDCP. DisplayPort supports HDCP. Viewing Blu-Ray as a video only technology is a VERY narrow perspective of the technology.
Slot-Load 12.7mm Notebook Blu-Ray drives came out before 2006. To get a laptop from Dell with slot notebook Blu-Ray drive it is an extra $250..
you need a slimmer drive than 12.7mm for an mbp, as has been stated over and over and over again in every disussion on this issue - that's why the first model didn't have a DL burner.
Quote:
Blu-Ray drives DO NOT require more DRM. You can put a Blu-Ray drive in a Pismo (for 1k) if you want and it will still work. Now, to play a commercial Blu-Ray video disk, you may need additional DRM such as HDCP. DisplayPort supports HDCP. Viewing Blu-Ray as a video only technology is a VERY narrow perspective of the technology.
lol. can you imagine the whining if apple included a blu-ray drive that couldn't play movies?!
Steve: "A few of our customers prefer matte screens, but a vast majority (capital "V" on Vast) prefer glass because of brighter colors, etc."
This 'minority' is giving you a capital "V" right now. So that's Apple's mid-range desktop off my ever buying again in future list and their entire new laptop range. Ok so we're down to the Mac Pro and Mini.
You're in the minority. Deal.
In any case, he's right. The new MB is equivalent graphically to my MBP with X1600. It is a far better product for students than the old MB.
You're right. I seem to recall that all the Quantel boxes I saw back in the day had glossy screens in semi-dark rooms.
Ah Quantel. Dark rooms and Sony BVM CRT monitors were the rule. Broadcast monitors all had plain glass screens, no anti-glare. The engineers who designed those monitors knew that clear glass passed the most accurate image from the phosphors. The same would now be true of LCD displays as well. The dark rooms cut down on reflections and skewed color perception caused by unbalanced light sources in the room. The only proper way for the human eye to judge color is in a darkened room, with balanced light behind the monitor bounced off a neutral gray wall. Judging color under other conditions is not possible.
I was a Quantel Henry and Editbox artist for many years. I kind of miss those dark rooms.
I'm amazed at how some people here who claim to be graphics professionals in some capacity or another, fail to know even the most basic of requirements.
Glossy monitors calibrate better than do matte models.
I'm amazed at your pretensions of knowledge because you are one of the only pretenders that I know who emphatically claims that glossy screens are actually superior in true-to-life color reproduction.
Take a gander at what real graphic professionals use before spouting off and telling us about the "good 'ole days" of glossy screens.
I wonder why IPS, professional panels are overwhelmingly matte and not glossy. Glossy is supposed to be superior, according to your condescending intellect, right? These idiots at Eizo haven't a clue at what they're doing. Please inform them!
Basically, according to Eizo, there is little difference between glossy and matte in DARK settings if the specs are identical. Eizo recommends MATTE for EDITING and glossy for WATCHING. This is an interesting recommendation
Basically, according to Eizo, there is little difference between glossy and matte in DARK settings if the specs are identical. Eizo recommends MATTE for EDITING and glossy for WATCHING. This is an interesting recommendation
So the question is if you, the reader, are going to listen to some unknown nobody who has posted 14,000+ times on an Apple rumor forum, or engineers and real graphic professionals who actually, um, make professional displays?
However, one thing about the update bugs me: The Mini DisplayPort. I would so much rather have had a HDMI. But now that I haven't gotten that, what do I do, when I want to hook my MBP up to my Panasonic PZ85 plasma (42" 1080p)?
Is the Mini DisplayPort plug something Apple invented themselves? I would love to find a third-party Mini DisplayPort -> HDMI cable, instead of having to buy Apple's own Mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter (grr) and a DVI-HDMI cable.
Thanks in advance.
Rasmus
What's wrong with buying Apple's? At least you know it will be good quality, and that they guarantee it.
Thanks. I have what is now called the i1Basic. So, can I safely assume that you do not have reflectivity issues or glass coatings "tricking" the spectrophotometer, or do you use a method to compensate for that. I have up to now avoided glossy displays.
No, there are no reflection problems. We used calibrators for glossy displays way back in prehistory, and had no problems then either.
The calibrator covers the part of the screen being read.
Any aren't more people outraged that the fact that if we purchase a new MBP, we have to pay another $99 for an adapter to use our 30-inch Apple Display.
No. Most people do not use external monitors with their laptops believe it or not.
Why penalize everyone for those who need it?
Quote:
Apple couldn't include the adapter for its high-end notebook line?
Everyone else is ok with the extra 99 bucks for an adapter that should be included?? 99 bucks???
Sure, Apple could have included it?for another $99.
What do you think, it should be free just because you don't want to pay for it?
I don't understand why Apple still does not offer Blu-Ray drives in their laptops or Imacs? I have a MBP that is about 3 years old and was hoping to buy the new model which was released today but was disappointed when I found out they were not going to be offered with Blu-Ray drives.
I don't get it. Does anyone know what's behind the thinking of this?
They gave that answer at the event today. Apparently, the licensing is a mess right now, and costs for the drives are too high.
So they say.
But they had no problem adding a $1,000 DVD recorder to my DigitalAudio model back in the early 2000's.
I think it's an excuse to put it off as long as possible.
They put the iSight in even though the MacBooks have iSight so that if you wish to use the MB in closed lid mode you can use the Cinema Display. That's why.
And because most purchasers will be using them with desktop machines.
I'm amazed at your pretensions of knowledge because you are one of the only pretenders that I know who emphatically claims that glossy screens are actually superior in true-to-life color reproduction.
Take a gander at what real graphic professionals use before spouting off and telling us about the "good 'ole days" of glossy screens.
I wonder why IPS, professional panels are overwhelmingly matte and not glossy. Glossy is supposed to be superior, according to your condescending intellect, right? These idiots at Eizo haven't a clue at what they're doing. Please inform them!
Basically, according to Eizo, there is little difference between glossy and matte in DARK settings if the specs are identical. Eizo recommends MATTE for EDITING and glossy for WATCHING. This is an interesting recommendation
Not quite. It's an odd conclusion. They do state that glossy does have better color, contrast, blacks etc. It's even slightly better in a dark room!
Why you would WANT to edit with inferior specs is strange.
But you might also note that in its most critical, and most expensive line, the medical monitor line, they do use glossy.
Fact is, no one can do critical editing on a laptop in less than very good surrounding conditions. Better yet, you shouldn't do critical color work with a laptop at all. I don't know any pro who does.
So the question is if you, the reader, are going to listen to some unknown nobody who has posted 14,000+ times on an Apple rumor forum, or engineers and real graphic professionals who actually, um, make professional displays?
Don't blame Jobs or the company's management for the stock price. The stock has fallen 50% from its high point over the last year, but this was only because of completely absurd expectations from the street. Right now Apple's PE ratio would still make it markedly overpriced (It is 20, average is 14). When the stock was at 180, think of how much farther out of line PE ratio was. This is what was behind the sharp correction the stock has seen, which had very little to do with the fundamentals of the company or its future outlook. When I say the stock's PE still qualifies as overvalued, Apple is an extraordinary company which lots of "intangible" strengths that 99% of other companies don't have, so it will naturally trade at a premium. I didn't own apple stock before and don't control my own investments, but when it went under 95 I bought a very large amount.
Right now Apple has high quality earnings and revenue, a growing marketshare, and a large amount of cash on hand. The large amount of cash on hand will become a huge big advantage for apple as credit gets harder to obtain. Right now the world's central banks are stepping in and intervening massively, but sooner or later they will have to raise interest rates, and combines like apple with cash and good credit will have a big advantage relative to the competition. I think that over the next 5 years a large number PC makers are going to start going out of business or merge, as the recession cuts the least profitable companies. I'm guessing that a small number of very strong companies will survive, with Apple being dominant over high end consumers (apart from high end gamers). Someone else will develop to fill the netbook or budget market. Realistically, Apple is not well suited for this market, the thing that it offers consumers has never been something which can get a pretty good job done for less, it has been to offer the very best all in one package, which they keep stylishly updated with features that the ordinary person loves. You aren't going to find that in the sub 1k market.
Two things stood out from the keynote to me, first the graph showing their marketshare before and after switching to intel, and their 17% market unit share but 30% industry revenue share. What this says is that apple has extremely high profit margins, it sells a fewer number of computers but they can and do charge more than the competition, which relies on bulk. Because their products are so well designed and supported, people tend to keep them for a long time before buying a replacement, making it harder for Apple to match its competitors in sale, which is one of the reasons behind its historically trailing marketshare. This is good because over the next 10 years, the mbp line has a very small number of competitors. It is much easier to go out of business when you have low profit margins (if you sell cheap computers in bulk, a slight change can leave you treading water or losing money) and an inferior product (
The presentation is exactly right when it points to the inclusion of windows capability as helping lure consumers, and pointing to strength among students. College kids who have macs are going to stay apple consumers for a long time. I am a huge bear on the US market and a believe the recession we are about to go through is going to be bigger, more severe, and affect Americans in more painful ways than the public believes, but Apple is in beautiful shape right now. I am sorry buying Apple stock did not work out for you, but that is out of the company's control. The market overvalued apple precisely because it bought into the advantages and intangibles I wrote about, it just got carried away and set unrealistic growth expectations. It takes a lot of time to develop new iphones, mbps, operating systems, and get them right. So there is a long delay in releasing new products and increases in growth, and I think the market had not been accounting for this enough. I don't know if this is true but I would not be surprised at all if one of the downward forces was a sell off by funds who owned apple but had to sell because of redemption calls from their clients, which have happened at an unprecedented rate over the last 6 months. If a hedge fund has to sell an asset to return money to an investor, Apple would have been an excellent candidate because of its high PE.
Comments
I love the screen, but would never expect to do professional grading on it. I think Steve is right, most people want the glossy screen, and the issue with reflections can be overcome/circumvented quite simply.
I like the new aesthetics of the mbp. there are pro's and con's spec-wise, but i don't see the point whining - work-arounds will be found for the shortcomings, whilst the positives are, well, positive.
hoping to see a 17"-er before too long...
Also, would the 2.8 ghz processor make it much hotter and effect the battery life as well? I wasn't going to upgrade to the 2.8 ghz processor, but I'm planning on using this computer for 4 years (until I get out of college).
I have to say, I'm pretty happy with this update. I've been waiting for this design change for over a year!
Thanks
I too am amazed that they're carving the MacBook and MacBook Pro cases as per the rumors. To me, I can't imagine this process being anything but expensive. The carved out metal cannot be used again unless extracted from the liquid, dried, cleaned, and melted back into a block.
Anyway, the new MacBooks seem great.
But what was Apple smoking when they designed the new display. I had a feeling that an iSight would be built-in if a new display was ever released. But speakers!?
Apple you're overloading the monitor with useless shit and making it artificially more expensive. Who at Apple had the bright idea of putting speakers instead of Front Row + remote support? Holy shit. I hate it when Apple puts out overloaded products that don't answer to any particular needs.
If this display is truly marketed towards MacBook users, why is there an iSight built-in? And if it isn't marketed towards MacBook users why the hell isn't Front Row support built-in?
Apple, if you actually care, you're going to make a display WITHOUT the iSight and speakers and put IR + remote in your stinkin' displays.
edit: alright, now I realize that Apple is marketing this display towards MacBook users since only these computers currently have DisplayPorts. This pretty much means that you're going from the MacBook's built-in iSight to the display's built-in iSight, and from the MacBook's tiny speakers to the display's tiny speakers. IS APPLE FUCKING DUMB!? Only numbskulls would buy a monitor with a price tag that is unnecessarily propped up by a second iSight and a second set of speakers. Fuck you, Apple. After all this wait, you slap everyone in the face with such a useless product.
Apple has completely lost touch with reality. With the economy going down the crapper, they're putting out products like the 24" display which looks like a very product until you see all the shit they tacked on to it like iSight, speakers, Magsafe power. Way to go, Apple...way to go.
They put the iSight in even though the MacBooks have iSight so that if you wish to use the MB in closed lid mode you can use the Cinema Display. That's why.
That's it, for the first time in 13 years as a Mac user I hate or cant afford all of their computers. I hate, HATE glass screens and I Hate HATE Glossy Screens. Now I have no choice except a Mac Pro which I can't afford. I hope my 2 year old MacBook Pro last long enough for me to figure out how to build my own laptop.
Fuck You Apple, You just lost me. I now feel the pain of your bull shit locked system.
Sorry you have to leave us now. So sad.
The Blu-ray drive is tray loading. Apple only uses slot loading. BD drives require more DRM, are slower, and cost more.
Slot-Load 12.7mm Notebook Blu-Ray drives came out before 2006. To get a laptop from Dell with slot notebook Blu-Ray drive it is an extra $250.
Blu-Ray drives DO NOT require more DRM. You can put a Blu-Ray drive in a Pismo (for 1k) if you want and it will still work. Now, to play a commercial Blu-Ray video disk, you may need additional DRM such as HDCP. DisplayPort supports HDCP. Viewing Blu-Ray as a video only technology is a VERY narrow perspective of the technology.
Slot-Load 12.7mm Notebook Blu-Ray drives came out before 2006. To get a laptop from Dell with slot notebook Blu-Ray drive it is an extra $250..
you need a slimmer drive than 12.7mm for an mbp, as has been stated over and over and over again in every disussion on this issue - that's why the first model didn't have a DL burner.
Blu-Ray drives DO NOT require more DRM. You can put a Blu-Ray drive in a Pismo (for 1k) if you want and it will still work. Now, to play a commercial Blu-Ray video disk, you may need additional DRM such as HDCP. DisplayPort supports HDCP. Viewing Blu-Ray as a video only technology is a VERY narrow perspective of the technology.
lol. can you imagine the whining if apple included a blu-ray drive that couldn't play movies?!
Steve: "A few of our customers prefer matte screens, but a vast majority (capital "V" on Vast) prefer glass because of brighter colors, etc."
This 'minority' is giving you a capital "V" right now. So that's Apple's mid-range desktop off my ever buying again in future list and their entire new laptop range. Ok so we're down to the Mac Pro and Mini.
You're in the minority. Deal.
In any case, he's right. The new MB is equivalent graphically to my MBP with X1600. It is a far better product for students than the old MB.
You're right. I seem to recall that all the Quantel boxes I saw back in the day had glossy screens in semi-dark rooms.
Ah Quantel. Dark rooms and Sony BVM CRT monitors were the rule. Broadcast monitors all had plain glass screens, no anti-glare. The engineers who designed those monitors knew that clear glass passed the most accurate image from the phosphors. The same would now be true of LCD displays as well. The dark rooms cut down on reflections and skewed color perception caused by unbalanced light sources in the room. The only proper way for the human eye to judge color is in a darkened room, with balanced light behind the monitor bounced off a neutral gray wall. Judging color under other conditions is not possible.
I was a Quantel Henry and Editbox artist for many years. I kind of miss those dark rooms.
I'm amazed at how some people here who claim to be graphics professionals in some capacity or another, fail to know even the most basic of requirements.
Glossy monitors calibrate better than do matte models.
I'm amazed at your pretensions of knowledge because you are one of the only pretenders that I know who emphatically claims that glossy screens are actually superior in true-to-life color reproduction.
Take a gander at what real graphic professionals use before spouting off and telling us about the "good 'ole days" of glossy screens.
I wonder why IPS, professional panels are overwhelmingly matte and not glossy. Glossy is supposed to be superior, according to your condescending intellect, right? These idiots at Eizo haven't a clue at what they're doing. Please inform them!
Eizo white paper on glossy versus matte: http://www.eizo.com/support/wp/pdf/wp_07-001.pdf
Basically, according to Eizo, there is little difference between glossy and matte in DARK settings if the specs are identical. Eizo recommends MATTE for EDITING and glossy for WATCHING. This is an interesting recommendation
Basically, according to Eizo, there is little difference between glossy and matte in DARK settings if the specs are identical. Eizo recommends MATTE for EDITING and glossy for WATCHING. This is an interesting recommendation
So the question is if you, the reader, are going to listen to some unknown nobody who has posted 14,000+ times on an Apple rumor forum, or engineers and real graphic professionals who actually, um, make professional displays?
The choice is indeed difficult
Hi.
However, one thing about the update bugs me: The Mini DisplayPort. I would so much rather have had a HDMI. But now that I haven't gotten that, what do I do, when I want to hook my MBP up to my Panasonic PZ85 plasma (42" 1080p)?
Is the Mini DisplayPort plug something Apple invented themselves? I would love to find a third-party Mini DisplayPort -> HDMI cable, instead of having to buy Apple's own Mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter (grr) and a DVI-HDMI cable.
Thanks in advance.
Rasmus
What's wrong with buying Apple's? At least you know it will be good quality, and that they guarantee it.
As for its being theirs, a good question.
Thanks. I have what is now called the i1Basic. So, can I safely assume that you do not have reflectivity issues or glass coatings "tricking" the spectrophotometer, or do you use a method to compensate for that. I have up to now avoided glossy displays.
No, there are no reflection problems. We used calibrators for glossy displays way back in prehistory, and had no problems then either.
The calibrator covers the part of the screen being read.
Any aren't more people outraged that the fact that if we purchase a new MBP, we have to pay another $99 for an adapter to use our 30-inch Apple Display.
No. Most people do not use external monitors with their laptops believe it or not.
Why penalize everyone for those who need it?
Apple couldn't include the adapter for its high-end notebook line?
Everyone else is ok with the extra 99 bucks for an adapter that should be included?? 99 bucks???
Sure, Apple could have included it?for another $99.
What do you think, it should be free just because you don't want to pay for it?
I don't understand why Apple still does not offer Blu-Ray drives in their laptops or Imacs? I have a MBP that is about 3 years old and was hoping to buy the new model which was released today but was disappointed when I found out they were not going to be offered with Blu-Ray drives.
I don't get it. Does anyone know what's behind the thinking of this?
They gave that answer at the event today. Apparently, the licensing is a mess right now, and costs for the drives are too high.
So they say.
But they had no problem adding a $1,000 DVD recorder to my DigitalAudio model back in the early 2000's.
I think it's an excuse to put it off as long as possible.
NO F.I.R.E.W.I.R.E 4.0.0.
.....W.T.F?
How do i use my $2000 MOTU FW audio interface now?!
Ae you concerned about the loss of FW in the Macbooks, or the specific loss of a FW 400 port in the Macbook Pro?
If it's the former, that sucks. They should have left one in.
If it's the Pro, well, a FW 400 to 800 adapter cable will work fine.
Why do you even bother trying to explain to these A*Holes on here that matte is better?
I don't appreciate that, and I'm sure neither do the rest.
They put the iSight in even though the MacBooks have iSight so that if you wish to use the MB in closed lid mode you can use the Cinema Display. That's why.
And because most purchasers will be using them with desktop machines.
I'm amazed at your pretensions of knowledge because you are one of the only pretenders that I know who emphatically claims that glossy screens are actually superior in true-to-life color reproduction.
Take a gander at what real graphic professionals use before spouting off and telling us about the "good 'ole days" of glossy screens.
I wonder why IPS, professional panels are overwhelmingly matte and not glossy. Glossy is supposed to be superior, according to your condescending intellect, right? These idiots at Eizo haven't a clue at what they're doing. Please inform them!
Eizo white paper on glossy versus matte: http://www.eizo.com/support/wp/pdf/wp_07-001.pdf
Basically, according to Eizo, there is little difference between glossy and matte in DARK settings if the specs are identical. Eizo recommends MATTE for EDITING and glossy for WATCHING. This is an interesting recommendation
Not quite. It's an odd conclusion. They do state that glossy does have better color, contrast, blacks etc. It's even slightly better in a dark room!
Why you would WANT to edit with inferior specs is strange.
But you might also note that in its most critical, and most expensive line, the medical monitor line, they do use glossy.
Fact is, no one can do critical editing on a laptop in less than very good surrounding conditions. Better yet, you shouldn't do critical color work with a laptop at all. I don't know any pro who does.
So the question is if you, the reader, are going to listen to some unknown nobody who has posted 14,000+ times on an Apple rumor forum, or engineers and real graphic professionals who actually, um, make professional displays?
The choice is indeed difficult
Enough is enough!
I rue the day that I decided to buy Apple stock.
Don't blame Jobs or the company's management for the stock price. The stock has fallen 50% from its high point over the last year, but this was only because of completely absurd expectations from the street. Right now Apple's PE ratio would still make it markedly overpriced (It is 20, average is 14). When the stock was at 180, think of how much farther out of line PE ratio was. This is what was behind the sharp correction the stock has seen, which had very little to do with the fundamentals of the company or its future outlook. When I say the stock's PE still qualifies as overvalued, Apple is an extraordinary company which lots of "intangible" strengths that 99% of other companies don't have, so it will naturally trade at a premium. I didn't own apple stock before and don't control my own investments, but when it went under 95 I bought a very large amount.
Right now Apple has high quality earnings and revenue, a growing marketshare, and a large amount of cash on hand. The large amount of cash on hand will become a huge big advantage for apple as credit gets harder to obtain. Right now the world's central banks are stepping in and intervening massively, but sooner or later they will have to raise interest rates, and combines like apple with cash and good credit will have a big advantage relative to the competition. I think that over the next 5 years a large number PC makers are going to start going out of business or merge, as the recession cuts the least profitable companies. I'm guessing that a small number of very strong companies will survive, with Apple being dominant over high end consumers (apart from high end gamers). Someone else will develop to fill the netbook or budget market. Realistically, Apple is not well suited for this market, the thing that it offers consumers has never been something which can get a pretty good job done for less, it has been to offer the very best all in one package, which they keep stylishly updated with features that the ordinary person loves. You aren't going to find that in the sub 1k market.
Two things stood out from the keynote to me, first the graph showing their marketshare before and after switching to intel, and their 17% market unit share but 30% industry revenue share. What this says is that apple has extremely high profit margins, it sells a fewer number of computers but they can and do charge more than the competition, which relies on bulk. Because their products are so well designed and supported, people tend to keep them for a long time before buying a replacement, making it harder for Apple to match its competitors in sale, which is one of the reasons behind its historically trailing marketshare. This is good because over the next 10 years, the mbp line has a very small number of competitors. It is much easier to go out of business when you have low profit margins (if you sell cheap computers in bulk, a slight change can leave you treading water or losing money) and an inferior product (
The presentation is exactly right when it points to the inclusion of windows capability as helping lure consumers, and pointing to strength among students. College kids who have macs are going to stay apple consumers for a long time. I am a huge bear on the US market and a believe the recession we are about to go through is going to be bigger, more severe, and affect Americans in more painful ways than the public believes, but Apple is in beautiful shape right now. I am sorry buying Apple stock did not work out for you, but that is out of the company's control. The market overvalued apple precisely because it bought into the advantages and intangibles I wrote about, it just got carried away and set unrealistic growth expectations. It takes a lot of time to develop new iphones, mbps, operating systems, and get them right. So there is a long delay in releasing new products and increases in growth, and I think the market had not been accounting for this enough. I don't know if this is true but I would not be surprised at all if one of the downward forces was a sell off by funds who owned apple but had to sell because of redemption calls from their clients, which have happened at an unprecedented rate over the last 6 months. If a hedge fund has to sell an asset to return money to an investor, Apple would have been an excellent candidate because of its high PE.