Integrated GBE for those who need wired connectivity (costs extra in MBA).
Integrated optical storage for those who need it (costs extra in MBA).
Double the wireless productivity time between battery charges.
The two products are designed to appeal to different types customers -- those who desire the ultimate in mobility at the expense of some capability, versus those who require more capability but still at an entry-level price point.
The form factor, SSD vs. platters, CPU, and other items you mention are cheaper in the MB vs. the MBA.
What, you think a 250GB hdd costs more than ANY SSD? And a non standard form factor at that? Since when do thinner computers cost less than bulky form factors?
The form factor, SSD vs. platters, CPU, and other items you mention are cheaper in the MB vs. the MBA.
What, you think a 250GB hdd costs more than ANY SSD? And a non standard form factor at that?
Why do you think they are ?cheaper? just because they are in the MacBook?
Note, that your recommendation was to ditch it or lower the price because it?s not ?worth? the price, yet it?s been pointed out that the additional speed, capacity, and other features may very well make it more ?worthy? to other users. Remember that worth is subjective, not some hardened equation that requires the profit of be a specific percentage over the cost of the BOM.
And why would I pay $999 for ANY outdated laptop with a fragile plastic body?
No, I didn't forget anything. Kudos to apple for being able to sell such outdated hardware just to get OSX.
1) You need to look up what form factor means, because you?re saying that a 13? MB ?form factor? can?t be appealing to buyers if there is an 11? MBA ?form factor?. You then state some wonky things about specs that have nothing to do with form factor in and of itself.
2) The polycarb unibody MB is quite rigid. I bet you can?t find another plastic notebook that size and weight that is more rigid.
3) I don?t what you?re playing at. Maybe you really can?t see how a 13? Mac notebook under $1000 may fit into Apple?s product line and goals, but I have a feeling you?re simply choosing not to see itt.
1) You need to look up what form factor means, because you?re saying that a 13? MB ?form factor? can?t be appealing to buyers if there is an 11? MBA ?form factor?. You then state some wonky things about specs that have nothing to do with form factor in and of itself.
2) The polycarb unibody MB is quite rigid. I bet you can?t find another plastic notebook that size and weight that is more rigid.
3) I don?t what you?re playing at. Maybe you really can?t see how a 13? Mac notebook under $1000 may fit into Apple?s product line and goals, but I have a feeling you?re simply choosing not to see itt.
1) it isn't about appeal, its about the simple fact that making a laptop that crazy thin is much more difficult than the typical thickness of a laptop.
2) Sure I can. My old Dell 700m is quite rigid. But both it and the Macbook still flex regardless.
3) It's called "We're Apple, we can sell a $999 laptop from start to 12 months down the road."
Hardware improves and thus forces older hardware down in cost. Apple doesn't care about this because it doesn't have to. Like everything they sell, it starts out being a great deal in value then right before they update it, it is embarrassing crap.
You know how dumb it looks when for $500 they still couldn't be bothered putting in a DVD-R/RW/CDR drive in the mac mini, while everyone else did, desktops and all?
1) it isn't about appeal, its about the simple fact that making a laptop that crazy thin is much more difficult than the typical thickness of a laptop.
2) Sure I can. My old Dell 700m is quite rigid. But both it and the Macbook still flex regardless.
3) It's called "We're Apple, we can sell a $999 laptop from start to 12 months down the road."
Hardware improves and thus forces older hardware down in cost. Apple doesn't care about this because it doesn't have to. Like everything they sell, it starts out being a great deal in value then right before they update it, it is embarrassing crap.
You know how dumb it looks when for $500 they still couldn't be bothered putting in a DVD-R/RW/CDR drive in the mac mini, while everyone else did, desktops and all?
Oh my god it's you the Microsoft fanboy again. Sure Apple can put a DVD drive into the Mac Mini, but then it wouldn't be so tiny and cute now, would it? Your point of argument is always about cost. Seems plausible coming from a former Dell owner.
I still have a G4 iBook running tiger and still going strong. Feels huge and clunky compared to our 2010 MacBook. Mind you it's still thinner than some of the bricks still on the shelves in PC World.
Having said that I hope Apple don't try and go thinner with the Air. I tried one and it felt somewhat fragile in my hands. Put me off buying one.
I am surprised to hear that.
I used a 1999 G3 iBook (500Mhz) running Panther (but it came with MacOS 9), with the translucent white case (not the flat white used on the G4 models). It was a terrific notebook (battery life was 5 hrs+) and I used it until 2006. My 13" MacBook Air feels much more solid than that iBook ever did. Not to mention it has superior fit and finish. Plastic parts vs. machined aluminum? No contest which is better. I think you must be equating mass with "solidness."
I've been looking through some receipts, and my parents' iBook G4 933mhz 14" will be SEVEN (that's right, 7) years old this Christmas.
It's still running fine. It has had the hard disk replaced (I did that to put in a 5400rpm drive, the original drive was still fine), the display replaced (white spot issue), and power adaptor replaced, but other than that, everything's alright. Put an fairly unknown brand 512MB RAM piece in it about 3(?) years ago, that's still alright.
In the past 2 years Safari and websites have been really laggy but recently I installed Click To Flash and that has improved things significantly. And 1024x768 is actually quite readable, ask the iPad. Only this is at 14" so it's good for those with poor eyesight or older people.
7 years. Nowadays some of us buy mobile phones a few times a year.
I've been looking through some receipts, and my parents' iBook G4 933mhz 14" will be SEVEN (that's right, 7) years old this Christmas.
Seven years isn't anything special. I'm typing on my iMac DV SE that turned 10 years old last summer. I upgraded its HD and memory but other than that it's original including the original Airport card. Best built-in sound of any Mac IMO.
Runs OS X 10.4.11, Safari 4, iTunes 9. Clicktoflash makes those intrusive Flash advertisements a non-issue.
Not bad for something intended to run OS 9.
I have a couple Powerbooks that are about seven years old too. No problems. I've never even bothered with Applecare.
1) it isn't about appeal, its about the simple fact that making a laptop that crazy thin is much more difficult than the typical thickness of a laptop.
2) Sure I can. My old Dell 700m is quite rigid. But both it and the Macbook still flex regardless.
3) It's called "We're Apple, we can sell a $999 laptop from start to 12 months down the road."
Hardware improves and thus forces older hardware down in cost. Apple doesn't care about this because it doesn't have to. Like everything they sell, it starts out being a great deal in value then right before they update it, it is embarrassing crap.
You know how dumb it looks when for $500 they still couldn't be bothered putting in a DVD-R/RW/CDR drive in the mac mini, while everyone else did, desktops and all?
I'd say apple uses a model akin to car models. It's not practical for everyone to be forced into continuous updating of prices each time a component cost moves. There is also a risk costs could go up. I'm betting apple both hedges their costs to ensure static margins to some degree but also to encourage customers to buy without holding out until prices drop- Ie they buy it because they want a particular laptop but lowest price isn't the main factor in the purchasing decision.
Whether it's the most effective or competitive pricing strategy is another matter but clearly as only player in it's own niche market of selling Apple Mac OS products which are highly differentiated from the competition it may just work. And as far as I can tell. It does.
The form factor, SSD vs. platters, CPU, and other items you mention are cheaper in the MB vs. the MBA.
What, you think a 250GB hdd costs more than ANY SSD? And a non standard form factor at that? Since when do thinner computers cost less than bulky form factors?
So what? The overall performance difference between SSD vs HDD hasn't turned out to be all that big -- a tradeoff between seek time vs burst read/write time, and all that jazz. So to most customers, it really doesn't matter that one machine is using an SSD and the other is using an HDD, or that one costs more to manufacture one than the other. What matters is what you can get out of it. And in this case, it's only differentiated by the total capacity. The MB wins over the MBA on that one.
A computer's value does not come from the cost to manufacture it. Its value comes from its features and attributes as measured from an end-user's viewpoint, and therefore the price an end-user would be willing to pay for it.
The polycarbonate MacBook brings more capabilities to the table than the MBA; the MBA brings a more convenient form factor. For some customers, the form factor balances out to make the MBA more desirable and therefore worth more money. For other customers, the better features balance out to make the MB more desirable and therefore worth more money.
If another manufacturer is bringing a better balance of features, capabilities, software, and support to the table in their similar product, and at a lower price point than the MB, then kudos to that manufacturer -- any customer would be foolish to choose the MB rather than that competitor's machine. In any event, the cost to manufacture is, quite frankly, irrelavent.
Comments
Double the CPU speed at the same price point.
4x the mass storage at the same price point.
Integrated GBE for those who need wired connectivity (costs extra in MBA).
Integrated optical storage for those who need it (costs extra in MBA).
Double the wireless productivity time between battery charges.
The two products are designed to appeal to different types customers -- those who desire the ultimate in mobility at the expense of some capability, versus those who require more capability but still at an entry-level price point.
The form factor, SSD vs. platters, CPU, and other items you mention are cheaper in the MB vs. the MBA.
What, you think a 250GB hdd costs more than ANY SSD? And a non standard form factor at that? Since when do thinner computers cost less than bulky form factors?
The form factor, SSD vs. platters, CPU, and other items you mention are cheaper in the MB vs. the MBA.
What, you think a 250GB hdd costs more than ANY SSD? And a non standard form factor at that?
Why do you think they are ?cheaper? just because they are in the MacBook?
Note, that your recommendation was to ditch it or lower the price because it?s not ?worth? the price, yet it?s been pointed out that the additional speed, capacity, and other features may very well make it more ?worthy? to other users. Remember that worth is subjective, not some hardened equation that requires the profit of be a specific percentage over the cost of the BOM.
Why do you think they are ?cheaper? just because they are in the MacBook?
Form factor.
And why would I pay $999 for ANY outdated laptop with a fragile plastic body?
Remember that worth is subjective, not some hardened equation that requires the profit of be a specific percentage over the cost of the BOM.
No, I didn't forget anything. Kudos to apple for being able to sell such outdated hardware just to get OSX.
Form factor.
And why would I pay $999 for ANY outdated laptop with a fragile plastic body?
No, I didn't forget anything. Kudos to apple for being able to sell such outdated hardware just to get OSX.
1) You need to look up what form factor means, because you?re saying that a 13? MB ?form factor? can?t be appealing to buyers if there is an 11? MBA ?form factor?. You then state some wonky things about specs that have nothing to do with form factor in and of itself.
2) The polycarb unibody MB is quite rigid. I bet you can?t find another plastic notebook that size and weight that is more rigid.
3) I don?t what you?re playing at. Maybe you really can?t see how a 13? Mac notebook under $1000 may fit into Apple?s product line and goals, but I have a feeling you?re simply choosing not to see itt.
1) You need to look up what form factor means, because you?re saying that a 13? MB ?form factor? can?t be appealing to buyers if there is an 11? MBA ?form factor?. You then state some wonky things about specs that have nothing to do with form factor in and of itself.
2) The polycarb unibody MB is quite rigid. I bet you can?t find another plastic notebook that size and weight that is more rigid.
3) I don?t what you?re playing at. Maybe you really can?t see how a 13? Mac notebook under $1000 may fit into Apple?s product line and goals, but I have a feeling you?re simply choosing not to see itt.
1) it isn't about appeal, its about the simple fact that making a laptop that crazy thin is much more difficult than the typical thickness of a laptop.
2) Sure I can. My old Dell 700m is quite rigid. But both it and the Macbook still flex regardless.
3) It's called "We're Apple, we can sell a $999 laptop from start to 12 months down the road."
Hardware improves and thus forces older hardware down in cost. Apple doesn't care about this because it doesn't have to. Like everything they sell, it starts out being a great deal in value then right before they update it, it is embarrassing crap.
You know how dumb it looks when for $500 they still couldn't be bothered putting in a DVD-R/RW/CDR drive in the mac mini, while everyone else did, desktops and all?
Battery lasted over an hour the last time I fired it up, too.
1) it isn't about appeal, its about the simple fact that making a laptop that crazy thin is much more difficult than the typical thickness of a laptop.
2) Sure I can. My old Dell 700m is quite rigid. But both it and the Macbook still flex regardless.
3) It's called "We're Apple, we can sell a $999 laptop from start to 12 months down the road."
Hardware improves and thus forces older hardware down in cost. Apple doesn't care about this because it doesn't have to. Like everything they sell, it starts out being a great deal in value then right before they update it, it is embarrassing crap.
You know how dumb it looks when for $500 they still couldn't be bothered putting in a DVD-R/RW/CDR drive in the mac mini, while everyone else did, desktops and all?
Oh my god it's you the Microsoft fanboy again. Sure Apple can put a DVD drive into the Mac Mini, but then it wouldn't be so tiny and cute now, would it? Your point of argument is always about cost. Seems plausible coming from a former Dell owner.
I still have a G4 iBook running tiger and still going strong. Feels huge and clunky compared to our 2010 MacBook. Mind you it's still thinner than some of the bricks still on the shelves in PC World.
Having said that I hope Apple don't try and go thinner with the Air. I tried one and it felt somewhat fragile in my hands. Put me off buying one.
I am surprised to hear that.
I used a 1999 G3 iBook (500Mhz) running Panther (but it came with MacOS 9), with the translucent white case (not the flat white used on the G4 models). It was a terrific notebook (battery life was 5 hrs+) and I used it until 2006. My 13" MacBook Air feels much more solid than that iBook ever did. Not to mention it has superior fit and finish. Plastic parts vs. machined aluminum? No contest which is better. I think you must be equating mass with "solidness."
It's still running fine. It has had the hard disk replaced (I did that to put in a 5400rpm drive, the original drive was still fine), the display replaced (white spot issue), and power adaptor replaced, but other than that, everything's alright. Put an fairly unknown brand 512MB RAM piece in it about 3(?) years ago, that's still alright.
In the past 2 years Safari and websites have been really laggy but recently I installed Click To Flash and that has improved things significantly. And 1024x768 is actually quite readable, ask the iPad. Only this is at 14" so it's good for those with poor eyesight or older people.
7 years. Nowadays some of us buy mobile phones a few times a year.
I've been looking through some receipts, and my parents' iBook G4 933mhz 14" will be SEVEN (that's right, 7) years old this Christmas.
Seven years isn't anything special. I'm typing on my iMac DV SE that turned 10 years old last summer. I upgraded its HD and memory but other than that it's original including the original Airport card. Best built-in sound of any Mac IMO.
Runs OS X 10.4.11, Safari 4, iTunes 9. Clicktoflash makes those intrusive Flash advertisements a non-issue.
Not bad for something intended to run OS 9.
I have a couple Powerbooks that are about seven years old too. No problems. I've never even bothered with Applecare.
Wow, five years has made quite a difference. Can't wait for the next five...
1) it isn't about appeal, its about the simple fact that making a laptop that crazy thin is much more difficult than the typical thickness of a laptop.
2) Sure I can. My old Dell 700m is quite rigid. But both it and the Macbook still flex regardless.
3) It's called "We're Apple, we can sell a $999 laptop from start to 12 months down the road."
Hardware improves and thus forces older hardware down in cost. Apple doesn't care about this because it doesn't have to. Like everything they sell, it starts out being a great deal in value then right before they update it, it is embarrassing crap.
You know how dumb it looks when for $500 they still couldn't be bothered putting in a DVD-R/RW/CDR drive in the mac mini, while everyone else did, desktops and all?
I'd say apple uses a model akin to car models. It's not practical for everyone to be forced into continuous updating of prices each time a component cost moves. There is also a risk costs could go up. I'm betting apple both hedges their costs to ensure static margins to some degree but also to encourage customers to buy without holding out until prices drop- Ie they buy it because they want a particular laptop but lowest price isn't the main factor in the purchasing decision.
Whether it's the most effective or competitive pricing strategy is another matter but clearly as only player in it's own niche market of selling Apple Mac OS products which are highly differentiated from the competition it may just work. And as far as I can tell. It does.
The form factor, SSD vs. platters, CPU, and other items you mention are cheaper in the MB vs. the MBA.
What, you think a 250GB hdd costs more than ANY SSD? And a non standard form factor at that? Since when do thinner computers cost less than bulky form factors?
So what? The overall performance difference between SSD vs HDD hasn't turned out to be all that big -- a tradeoff between seek time vs burst read/write time, and all that jazz. So to most customers, it really doesn't matter that one machine is using an SSD and the other is using an HDD, or that one costs more to manufacture one than the other. What matters is what you can get out of it. And in this case, it's only differentiated by the total capacity. The MB wins over the MBA on that one.
A computer's value does not come from the cost to manufacture it. Its value comes from its features and attributes as measured from an end-user's viewpoint, and therefore the price an end-user would be willing to pay for it.
The polycarbonate MacBook brings more capabilities to the table than the MBA; the MBA brings a more convenient form factor. For some customers, the form factor balances out to make the MBA more desirable and therefore worth more money. For other customers, the better features balance out to make the MB more desirable and therefore worth more money.
If another manufacturer is bringing a better balance of features, capabilities, software, and support to the table in their similar product, and at a lower price point than the MB, then kudos to that manufacturer -- any customer would be foolish to choose the MB rather than that competitor's machine. In any event, the cost to manufacture is, quite frankly, irrelavent.