Apple will admit how much of a mistake one port on the new Macbook was when the next version rolls out with at least two. That's about as good of an apology/admission you'll ever get from them, which most will freely accept as they ebay their old one to buy the new one.
Bollocks.
I'll tell you why the new MacBook with it's single port isn't an issue:
It isn't a MacBook Pro. You idiots who claim it will fail are clearly NOT the people this unit is aimed for. You NEED a MacBook Pro not a MacBook.
iPad. Single port and productive as hell and will soon (if using later gear) will be even more so. The very idea that the new MacBook is less productive because it only has one port is a bollocks statement made by people who don't understand other people.
Just because the MacBook doesn't fit in with your ideal usage doesn't mean that it doesn't fit in with the most other people's ideal usage. Apple will have done HUGE amounts of research compared to your scant research of asking colleagues, friends, and family.
The MacBook fills the needs for those who want to get by with an iPad but can't because they need to run software that is only Mac or PC based otherwise the cold reality is that MOST people's usage would see them work easily and comfortably on an iPad.
I'm taking supply into full account. Here's what I know, 1) a high level Apple exec claims that the 16 GB model is the most popular model, 2) whenever I go shopping all I ever see in stock are the 16 GB models. I can only ascertain that supply is higher than demand but those get purchased because the consumer can't always wait for supply to catch up with their demand so they buy what's available instead of what they wanted.
You can't wait 1 month for supply to catch up with demand?
After the initial launch period all models should be available.
I went the month after that, and the month after that, and the month after that, and every single time it was the same story. A multitude of the 16 GB models available and only 1 or 2 of the higher models.
If what you say is true (we are paying $100 for $6 more in memory) and Apple does indeed start at 64 guess what happens?
Apple would need to jack-up the price of the 64 GB 'entry-level' model.
...
Again Apple is not running a non-profit company. Tell me exactly why Apple should intentionally lose out on TENS OF BILLIONS in revenue when they can barely make enough iPhones to meet demand?
In the big picture all Apple cares about is Units Sold and Average selling price. ...
Okay, a few last morsels for the troll...
First, I already said exactly this: "Of course what he really means is that the hundreds folks spend for the larger capacities is bankrolling this other stuff." Just say so, Phil. In a sense, though, it was a horribly honest answer, hidden behind one quick logical reversal.
Second, you're obviously not a Stratechery reader. Apple has, on balance, played a very long game. Remember the cash they left on the table until the iPhone 5 by not going over 4"? Their advantage is that they try to get things right at the expense of the short-profit you're fixating on. Cook has said that they make great products first, money second within the last six months. You can ignore him, but it really is their strategy.
Yet here's one place where Apple is a short-term bottom feeder, and that's what led Gruber (if not an Apple fanboy (and he's not, quite), then definitely an Apple fan) to spend some of his limited time with Schiller asking the question.
16 gigs turns many people off from iOS, and that's less cash from them long term. If you're interested in the bottom line long term, you shouldn't sell a crippled product at the entry point.
(If you're arguing that Apple's a changed company in 2015 from 2010, that's more interesting, but then your communication skillz sux0rz.)
If Gruber and Ben Thompson's (Stratechery's author) point is too complex a thought for you to follow to its conclusion, I can't help ya. ;^)
I went the month after that, and the month after that, and the month after that, and every single time it was the same story. A multitude of the 16 GB models available and only 1 or 2 of the higher models.
I rec'd my 64 GB about a month or so after release.
16 gigs turns many people off from iOS, and that's less cash from them long term. If you're interested in the bottom line long term, you shouldn't sell a crippled product at the entry point.
Source? It's not crippled. It may be lacking for you, but 16 GB is perfectly fine for someone who plays a handful of games and/or just checks, the Internet, email, Facebook.
I will be very surprised if the new iPhones don't start at 32 GB this year. And I'll bet they get 2 GB RAM as well. I wish Gruber would have asked him about RAM in iOS devices. To me Apple should be embarrassed that they're still shipping flagship products with 1GB RAM.
If they start at 32GB most average users will go for that because in reality few need 64 or 128 GBs and they will lose the extra hundred dollars for the mid tier upgrade from hundreds of thousands of people. Like Phil said the low tier is for the ones who embrace cloud technologies while getting the newest hardware features.
The MacBook fills the needs for those who want to get by with an iPad but can't because they need to run software that is only Mac or PC based otherwise the cold reality is that MOST people's usage would see them work easily and comfortably on an iPad.
So riddle me this: Why would someone buy an iPad if they need a MacBook, and could only afford one?
Considering the iPad market is in decline, and there are already more affordable MacBook options which also happen to do more, and are not necessarily significantly heavier, and some are closer in size to the iPad, why would anyone spend more to get less? For that matter why would someone who already owns and has spent money on an iPad and needs a MacBook, opt for the more expensive solution with fewer features? And why would Apple go to the expense and effort of creating a device that potentially cannibalizes iPad sales, for what is surely a niche market of iPad users.
And let's just be clear about something, with a port dongle, the MacBook is just as capable as as its less expensive cousins, so your contention is that if someone needs to plug in two things at once they should buy a MacBook Pro or MacBook Air? Because lets face if that's really the biggest complaint here ... one port. In fact, that's always been a big complaint about the iPad for which Apple's solution has always been to release a kludge of dongles to keep track of. Why would Apple even offer dongles if a significant portion of their customers didn't need more than one port? So someone who just needs an iPad-like device is going to pay more so they can use software that isn't available on the iPad, but sacrifice the touch interface of an iPad, and the ability to do anything else a less expensive but more capable MacBook can do, without a less-convenient dongle?
I just don't see it, whether or not the customers for the MacBook actually would ever actually need two ports or not. Most people don't buy things that way, especially when they have a less expensive choice that does more without a substantial compromise.
Show me one shread of evidence that shows 16GB is causing iPhone to lose sales or hurt them long term. Show me. That is your OPINION. Literally TENS of MILLIONS if not HUNDREDS of MILLIONS have 16GB iPhones and are perfectly happy with it.
You have ZERO evidence that if iPhone made the entry level phone 32GB it would increase the bottom line long-term. ZERO. To the tech media (which Gruber is part of) and hardcore fans 16GB may be too little. But to the many average consumers its more than enough.
I rec'd my 64 GB about a month or so after release.
Source? It's not crippled. It may be lacking for you, but 16 GB is perfectly fine for someone who plays a handful of games and/or just checks, the Internet, email, Facebook.
"You're so vain..." ;^)
It's not if you're happy (though you apparently wouldn't've been), or if I'm happy (I wasn't), or even if most are happy. The question is solely a business decision. Are there enough folks that are turned off by the trouble managing with 16 gigs of internal memory that their reactions lose Apple money. I don't know. You don't know.
But Gruber might be closer to knowing, and he was so suspicious that he asked Phil. If the number of people that couldn't update to OS 8 over the air is any indication, more people are closer to the phones' limits than we would've thought, and I bet a lot of those guys are 16 giggers that would've been better off with 64. It's an unnecessary shortcut that I, even as a stockholder, wish Apple hadn't taken.
Really, y'all should listen to Gruber's podcast, The Talk Show, more regularly.
/sigh I'd almost forgotten how much fun the AI forum can be.
So riddle me this: Why would someone buy an iPad if they need a MacBook, and could only afford one?
Considering the iPad market is in decline, and there are already more affordable MacBook options which also happen to do more, and are not necessarily significantly heavier, and some are closer in size to the iPad, why would anyone spend more to get less? For that matter why would someone who already owns and has spent money on an iPad and needs a MacBook, opt for the more expensive solution with fewer features? And why would Apple go to the expense and effort of creating a device that potentially cannibalizes iPad sales, for what is surely a niche market of iPad users.
There's no riddle. MOST people will be able to get away with buying an iPad as their sole device but there will be those who's needs could be filled by an iPad if it wasn't for software they need that can only run on the Mac.
There was nothing confusing about what I wrote. The confusion seems to be with your ability to read.
The MacBook is not designed for power users. Let's face it what do MOST people connect to their laptops? The power lead. MOST people. The VERY people the MacBook is designed for. If you can't get that then the issue is not Apple the issue is your ability to comprehend how MOST people actually use their computers.
This isn't a problem for Apple because they obviously have the data that you don't.
This unit might be more expensive than the Air but remember the Air was more expensive than the MacBook originally because of its small size which required large amounts of R&D to pull off. Now look at the price of the Air.
Quote:
Why would Apple even offer dongles if a significant portion of their customers didn't need more than one port? So someone who just needs an iPad-like device is going to pay more so they can use software that isn't available on the iPad, but sacrifice the touch interface of an iPad, and the ability to do anything else a less expensive but more capable MacBook can do, without a less-convenient dongle?
Umm because Apple understands that SOME of those who the MacBook is aimed at MIGHT want to connect extra devices. They are covering ALL bases.
They sacrifice the touch interface of the iPad because a touchscreen is horrible to use on a laptop form factor. Anyone who says otherwise clearly hasn't used a touch screen on a laptop form factor. It makes no sense at all. You've got a touch pad for that which makes HEAPS of sense.
The MacBook is not designed for power users. Let's face it what do MOST people connect to their laptops? The power lead. MOST people. The VERY people the MacBook is designed for. If you can't get that then the issue is not Apple the issue is your ability to comprehend how MOST people actually use their computers.
This isn't a problem for Apple because they obviously have the data that you don't.
Yes please post links to this conclusive data you reference. Or did Apple show it to you under an exclusive confidentiality agreement, so we'll just have to take your word for it?
I've yet to classify someone who wants to insert a USB flash drive a friend gave them into their laptop, as a "power user", the most common item to plug into a laptop, by the average user, after the power lead. And I've yet to see someone who casually uses a MacBook express an affinity to use a dongle when every other laptop on the market will allow them to stick their friend's USB stick into it without a dongle, including the much less expensive MacBook Air. Who knows maybe a desire to carry a matching gold MacBook to a customer's iPhone will be enough to do the trick.
All I know from my personal anecdotal experience is that people I suggested the new MacBook to who have been using the iPad as their primary computing device, and for whom I thought might appreciate the simplicity, size and weight, since they only expressed a need for a keyboard, and ability to access some business websites that iOS can't handle; lost interest quickly once I explained that if they wanted to insert a USB flash drive at the same time the power was plugged in that they would have to use a special dongle. Once they started comparing the features of the current MacBook offerings against price, they concluded the MacBook Air, and even the MacBook Pro was a better value. But then again, they didn't have Apple's "data" to convince them otherwise.
Yep. My solution? Buy a 64GB iPhone 5 for $200. Done. Looks like it will be running the latest OS for another year 1/2 at least. Maybe not every feature, maybe not as good a camera, but oh well. Some people just need to grow up. If you can afford it, great. If you can't, or don't want to, deal with it. It's not that big of a deal. It's a phone. Apple doesn't owe me anything. I like Apple products, I'll get the ones I need and can afford.
Just wanted to say that your appoach is more rational and more pro-Apple thansog35's contant exhortations to "get an Android." Glad he isn't running Apple marketing.
Thats the problem with these dreamers. They think Apple should give everyone $100 off. They don't realize the reality of doing such a move. They think the entry level phone should be 128GB. Those same people would run Apple into bankruptcy.
Apple will sell about 250,000,000 iPads/iPhones this year. About 30% of those are the upper level models (64/128 GB).
If Apple makes 32GB the low tier probably HALF of those people who bought 64GB would just buy 32GB.
And half who bought the 128GB would get the 128GB for $100 less.
So how much is Apple losing?
75,000,000 units x $100 per unit = $7.5 billion in revenue = $5 billion in profit (remember memory upgrade profit margin is about 70%)
Thats about 10% of Apple's entire profit for the YEAR.
You would wipe out the ENTIRE PROFIT MARGIN iPad makes.
Some of you need to run the numbers before you spout of some pipe-dream.
You are just making up numbers now. You are not privy to any information of product splits or Apple's strategy. The best you can do is try to determine product mix based on unit sales and ASP.
You also need to stop the name-calling and insults.
So you are going to trust some random guy called Gruber instead of Tim Cook and his executive team? Give me a break. Apple knows what they are doing with their tiered pricing. They have very good reasons for selling a 16GB iPhone. Again if you want to worship that Gruber guy, go ahead. But don't be spreading BS and lies that 16GB is causing a significant amount of people from buying iPhones. I have heard a single shread of evidence that proves that. ZERO.
The biggest reason for the 16GB to date is probably that it is either enough storage for many people or it starts the upgrade cycle to a device with larger storage sooner than later. Apple knows that once they get someone hooked with an iPhone that there next phone is also likely an iPhone, it's just a matter of storage capacity. This is one reason Apple is so profitable and the reason they are spending so much effort on the iPad to get that replacement cycle started.
It was a great interview and something Apple did not have to do. Schiller is a classy guy and it showed. Got a great reception from the crowd.
I thought it was a good interview, Phil's got a great sense of humor:
Gruber: did the video stay up?
Audience member: No!
Phil: It's hard to do right.
He's a lot better when he has someone to play off and he seemed really relaxed. When he presents on his own during events, there isn't enough opportunity to introduce humor into what he's saying.
His answers didn't sound scripted to me but he's a marketing guy through and through so it'll sound like it to some people. He'd be great to be around because he'd always put a positive spin on things. There are times when he'll have to spin mistakes into something positive but for the most part, he sounds different from other marketing people who are blatantly putting out a false message. He is a lot more genuine than typical marketing people and his answers suggest he's a lot smarter too.
On the subject of NAND and RAM, there were some supply constraints in 2013/2014 and that also affected pricing:
"The plant made 15 percent of global DRAM semiconductors before the fire and Hynix is hoping its recovery will help cushion the impact of weakening chip prices and win back market share from rivals like South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co Ltd , Japan's Toshiba Corp and U.S.-based Micron Technology Inc.
Many of Hynix's clients - which include PC makers Apple Inc and Hewlett-Packard Co - are still short of memory chips after the fire forced the company to sharply cut shipments in the fourth quarter, ending two consecutive quarters of record earnings."
Apple ships over 250m iOS devices per year and consumes about 1/5th of the world's supply. Their ASP suggests the entry models ship the most units. If they boosted the entry ones, they could easily have run into supply problems. Cheap Android phones have 8GB, some have very little and rely on an SD card. Android device ASP is $254:
That means over half are below $254 so they aren't shipping with high specs.
LPDDR4 will improve density and data rate for RAM so maybe they'll be able to move to 2GB RAM more easily. It cuts power draw by 40%. NAND is getting cheaper, the iPhone NAND is not likely more than $1/GB so an extra 16GB wouldn't be more than $16. On a $649 iPhone with 25% net margin, taking $16 out of $162 isn't a significant drop. If they further improve the camera with more HDR features in the 6S, putting 32GB in the base model makes sense.
It's true people can just pay $100 for the next model but the Macs boost the entry level over time, albeit slowly too. The Macbook starts at 8GB/256GB.
cash907 and wdowell: the single USB-C port on the MacBook isn't a mistake at all. Now I'm the first to admit that I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro that mostly sits on power at home, and has a 24-inch monitor attached to it, along with USB backup drives hooked to it (and speakers), and thus I'm using most of the ports my machine has.
But the MacBook's single port isn't a mistake: it's just not a machine that is designed what I do. That doesn't make it any more wrong than if I were to criticize a scooter because I drive a car.
The new MacBook is designed to run all day in normal use, and thus only need to be charged at night (or every other night). It has a gorgeous screen that should be more than sufficient for doing the things that *normal* computer users (not power-users) do, like reading Facebook and the web, making FaceTime calls, and yes even doing normal productive work. It's also designed with the assumption that you're not storing tons of media on it, that most of that stuff goes to the cloud.
When you look at the machine from that perspective, it hardly even needs the one port it does have, except for charging. There will be USB-C flash drives for data swapping soon enough (though Mac users can just use AirDrop, again precluding needing a port), 200GB of cloud space for photos and such costs $2/month from Apple (and Flickr offers 1TB for "free", and Google Photos offers even more for "free"), so right there the stuff that's taking up most of your traditional HD in your own machine is not even present on the MacBook, it's mostly in Instagram or something like that.
The MacBook's sole port isn't an error -- it's a deliberate attempt to get you (not younger people -- they already think like this naturally) to "think different."
The MacBook's sole port isn't an error -- it's a deliberate attempt to get you (not younger people -- they already think like this naturally) to "think different."
Man that younger generation is going to have a tough time of it if their internet connection ever goes down.
cash907 and wdowell: the single USB-C port on the MacBook isn't a mistake at all. Now I'm the first to admit that I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro that mostly sits on power at home, and has a 24-inch monitor attached to it, along with USB backup drives hooked to it (and speakers), and thus I'm using most of the ports my machine has.
But the MacBook's single port isn't a mistake: it's just not a machine that is designed what I do. That doesn't make it any more wrong than if I were to criticize a scooter because I drive a car.
The new MacBook is designed to run all day in normal use, and thus only need to be charged at night (or every other night). It has a gorgeous screen that should be more than sufficient for doing the things that *normal* computer users (not power-users) do, like reading Facebook and the web, making FaceTime calls, and yes even doing normal productive work. It's also designed with the assumption that you're not storing tons of media on it, that most of that stuff goes to the cloud.
When you look at the machine from that perspective, it hardly even needs the one port it does have, except for charging. There will be USB-C flash drives for data swapping soon enough (though Mac users can just use AirDrop, again precluding needing a port), 200GB of cloud space for photos and such costs $2/month from Apple (and Flickr offers 1TB for "free", and Google Photos offers even more for "free"), so right there the stuff that's taking up most of your traditional HD in your own machine is not even present on the MacBook, it's mostly in Instagram or something like that.
The MacBook's sole port isn't an error -- it's a deliberate attempt to get you (not younger people -- they already think like this naturally) to "think different."
"normal" users - as you put it - aren't the hip californian type who goes around living a minimalist life style. They're people like my mum who want to be able to charge their laptop and probably stick in a usb key and that sort of thing without living this uber lifestyle when they can buy a macbook air with more than one - or a pc - and be fine. I honestly dont think this was designed for mass market. It's designed for a niche young, hip, affluent, crowd who like to have things the look good, with their skinny jeans and geeky glasses and have enough money to own an iMac, probably a phone and quite possibly an older iPad they are hesitating to upgrade, and this tempts them to accelerate their purchasing decision.
Ulimtely of course, it's also a direction - the future. So one day it will be mass market. But it's not yet there and this is too extreme for most consumers at this point. I venture to say that MOST "normal" people walking into an ? Store today are looking for a "I want a laptop" market will walk out with the MacBook Air. They will care more about the USB than retina screen. They're not there with their magnifying glasses checking colour balance and number of pixels.
Frankly, if they bring out a 15 inch version, with 2 USBs that would probably sell more. then again, the price may be an issue..
Ulimtely of course, it's also a direction - the future. So one day it will be mass market. But it's not yet there and this is too extreme for most consumers at this point. I venture to say that MOST "normal" people walking into an ? Store today are looking for a "I want a laptop" market will walk out with the MacBook Air. They will care more about the USB than retina screen. They're not there with their magnifying glasses checking colour balance and number of pixels.
I would agree with this to some degree. I think it's still short sighted to limit a device to only one port as too many things could go wrong with that single port.
But I too believe that currently, average people are going to walk out with the MBA once they start comparing features vs. price. It's hard for me to believe that the same people who are the market for the new MacBook, wouldn't also first buy a much less expensive iPad if they didn't absolutely need to run OS X or Windows. In which case they might not also buy an iPad, considering the price. Seems to me the last thing the iPad needs is more market cannibalism.
I also think the MBA is not long for this world. It likely will not ever see a retina display update. In many ways this feels like Apple's first aluminum MacBook which removed the FireWire port. By the very next update, the FW port was back and the aluminum rebranded MacBook Pro - the experiment had seemingly failed. The Air became the progressive port-light alternative. Ironic that the Air now represents the "old school", actually gaining ports during its evolution. It remains to be seen whether Apple will stick to their guns this time.
Comments
Well then that's their fault. When you settle, you already know it's not what you wanted. So you have a built-in complaint.
Apple will admit how much of a mistake one port on the new Macbook was when the next version rolls out with at least two. That's about as good of an apology/admission you'll ever get from them, which most will freely accept as they ebay their old one to buy the new one.
Bollocks.
I'll tell you why the new MacBook with it's single port isn't an issue:
Just because the MacBook doesn't fit in with your ideal usage doesn't mean that it doesn't fit in with the most other people's ideal usage. Apple will have done HUGE amounts of research compared to your scant research of asking colleagues, friends, and family.
The MacBook fills the needs for those who want to get by with an iPad but can't because they need to run software that is only Mac or PC based otherwise the cold reality is that MOST people's usage would see them work easily and comfortably on an iPad.
I went the month after that, and the month after that, and the month after that, and every single time it was the same story. A multitude of the 16 GB models available and only 1 or 2 of the higher models.
If what you say is true (we are paying $100 for $6 more in memory) and Apple does indeed start at 64 guess what happens?
Apple would need to jack-up the price of the 64 GB 'entry-level' model.
...
Again Apple is not running a non-profit company. Tell me exactly why Apple should intentionally lose out on TENS OF BILLIONS in revenue when they can barely make enough iPhones to meet demand?
In the big picture all Apple cares about is Units Sold and Average selling price. ...
Okay, a few last morsels for the troll...
First, I already said exactly this: "Of course what he really means is that the hundreds folks spend for the larger capacities is bankrolling this other stuff." Just say so, Phil. In a sense, though, it was a horribly honest answer, hidden behind one quick logical reversal.
Second, you're obviously not a Stratechery reader. Apple has, on balance, played a very long game. Remember the cash they left on the table until the iPhone 5 by not going over 4"? Their advantage is that they try to get things right at the expense of the short-profit you're fixating on. Cook has said that they make great products first, money second within the last six months. You can ignore him, but it really is their strategy.
Yet here's one place where Apple is a short-term bottom feeder, and that's what led Gruber (if not an Apple fanboy (and he's not, quite), then definitely an Apple fan) to spend some of his limited time with Schiller asking the question.
16 gigs turns many people off from iOS, and that's less cash from them long term. If you're interested in the bottom line long term, you shouldn't sell a crippled product at the entry point.
(If you're arguing that Apple's a changed company in 2015 from 2010, that's more interesting, but then your communication skillz sux0rz.)
If Gruber and Ben Thompson's (Stratechery's author) point is too complex a thought for you to follow to its conclusion, I can't help ya. ;^)
I rec'd my 64 GB about a month or so after release.
Source? It's not crippled. It may be lacking for you, but 16 GB is perfectly fine for someone who plays a handful of games and/or just checks, the Internet, email, Facebook.
The MacBook fills the needs for those who want to get by with an iPad but can't because they need to run software that is only Mac or PC based otherwise the cold reality is that MOST people's usage would see them work easily and comfortably on an iPad.
So riddle me this: Why would someone buy an iPad if they need a MacBook, and could only afford one?
Considering the iPad market is in decline, and there are already more affordable MacBook options which also happen to do more, and are not necessarily significantly heavier, and some are closer in size to the iPad, why would anyone spend more to get less? For that matter why would someone who already owns and has spent money on an iPad and needs a MacBook, opt for the more expensive solution with fewer features? And why would Apple go to the expense and effort of creating a device that potentially cannibalizes iPad sales, for what is surely a niche market of iPad users.
And let's just be clear about something, with a port dongle, the MacBook is just as capable as as its less expensive cousins, so your contention is that if someone needs to plug in two things at once they should buy a MacBook Pro or MacBook Air? Because lets face if that's really the biggest complaint here ... one port. In fact, that's always been a big complaint about the iPad for which Apple's solution has always been to release a kludge of dongles to keep track of. Why would Apple even offer dongles if a significant portion of their customers didn't need more than one port? So someone who just needs an iPad-like device is going to pay more so they can use software that isn't available on the iPad, but sacrifice the touch interface of an iPad, and the ability to do anything else a less expensive but more capable MacBook can do, without a less-convenient dongle?
I just don't see it, whether or not the customers for the MacBook actually would ever actually need two ports or not. Most people don't buy things that way, especially when they have a less expensive choice that does more without a substantial compromise.
Show me one shread of evidence that shows 16GB is causing iPhone to lose sales or hurt them long term. Show me. That is your OPINION. Literally TENS of MILLIONS if not HUNDREDS of MILLIONS have 16GB iPhones and are perfectly happy with it.
You have ZERO evidence that if iPhone made the entry level phone 32GB it would increase the bottom line long-term. ZERO. To the tech media (which Gruber is part of) and hardcore fans 16GB may be too little. But to the many average consumers its more than enough.
Sorry, feeding time's over, BRILLIANT RHETORICIAN!!1!!!1
I rec'd my 64 GB about a month or so after release.
"You're so vain..." ;^)
It's not if you're happy (though you apparently wouldn't've been), or if I'm happy (I wasn't), or even if most are happy. The question is solely a business decision. Are there enough folks that are turned off by the trouble managing with 16 gigs of internal memory that their reactions lose Apple money. I don't know. You don't know.
But Gruber might be closer to knowing, and he was so suspicious that he asked Phil. If the number of people that couldn't update to OS 8 over the air is any indication, more people are closer to the phones' limits than we would've thought, and I bet a lot of those guys are 16 giggers that would've been better off with 64. It's an unnecessary shortcut that I, even as a stockholder, wish Apple hadn't taken.
Really, y'all should listen to Gruber's podcast, The Talk Show, more regularly.
/sigh I'd almost forgotten how much fun the AI forum can be.
So riddle me this: Why would someone buy an iPad if they need a MacBook, and could only afford one?
Considering the iPad market is in decline, and there are already more affordable MacBook options which also happen to do more, and are not necessarily significantly heavier, and some are closer in size to the iPad, why would anyone spend more to get less? For that matter why would someone who already owns and has spent money on an iPad and needs a MacBook, opt for the more expensive solution with fewer features? And why would Apple go to the expense and effort of creating a device that potentially cannibalizes iPad sales, for what is surely a niche market of iPad users.
There's no riddle. MOST people will be able to get away with buying an iPad as their sole device but there will be those who's needs could be filled by an iPad if it wasn't for software they need that can only run on the Mac.
There was nothing confusing about what I wrote. The confusion seems to be with your ability to read.
The MacBook is not designed for power users. Let's face it what do MOST people connect to their laptops? The power lead. MOST people. The VERY people the MacBook is designed for. If you can't get that then the issue is not Apple the issue is your ability to comprehend how MOST people actually use their computers.
This isn't a problem for Apple because they obviously have the data that you don't.
This unit might be more expensive than the Air but remember the Air was more expensive than the MacBook originally because of its small size which required large amounts of R&D to pull off. Now look at the price of the Air.
Umm because Apple understands that SOME of those who the MacBook is aimed at MIGHT want to connect extra devices. They are covering ALL bases.
They sacrifice the touch interface of the iPad because a touchscreen is horrible to use on a laptop form factor. Anyone who says otherwise clearly hasn't used a touch screen on a laptop form factor. It makes no sense at all. You've got a touch pad for that which makes HEAPS of sense.
The MacBook is not designed for power users. Let's face it what do MOST people connect to their laptops? The power lead. MOST people. The VERY people the MacBook is designed for. If you can't get that then the issue is not Apple the issue is your ability to comprehend how MOST people actually use their computers.
This isn't a problem for Apple because they obviously have the data that you don't.
Yes please post links to this conclusive data you reference. Or did Apple show it to you under an exclusive confidentiality agreement, so we'll just have to take your word for it?
I've yet to classify someone who wants to insert a USB flash drive a friend gave them into their laptop, as a "power user", the most common item to plug into a laptop, by the average user, after the power lead. And I've yet to see someone who casually uses a MacBook express an affinity to use a dongle when every other laptop on the market will allow them to stick their friend's USB stick into it without a dongle, including the much less expensive MacBook Air. Who knows maybe a desire to carry a matching gold MacBook to a customer's iPhone will be enough to do the trick.
All I know from my personal anecdotal experience is that people I suggested the new MacBook to who have been using the iPad as their primary computing device, and for whom I thought might appreciate the simplicity, size and weight, since they only expressed a need for a keyboard, and ability to access some business websites that iOS can't handle; lost interest quickly once I explained that if they wanted to insert a USB flash drive at the same time the power was plugged in that they would have to use a special dongle. Once they started comparing the features of the current MacBook offerings against price, they concluded the MacBook Air, and even the MacBook Pro was a better value. But then again, they didn't have Apple's "data" to convince them otherwise.
Yep. My solution? Buy a 64GB iPhone 5 for $200. Done. Looks like it will be running the latest OS for another year 1/2 at least. Maybe not every feature, maybe not as good a camera, but oh well. Some people just need to grow up. If you can afford it, great. If you can't, or don't want to, deal with it. It's not that big of a deal. It's a phone. Apple doesn't owe me anything. I like Apple products, I'll get the ones I need and can afford.
Just wanted to say that your appoach is more rational and more pro-Apple thansog35's contant exhortations to "get an Android." Glad he isn't running Apple marketing.
More like TENS of MILLIONS of people.
Thats the problem with these dreamers. They think Apple should give everyone $100 off. They don't realize the reality of doing such a move. They think the entry level phone should be 128GB. Those same people would run Apple into bankruptcy.
Apple will sell about 250,000,000 iPads/iPhones this year. About 30% of those are the upper level models (64/128 GB).
If Apple makes 32GB the low tier probably HALF of those people who bought 64GB would just buy 32GB.
And half who bought the 128GB would get the 128GB for $100 less.
So how much is Apple losing?
75,000,000 units x $100 per unit = $7.5 billion in revenue = $5 billion in profit (remember memory upgrade profit margin is about 70%)
Thats about 10% of Apple's entire profit for the YEAR.
You would wipe out the ENTIRE PROFIT MARGIN iPad makes.
Some of you need to run the numbers before you spout of some pipe-dream.
You are just making up numbers now. You are not privy to any information of product splits or Apple's strategy. The best you can do is try to determine product mix based on unit sales and ASP.
You also need to stop the name-calling and insults.
So you are going to trust some random guy called Gruber instead of Tim Cook and his executive team? Give me a break. Apple knows what they are doing with their tiered pricing. They have very good reasons for selling a 16GB iPhone. Again if you want to worship that Gruber guy, go ahead. But don't be spreading BS and lies that 16GB is causing a significant amount of people from buying iPhones. I have heard a single shread of evidence that proves that. ZERO.
The biggest reason for the 16GB to date is probably that it is either enough storage for many people or it starts the upgrade cycle to a device with larger storage sooner than later. Apple knows that once they get someone hooked with an iPhone that there next phone is also likely an iPhone, it's just a matter of storage capacity. This is one reason Apple is so profitable and the reason they are spending so much effort on the iPad to get that replacement cycle started.
I thought it was a good interview, Phil's got a great sense of humor:
Gruber: did the video stay up?
Audience member: No!
Phil: It's hard to do right.
He's a lot better when he has someone to play off and he seemed really relaxed. When he presents on his own during events, there isn't enough opportunity to introduce humor into what he's saying.
His answers didn't sound scripted to me but he's a marketing guy through and through so it'll sound like it to some people. He'd be great to be around because he'd always put a positive spin on things. There are times when he'll have to spin mistakes into something positive but for the most part, he sounds different from other marketing people who are blatantly putting out a false message. He is a lot more genuine than typical marketing people and his answers suggest he's a lot smarter too.
On the subject of NAND and RAM, there were some supply constraints in 2013/2014 and that also affected pricing:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/28/skhynix-results-idUSL3N0L00QP20140128
"The plant made 15 percent of global DRAM semiconductors before the fire and Hynix is hoping its recovery will help cushion the impact of weakening chip prices and win back market share from rivals like South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co Ltd , Japan's Toshiba Corp and U.S.-based Micron Technology Inc.
Many of Hynix's clients - which include PC makers Apple Inc and Hewlett-Packard Co - are still short of memory chips after the fire forced the company to sharply cut shipments in the fourth quarter, ending two consecutive quarters of record earnings."
Apple ships over 250m iOS devices per year and consumes about 1/5th of the world's supply. Their ASP suggests the entry models ship the most units. If they boosted the entry ones, they could easily have run into supply problems. Cheap Android phones have 8GB, some have very little and rely on an SD card. Android device ASP is $254:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/02/02/while-apples-average-iphone-price-surges-to-687-android-devices-flounder-at-254
That means over half are below $254 so they aren't shipping with high specs.
LPDDR4 will improve density and data rate for RAM so maybe they'll be able to move to 2GB RAM more easily. It cuts power draw by 40%. NAND is getting cheaper, the iPhone NAND is not likely more than $1/GB so an extra 16GB wouldn't be more than $16. On a $649 iPhone with 25% net margin, taking $16 out of $162 isn't a significant drop. If they further improve the camera with more HDR features in the 6S, putting 32GB in the base model makes sense.
It's true people can just pay $100 for the next model but the Macs boost the entry level over time, albeit slowly too. The Macbook starts at 8GB/256GB.
I'd bookmarked a few topics on HiCast
iOS 9
But the MacBook's single port isn't a mistake: it's just not a machine that is designed what I do. That doesn't make it any more wrong than if I were to criticize a scooter because I drive a car.
The new MacBook is designed to run all day in normal use, and thus only need to be charged at night (or every other night). It has a gorgeous screen that should be more than sufficient for doing the things that *normal* computer users (not power-users) do, like reading Facebook and the web, making FaceTime calls, and yes even doing normal productive work. It's also designed with the assumption that you're not storing tons of media on it, that most of that stuff goes to the cloud.
When you look at the machine from that perspective, it hardly even needs the one port it does have, except for charging. There will be USB-C flash drives for data swapping soon enough (though Mac users can just use AirDrop, again precluding needing a port), 200GB of cloud space for photos and such costs $2/month from Apple (and Flickr offers 1TB for "free", and Google Photos offers even more for "free"), so right there the stuff that's taking up most of your traditional HD in your own machine is not even present on the MacBook, it's mostly in Instagram or something like that.
The MacBook's sole port isn't an error -- it's a deliberate attempt to get you (not younger people -- they already think like this naturally) to "think different."
The MacBook's sole port isn't an error -- it's a deliberate attempt to get you (not younger people -- they already think like this naturally) to "think different."
Man that younger generation is going to have a tough time of it if their internet connection ever goes down.
cash907 and wdowell: the single USB-C port on the MacBook isn't a mistake at all. Now I'm the first to admit that I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro that mostly sits on power at home, and has a 24-inch monitor attached to it, along with USB backup drives hooked to it (and speakers), and thus I'm using most of the ports my machine has.
But the MacBook's single port isn't a mistake: it's just not a machine that is designed what I do. That doesn't make it any more wrong than if I were to criticize a scooter because I drive a car.
The new MacBook is designed to run all day in normal use, and thus only need to be charged at night (or every other night). It has a gorgeous screen that should be more than sufficient for doing the things that *normal* computer users (not power-users) do, like reading Facebook and the web, making FaceTime calls, and yes even doing normal productive work. It's also designed with the assumption that you're not storing tons of media on it, that most of that stuff goes to the cloud.
When you look at the machine from that perspective, it hardly even needs the one port it does have, except for charging. There will be USB-C flash drives for data swapping soon enough (though Mac users can just use AirDrop, again precluding needing a port), 200GB of cloud space for photos and such costs $2/month from Apple (and Flickr offers 1TB for "free", and Google Photos offers even more for "free"), so right there the stuff that's taking up most of your traditional HD in your own machine is not even present on the MacBook, it's mostly in Instagram or something like that.
The MacBook's sole port isn't an error -- it's a deliberate attempt to get you (not younger people -- they already think like this naturally) to "think different."
"normal" users - as you put it - aren't the hip californian type who goes around living a minimalist life style. They're people like my mum who want to be able to charge their laptop and probably stick in a usb key and that sort of thing without living this uber lifestyle when they can buy a macbook air with more than one - or a pc - and be fine. I honestly dont think this was designed for mass market. It's designed for a niche young, hip, affluent, crowd who like to have things the look good, with their skinny jeans and geeky glasses and have enough money to own an iMac, probably a phone and quite possibly an older iPad they are hesitating to upgrade, and this tempts them to accelerate their purchasing decision.
Ulimtely of course, it's also a direction - the future. So one day it will be mass market. But it's not yet there and this is too extreme for most consumers at this point. I venture to say that MOST "normal" people walking into an ? Store today are looking for a "I want a laptop" market will walk out with the MacBook Air. They will care more about the USB than retina screen. They're not there with their magnifying glasses checking colour balance and number of pixels.
Frankly, if they bring out a 15 inch version, with 2 USBs that would probably sell more. then again, the price may be an issue..
If their internet connection goes down, why would it matter if they have Ethernet or wifi?
Ulimtely of course, it's also a direction - the future. So one day it will be mass market. But it's not yet there and this is too extreme for most consumers at this point. I venture to say that MOST "normal" people walking into an ? Store today are looking for a "I want a laptop" market will walk out with the MacBook Air. They will care more about the USB than retina screen. They're not there with their magnifying glasses checking colour balance and number of pixels.
I would agree with this to some degree. I think it's still short sighted to limit a device to only one port as too many things could go wrong with that single port.
But I too believe that currently, average people are going to walk out with the MBA once they start comparing features vs. price. It's hard for me to believe that the same people who are the market for the new MacBook, wouldn't also first buy a much less expensive iPad if they didn't absolutely need to run OS X or Windows. In which case they might not also buy an iPad, considering the price. Seems to me the last thing the iPad needs is more market cannibalism.
I also think the MBA is not long for this world. It likely will not ever see a retina display update. In many ways this feels like Apple's first aluminum MacBook which removed the FireWire port. By the very next update, the FW port was back and the aluminum rebranded MacBook Pro - the experiment had seemingly failed. The Air became the progressive port-light alternative. Ironic that the Air now represents the "old school", actually gaining ports during its evolution. It remains to be seen whether Apple will stick to their guns this time.