And why the hell anyone buy a product that is heavier and less powerful then the MacBook Pro when the difference in price may not be that great?
The price of a 15" Macbook should be 200-300 less than the starting MBP. Why wouldn't it? This still would appeal to a lot of users who want more screen real estate but don't need a graphics card. In the future the lines can further be separated by processors, actually that can be done now.
I'm confused. How does this relate to the post that you quoted?
And how does it relate to the MacBook having a 15" or 17" screen? You are seriously saying that 15.4" and 17" screens are "Ferrari" features? Check out the competition, you can get some really rather inexpensive 15.4" and 17" laptops. Obviously, they don't even begin to compare to the MacBook Pro. But what they do compare to is the currently non-existant 15.4" and 17" MacBook. The point is, if you want a large-screen laptop but are willing to sacrifice other features, you can buy a PC laptop or spend twice as much on a MacBook Pro. An easy choice for the average consumer. And yes, I know that the MacBook is selling well. It just could sell even better.
Presumably you like the MacBook? How does putting a 15.4" or 17" screen on one suddenly turn it from something decent into something equivalent to "those bad fiberglass Daytona bodies they used to put on Ford chassises back in the early 80's"
Basically I see people pouting because they want larger screens, better graphic chips, etc., etc., etc., but they all want them at MacBook prices. You want the good stuff, pay. MacBook's are great, but for Apple, they are the lower end laptop and have a niche that fits for students, knock-around, etc. So, for those who want everything and the kitche sink packed in, or even just a larger screen but the rest a MacBook (integrated graphic chip, etc.), it's like one of the fiberglass Ferrari bodies on a Ford. The Ford was fine as a Ford, but it ain't a Ferrari.
The price of a 15" Macbook should be 200-300 less than the starting MBP. Why wouldn't it?
Thanks for explaining what I thought was obvious.
The bottom-end MacBook costs $1099
The bottom-end MacBook Pro costs $1999
At Dell, the difference in price between a 14.1" screen and a high-resolution 15.4" screen, all other things being equal, is $200.
Apple could easily sell a MacBook with the same specs as the current bottom-end MacBook, except with a 15.4" screen for $1399 and still achieve its customary high margins. So, in fact, the cheapest 15.4" MacBook would be $600 cheaper than the MacBook Pro.
or even just a larger screen but the rest a MacBook (integrated graphic chip, etc.), it's like one of the fiberglass Ferrari bodies on a Ford. The Ford was fine as a Ford, but it ain't a Ferrari.
This does not make sense. A 13" MacBook is not a "fiberglass Ferrari body on a ford", but a 15.4" or 17" one is? Yeah, right.
And anyway, who cares? If you are considering buying a Core Duo laptop and want a 15.4" screen, you go to Dell and see you can get one for around $999, you go to HP, and find the same. Then you go to Apple, and find you've got to part with $1999! Yes, the Apple option has things (apart from the OS) the HP and Dell don't, but what if you don't want all that? You buy the Dell or the HP. The choice wouldn't be so clear-cut if there were a $1399 option from Apple.
This does not make sense. A 13" MacBook is not a "fiberglass Ferrari body on a ford", but a 15.4" or 17" one is? Yeah, right.
And anyway, who cares? If you are considering buying a laptop and want a 15.4" screen, you go to Dell and see you can get one for around $999, you go to HP, and find the same. Then you go to Apple, and find you've got to part with $1999! Yes, the Apple option has things (apart from the OS) the HP and Dell don't, but what if you don't want all that? You buy the Dell or the HP. The choice wouldn't be so clear-cut if there were a $1399 option from Apple.
There's a similar story with a 17" screen.
Apple does not equal Ford -- just an example of the pie-in-the-sky I see around here. I just think the MacBook is a particular niche (a really, really, really good one that sells well), and if you're doing any real work - kids need to go to school, granny needs a new heart kind of work -- I wouldn't get one of those, but a MBP, or, if I did rest my job on one, I'd get an external monitor to go with it (if I needed the real estate). It's like the headless tower that's never offered. If you don't have the bucks for a Mac Pro, that would be great, but it just seems Apple muddies the waters by having so many variations on a theme. And it always comes back to money -- someone doesn't want to fork over the dough. Really, all the people who want a headless tower and a MB with a 17" screen really want a Mac Pro and a MBP, if they're honest, they just don't have, or can't see spending, the bucks. Soooo, they're trying to find work-arounds: a MacBook with a larger screen, a headless tower. To me, there's not a driving need for either of those, in any technological way; it's just bucks. Hence the Ford/Ferrari thang. (And again: Apple ain't Ford.) If there were no notebook with a 15", or 17" screen, I'd say go for it, but we have those already. As far as subnotebooks, hey, that's up in the air. MacBook, MBP -- knock yourself out -- but again: just one, please. Don't care which one, but just one.
Really, all the people who want a headless tower and a MB with a 17" screen really want a Mac Pro and a MBP, if they're honest, they just don't have, or can't see spending, the bucks.
That is, quite frankly, bullshit. For the record I want a MacBook Pro with Santa Rosa, and I'll buy one when they appear sometime next year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzaslove
Soooo, they're trying to find work-arounds: a MacBook with a larger screen, a headless tower. To me, there's not a driving need for either of those, in any technological way
I'm not talking about what's needed "technologically", I'm talking about what I think would be a great business move considering that probably at least 60% of the laptop market is 15" or 17" laptops that cost less than $1999.
That is, quite frankly, bullshit. For the record I want a MacBook Pro with Santa Rosa, and I'll buy one when they appear sometime next year.
Well, just my opinion from what I've seen, and probably as much bullshit as yours. MBP with Santa Rosa should be cool.
Quote:
I'm not talking about what's needed "technologically", I'm talking about what I think would be a great business move considering that probably at least 60% of the laptop market is 15" or 17" laptops that cost less than $1999.
But on what do you base your info that it's a great business move? 60% of the laptop market may be in 15" or 17" laptops, but will that be the case for the "unique" Apple products that tend to play on their individuality and not just their beige-boxness? Apple tends to focus on certain things, damn the torpedoes, and Apple buyers buy those things -- they're not Dell, offering up a zillion different elements on a theme. Take the iPod: it could have a zillion other functions on it. Sells just fine without them -- people stick with it, etc. Add on other stuff if you need FM radio, or a mic. Me, and it's just my bullshit opinion, I think it would muddy the waters to have a cheap line of laptops (with same screen sizes) and a high-end. More Dell than Apple, to me. Hence, Ford & Ferrari. Maybe a better example should have been Porsche (I respect them, but don't buy 'em) -- the high end machines, and the Boxsters for those who can't afford them. Boxsters great, but they aren't top-of-the-line.
But on what do you base your info that it's a great business move? 60% of the laptop market may be in 15" or 17" laptops, but will that be the case for the "unique" Apple products that tend to play on their individuality and not just their beige-boxness?
So putting a 15.4" or 17" screen on a MacBook instead of a 13" suddenly turns it from something stylish into something beige-boxy? No.
I'm not talking about getting rid of the 13" option. It's great. I'm talking about adding the option for 15.4" or 17" screens. So then the MacBook appeals to the niche it's already selling to, and the much larger 60% of the market which currently isn't interested in a screen smaller than 15".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzaslove
Take the iPod: it could have a zillion other functions on it. Sells just fine without them -- people stick with it, etc. Add on other stuff if you need FM radio, or a mic.
Providing two extra screen options isn't really analogous to adding "a zillion other functions". It's more analogous to the fact the the iPod is available in three different forms: shuffle, nano and HDD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzaslove
Me, and it's just my bullshit opinion, I think it would muddy the waters to have a cheap line of laptops (with same screen sizes) and a high-end.
Please, don't misinterpret me. I do not think all your opinions are bullshit. I just called you on a rather strange assertion that you made. I agree that it's important not to make things too complicated, but having the mid-range MacBook with three screen options and the high-end MacBook Pro with two screen options would still leave Apple with a vastly simpler line-up than most other manufacturers (been to Acer's website recently?).
So then the MacBook appeals to the niche it's already selling to, and the much larger 60% of the market which currently isn't interested in a screen smaller than 15".
For whatever reason, Apple seems to avoid the biggest market segments. Example, no mid-range headless Mac. It doesn't make sense to me because they are quite competitve on price and features at both the high end and low end. They just don't compete in the middle.
I would totally dig a 14" MBP in about the same size enclosure as the MacBook. The fact that the MacBook has that big space at the edge of the screen means it could probably stand to have a slightly filled out screen in the same form factor. Couple that with a decent GPU, nothing overkill I have a gaming PC, an express card slot for when 802.11n rolls out, and a respectable battery life and it would be perfect!
They avoid saturated commodity markets, as it's extremely hard to make much of a profit in them.
Look. There's a space between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro. Apple could obviously make MacBooks with 15.4" and 17" screens and sell them for a profit.
Again, we are talking about the upper mid-range range market between the current MacBook and the MacBook Pro, not the low-end where margins are wafer thin.
Much more likely that Apple don't want to bring out a MacBook with larger screens for fear of cannibalising the MacBook Pro. I think this is deeply short sighted. After a couple of years, the number of extra people brought to the platform would easily outweigh the cannibalisation effect, which I think would be small anyway.
Apple could obviously make MacBooks with 15.4" and 17" screens and sell them for a profit.
Possibly, yes. "Obviously"? How do you know that?
Quote:
Much more likely that Apple don't want to bring out a MacBook with larger screens for fear of cannibalising the MacBook Pro. I think this is deeply short sighted. After a couple of years, the number of extra people brought to the platform would easily outweigh the cannibalisation effect, which I think would be small anyway.
The key words being "I think", i.e. it's all speculation on your part.
So putting a 15.4" or 17" screen on a MacBook instead of a 13" suddenly turns it from something stylish into something beige-boxy? No.
I'm not talking about getting rid of the 13" option. It's great. I'm talking about adding the option for 15.4" or 17" screens. So then the MacBook appeals to the niche it's already selling to, and the much larger 60% of the market which currently isn't interested in a screen smaller than 15".
Providing two extra screen options isn't really analogous to adding "a zillion other functions". It's more analogous to the fact the the iPod is available in three different forms: shuffle, nano and HDD.
Please, don't misinterpret me. I do not think all your opinions are bullshit. I just called you on a rather strange assertion that you made. I agree that it's important no to make things too complicated, but having the mid-range MacBook with three screen options and the high-end MacBook Pro with two screen options would still leave Apple with a vastly simpler line-up than most other manufacturers (been to Acer's website recently?).
Is all cool. Just opinions, anyway -- as of today, Steve hasn't called me yet to ask me what I think should be done, so.... But whatever comes out will be cool, which is the imporatant thing. My only complaint these days, and it's a technological one, is battery life. One day there'll be a breakthrough and I can live happily ever after. If they did a 15" MB, it wouldn't be a bad thing.
do you think that the only reason the MacBook Pro costs $900 more than the MacBook is because it has a 15.4" screen? Taking that into consideration and judging from Dell's price deltas between screens, it is obvious that a 15.4" MacBook would be considerably cheaper to produce than a MacBook Pro and therefore could hit the market at around $1399, possibly less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
The key words being "I think", i.e. it's all speculation on your part.
Indeed. But informed speculation. Which is all the management at Apple have to go with when trying to work out if 15.4" and 17" MacBook options would cannibalise MacBook Pros more than it attracted new customers. Apple seem to believe that it would, I believe that it would not. No one can know for sure who is right unless Apple brought out said 15.4" and 17" MacBooks and found out.
the macbook is basically the size of an a4 peice of paper. personally i cant see any use in anyhing smaller.
That's your opinion, and the hundreds of thousands of people who use subnotebooks every day would disagree. Even the 12" Powerbook was smaller by a good margin.
I have an Assistant Principal that currently has a 12-inch iBook. She has asked for a 15-inch laptop. She finds the 12-inch display tough to use (on her eyes). Apple's 15-inch MacBook Pro is $1,799 (education pricing). That's a lot of money for a very tight budget. The Assistant Principal will use the notebook for writing reports, evaluations, email, calendaring, Inspiration, and the web. She doesn't need an ATi graphics card. So where is Apple's competitive offering? I can get her a 15-inch from a competitor for $600 dollars less. That's only but one example.
Comments
Differences between MacBook and MacBook Pro besides screen size:
a 15.4" Macbook would be less powerful and heavier than the MacBook Pro
And why the hell anyone buy a product that is heavier and less powerful then the MacBook Pro when the difference in price may not be that great?
I wouldn't buy one nor would a lot of people I know, small and thin is in right now, not large and heavy!
If Apple could get the price down on the MacBook Pro like I've predicted will eventually happen, then there really wouldn't be much of a point.
And last but not least if the rumor that Apple will release a sub-notebook at MacWorld is true then that would pretty much cover all the bases!
Apple's line is not perfect, but it is pretty damn good the way its right now.
And why the hell anyone buy a product that is heavier and less powerful then the MacBook Pro when the difference in price may not be that great?
The price of a 15" Macbook should be 200-300 less than the starting MBP. Why wouldn't it? This still would appeal to a lot of users who want more screen real estate but don't need a graphics card. In the future the lines can further be separated by processors, actually that can be done now.
I'm confused. How does this relate to the post that you quoted?
And how does it relate to the MacBook having a 15" or 17" screen? You are seriously saying that 15.4" and 17" screens are "Ferrari" features? Check out the competition, you can get some really rather inexpensive 15.4" and 17" laptops. Obviously, they don't even begin to compare to the MacBook Pro. But what they do compare to is the currently non-existant 15.4" and 17" MacBook. The point is, if you want a large-screen laptop but are willing to sacrifice other features, you can buy a PC laptop or spend twice as much on a MacBook Pro. An easy choice for the average consumer. And yes, I know that the MacBook is selling well. It just could sell even better.
Presumably you like the MacBook? How does putting a 15.4" or 17" screen on one suddenly turn it from something decent into something equivalent to "those bad fiberglass Daytona bodies they used to put on Ford chassises back in the early 80's"
Basically I see people pouting because they want larger screens, better graphic chips, etc., etc., etc., but they all want them at MacBook prices. You want the good stuff, pay. MacBook's are great, but for Apple, they are the lower end laptop and have a niche that fits for students, knock-around, etc. So, for those who want everything and the kitche sink packed in, or even just a larger screen but the rest a MacBook (integrated graphic chip, etc.), it's like one of the fiberglass Ferrari bodies on a Ford. The Ford was fine as a Ford, but it ain't a Ferrari.
The price of a 15" Macbook should be 200-300 less than the starting MBP. Why wouldn't it?
Thanks for explaining what I thought was obvious.
The bottom-end MacBook costs $1099
The bottom-end MacBook Pro costs $1999
At Dell, the difference in price between a 14.1" screen and a high-resolution 15.4" screen, all other things being equal, is $200.
Apple could easily sell a MacBook with the same specs as the current bottom-end MacBook, except with a 15.4" screen for $1399 and still achieve its customary high margins. So, in fact, the cheapest 15.4" MacBook would be $600 cheaper than the MacBook Pro.
or even just a larger screen but the rest a MacBook (integrated graphic chip, etc.), it's like one of the fiberglass Ferrari bodies on a Ford. The Ford was fine as a Ford, but it ain't a Ferrari.
This does not make sense. A 13" MacBook is not a "fiberglass Ferrari body on a ford", but a 15.4" or 17" one is? Yeah, right.
And anyway, who cares? If you are considering buying a Core Duo laptop and want a 15.4" screen, you go to Dell and see you can get one for around $999, you go to HP, and find the same. Then you go to Apple, and find you've got to part with $1999! Yes, the Apple option has things (apart from the OS) the HP and Dell don't, but what if you don't want all that? You buy the Dell or the HP. The choice wouldn't be so clear-cut if there were a $1399 option from Apple.
There's a similar story with a 17" screen.
This does not make sense. A 13" MacBook is not a "fiberglass Ferrari body on a ford", but a 15.4" or 17" one is? Yeah, right.
And anyway, who cares? If you are considering buying a laptop and want a 15.4" screen, you go to Dell and see you can get one for around $999, you go to HP, and find the same. Then you go to Apple, and find you've got to part with $1999! Yes, the Apple option has things (apart from the OS) the HP and Dell don't, but what if you don't want all that? You buy the Dell or the HP. The choice wouldn't be so clear-cut if there were a $1399 option from Apple.
There's a similar story with a 17" screen.
Apple does not equal Ford -- just an example of the pie-in-the-sky I see around here. I just think the MacBook is a particular niche (a really, really, really good one that sells well), and if you're doing any real work - kids need to go to school, granny needs a new heart kind of work -- I wouldn't get one of those, but a MBP, or, if I did rest my job on one, I'd get an external monitor to go with it (if I needed the real estate). It's like the headless tower that's never offered. If you don't have the bucks for a Mac Pro, that would be great, but it just seems Apple muddies the waters by having so many variations on a theme. And it always comes back to money -- someone doesn't want to fork over the dough. Really, all the people who want a headless tower and a MB with a 17" screen really want a Mac Pro and a MBP, if they're honest, they just don't have, or can't see spending, the bucks. Soooo, they're trying to find work-arounds: a MacBook with a larger screen, a headless tower. To me, there's not a driving need for either of those, in any technological way; it's just bucks. Hence the Ford/Ferrari thang. (And again: Apple ain't Ford.) If there were no notebook with a 15", or 17" screen, I'd say go for it, but we have those already. As far as subnotebooks, hey, that's up in the air. MacBook, MBP -- knock yourself out -- but again: just one, please. Don't care which one, but just one.
Really, all the people who want a headless tower and a MB with a 17" screen really want a Mac Pro and a MBP, if they're honest, they just don't have, or can't see spending, the bucks.
That is, quite frankly, bullshit. For the record I want a MacBook Pro with Santa Rosa, and I'll buy one when they appear sometime next year.
Soooo, they're trying to find work-arounds: a MacBook with a larger screen, a headless tower. To me, there's not a driving need for either of those, in any technological way
I'm not talking about what's needed "technologically", I'm talking about what I think would be a great business move considering that probably at least 60% of the laptop market is 15" or 17" laptops that cost less than $1999.
That is, quite frankly, bullshit. For the record I want a MacBook Pro with Santa Rosa, and I'll buy one when they appear sometime next year.
Well, just my opinion from what I've seen, and probably as much bullshit as yours. MBP with Santa Rosa should be cool.
I'm not talking about what's needed "technologically", I'm talking about what I think would be a great business move considering that probably at least 60% of the laptop market is 15" or 17" laptops that cost less than $1999.
But on what do you base your info that it's a great business move? 60% of the laptop market may be in 15" or 17" laptops, but will that be the case for the "unique" Apple products that tend to play on their individuality and not just their beige-boxness? Apple tends to focus on certain things, damn the torpedoes, and Apple buyers buy those things -- they're not Dell, offering up a zillion different elements on a theme. Take the iPod: it could have a zillion other functions on it. Sells just fine without them -- people stick with it, etc. Add on other stuff if you need FM radio, or a mic. Me, and it's just my bullshit opinion, I think it would muddy the waters to have a cheap line of laptops (with same screen sizes) and a high-end. More Dell than Apple, to me. Hence, Ford & Ferrari. Maybe a better example should have been Porsche (I respect them, but don't buy 'em) -- the high end machines, and the Boxsters for those who can't afford them. Boxsters great, but they aren't top-of-the-line.
But on what do you base your info that it's a great business move? 60% of the laptop market may be in 15" or 17" laptops, but will that be the case for the "unique" Apple products that tend to play on their individuality and not just their beige-boxness?
So putting a 15.4" or 17" screen on a MacBook instead of a 13" suddenly turns it from something stylish into something beige-boxy? No.
I'm not talking about getting rid of the 13" option. It's great. I'm talking about adding the option for 15.4" or 17" screens. So then the MacBook appeals to the niche it's already selling to, and the much larger 60% of the market which currently isn't interested in a screen smaller than 15".
Take the iPod: it could have a zillion other functions on it. Sells just fine without them -- people stick with it, etc. Add on other stuff if you need FM radio, or a mic.
Providing two extra screen options isn't really analogous to adding "a zillion other functions". It's more analogous to the fact the the iPod is available in three different forms: shuffle, nano and HDD.
Me, and it's just my bullshit opinion, I think it would muddy the waters to have a cheap line of laptops (with same screen sizes) and a high-end.
Please, don't misinterpret me. I do not think all your opinions are bullshit. I just called you on a rather strange assertion that you made. I agree that it's important not to make things too complicated, but having the mid-range MacBook with three screen options and the high-end MacBook Pro with two screen options would still leave Apple with a vastly simpler line-up than most other manufacturers (been to Acer's website recently?).
So then the MacBook appeals to the niche it's already selling to, and the much larger 60% of the market which currently isn't interested in a screen smaller than 15".
For whatever reason, Apple seems to avoid the biggest market segments. Example, no mid-range headless Mac. It doesn't make sense to me because they are quite competitve on price and features at both the high end and low end. They just don't compete in the middle.
For whatever reason, Apple seems to avoid the biggest market segments.
You inadvertently found the very reason.
You inadvertently found the very reason.
Can you explain so that I don't misunderstand you.
Can you explain so that I don't misunderstand you.
They avoid saturated commodity markets, as it's extremely hard to make much of a profit in them.
They avoid saturated commodity markets, as it's extremely hard to make much of a profit in them.
Look. There's a space between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro. Apple could obviously make MacBooks with 15.4" and 17" screens and sell them for a profit.
Again, we are talking about the upper mid-range range market between the current MacBook and the MacBook Pro, not the low-end where margins are wafer thin.
Much more likely that Apple don't want to bring out a MacBook with larger screens for fear of cannibalising the MacBook Pro. I think this is deeply short sighted. After a couple of years, the number of extra people brought to the platform would easily outweigh the cannibalisation effect, which I think would be small anyway.
Apple could obviously make MacBooks with 15.4" and 17" screens and sell them for a profit.
Possibly, yes. "Obviously"? How do you know that?
Much more likely that Apple don't want to bring out a MacBook with larger screens for fear of cannibalising the MacBook Pro. I think this is deeply short sighted. After a couple of years, the number of extra people brought to the platform would easily outweigh the cannibalisation effect, which I think would be small anyway.
The key words being "I think", i.e. it's all speculation on your part.
So putting a 15.4" or 17" screen on a MacBook instead of a 13" suddenly turns it from something stylish into something beige-boxy? No.
I'm not talking about getting rid of the 13" option. It's great. I'm talking about adding the option for 15.4" or 17" screens. So then the MacBook appeals to the niche it's already selling to, and the much larger 60% of the market which currently isn't interested in a screen smaller than 15".
Providing two extra screen options isn't really analogous to adding "a zillion other functions". It's more analogous to the fact the the iPod is available in three different forms: shuffle, nano and HDD.
Please, don't misinterpret me. I do not think all your opinions are bullshit. I just called you on a rather strange assertion that you made. I agree that it's important no to make things too complicated, but having the mid-range MacBook with three screen options and the high-end MacBook Pro with two screen options would still leave Apple with a vastly simpler line-up than most other manufacturers (been to Acer's website recently?).
Is all cool. Just opinions, anyway -- as of today, Steve hasn't called me yet to ask me what I think should be done, so.... But whatever comes out will be cool, which is the imporatant thing. My only complaint these days, and it's a technological one, is battery life. One day there'll be a breakthrough and I can live happily ever after. If they did a 15" MB, it wouldn't be a bad thing.
"Obviously"? How do you know that?
The key words being "I think", i.e. it's all speculation on your part.
Indeed. But informed speculation. Which is all the management at Apple have to go with when trying to work out if 15.4" and 17" MacBook options would cannibalise MacBook Pros more than it attracted new customers. Apple seem to believe that it would, I believe that it would not. No one can know for sure who is right unless Apple brought out said 15.4" and 17" MacBooks and found out.
the macbook is basically the size of an a4 peice of paper. personally i cant see any use in anyhing smaller.
That's your opinion, and the hundreds of thousands of people who use subnotebooks every day would disagree. Even the 12" Powerbook was smaller by a good margin.