- Last Active
To be fair, you missed one of the upsides: a lot of times when there's a new product rumor, people are elated. For example, I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to see what the new 16" Macbook Pro with scissors keyboard is like. I might be disappointed, and I certainly have no illusions that it will be as good as I'd like, but it's still a chance for a huge leap forwards - a reason so want to upgrade again. So don't overlook the positive. Also, while Apple's Macbook Pro line in particular has been quite disappointing this generation, their new budget lines have been quite exciting, receiving a lot of praise. For example, I love the new Mac Mini and the new Macbook Air. They bring back a lot of the needed things from Apple's 2011 heyday, like a full suite of ports and (some) expandability at a reasonable price. So I'd say that while you've captured the elements of the life cycle, the intensity of each one really does vary with the product. (And of course, to people who aren't in the Apple ecosystem, everything will seem expensive.)
The claim of the article doesn't seem physically possible. The top speed of USB 3.2 is just 10 gigabits/second - half of what you need for even a 4K image, let alone a 5K one. And you're not really gonna achieve a full 10 gigabits/second of data over USB 3.2. Nor can I actually imagine an iPad with USB-C transferring at over a gigabyte/second. My guess is they just thought it outputted 5K because the monitor supports 5K resolution. Maybe it can output half resolution - 2,560 x 1,440 or so.
ApplePoor said:Hey guys and gals, the $3,000 price point has been the top Apple laptop price for many years before the over $5k 15". The 17" was around that price in 2011, so bring that price point forward and the 16" starting price is not that unreasonable. It will probably be closer to $6k or $7k when fleshed out with max memory and SSD. I upgraded the 17" to more memory than Apple offered at the time and it now has two SSDs inside that are 1TB or larger. Still a viable machine for work but not so much fun to carry in a shoulder bag.
Up until around 2017, $3,000 could always buy the top of the line maxed out Macbook Pro (ENDING PRICE), and that's what I always did, every single generation. Now, in the era where a maxed out Macbook Pro costs $7,000 (which happened in a single year, up from $4,000 the year before, and $3,000 the year before that), for the first time ever, instead of just saying "give me the best one you can make", I have to go over every option and say "what's the lowest level I could live with?" - all trying to keep my end price under $4,000. Even if you only need a 2TB hard drive, it's still hard to get it under $5K these days. Since this price jump happened WAAAYYYY faster than inflation, I think it's fair game to gripe about it. Remember how Tim Cook is no longer revealing unit sales, just revenue? I'm afraid he's doing the economist thing, like "we get the most profit when we sell 1/4 the units at 5x the price". The pitfall here is that the Mac platform is more valuable the more people use it. Look at Adobe - it took 5 years, but they are finally starting to feel some serious business impacts from the "maximize revenue" route.
tomahawk said:McJobs said:I'm so sick of the Tim Cook era, where every product redesign comes with a substantial price increase over previous model. When Steve was there, products got better at the same price points (e.g. MBP--->unibody MBP), or even were less expensive at the same time (e.g. polycarbonate iMac--->aluminum iMac).
And Jobs raised prices too. Look at the Mac mini. Started at $499, raised to $599 in 2006, and raised again to $699 in 2010.
That being said, if they make an enjoyable keyboard again, I'm willing to suck it up and pay a lot more. One problem at a time. Don't discount inflation - what did cars and houses cost back in 2007?