Rogue01

sdw2001 said:

nubus said:

lmasanti said:

it is best to begin from the top… and then easily go down… than begin from the bottom and then try build upon a clunky design. See Quest. (Tesla copied this business model!)

Apple did in the past launch a few products at the top only to massively restructure things. Lisa ended up in part rebranded as Macintosh XL and part in landfill in Utah with Mac being 75% cheaper! Watch 1st Edition - top price of $12000 - and then series 1 had the top price reduced by 90%. iPhone... Apple launched it at $599 and then dropped it two months later to $399 (33%). Apple should slash the price to $2000 and launch an M3/Wifi 7 version this summer for $2500.

That may happen, but not because it “should.”  It happens due to market forces.  The iPhone sold way above expectations, so they could justify dropping the price.  The Lisa was severely overpriced and it didn’t sell.  The Watch had that one option but most were far cheaper.  

Apple did not drop the price of the first iPhone.  They reached a deal with AT&T to subsidize the price down to $199 so Steve Jobs could get the phone out to more people.  But you paid more each month to cover the cost of the phone, but you did not have to pay the full price of $499 or $599 up front, but you were charged sales tax for the full price of the phone at the time of purchase, along with the $199 subsidized price.

And the Apple Watch 1st Edition was $10,000 for the 14K gold model.  It was not reduced 90%.  Nubus has no clue what they are talking about.

fastasleep said:

lmasanti said:

And also remember: the original iPhone cost $699- —exorbitant!— and now cost… $1,200-

No, it was initially $499 4GB/$599 8GB subsidized by a two year contract with Cingular, so the actual price was much higher.  The iPhone 15 starts at $799, not $1200.

Incorrect.  The first iPhone was not subsidized by AT&T at launch.  You paid full price for the phone at $499 or $599, and still locked to a two year contract because AT&T had the exclusive rights for 3 years until 2010.  Later in the year, Apple wanted to get the phone out to more people so Steve Jobs reached a deal with AT&T to subsidize the price of the phone, along with the two year contract, and dropped the price to $199.  Watch the keynote with that price drop.  That is how most phones were done back in the day.  Then with the iPhone X, Apple jacked the price up to $999 and the rest of the industry followed.  Now they don't like to call them contracts, but you can still either buy the phone at full price or 'make payments' over the two year period along with the data plan to pay off the phone.

How are there big changes when Gurman has no idea?  'A revamp, but no mention of what that entails'.  Typical Gurman response.

They can do whatever hardware changes they want, it still runs iPadOS and baby iPad apps, so the base model and the iPad Pro both do the exact same thing, with similar performance.  Neither can take full advantage of the SoC.    The only real revamp was in 2018.  Since then, each new iPad has been exactly like the previous one.  So they are going to waste M3 chips in an iPad when they should be using them in the rest of the Mac lineup.  Same reviews each year, great hardware, but limited by the OS.

Apple needs to scrap iPadOS and just put macOS on the iPad since the hardware is now the same.

StrangeDays said:

Apple: here’s a two-year-young new form factor, now with the latest, fastest chipset. Enjoy!

Fans: Nooo! Why have you neglected this 40-year-old product line! Gaaahhhh!

It doesn't have the latest, fastest chipset.  It has a base model chip with a lousy GPU, limited RAM, limited storage, and limited ports.  It even has a lame audio out on the side so your powered speakers plug into the side with a cable sticking out.  Thanks Jony Ive for your lousy design.  Yes, this was his last artistic mess before he left.  If he had his way, it would have a butterfly keyboard too.

How about an iMac 27" with an M3 Pro or M3 Max?  If the thin MacBooks can handle the CPU, then the iMac can also handle it quite well, even better with the larger interior for even better cooling.  Then you would have an iMac with the fastest chipset.  The colors and white bezel are ghastly to look at, and 24" is too small when most people bought the 27" iMac.

Marvin said:

NYC362 said:

Turning the Mac Studio Display into a 27" iMac can't take all that much work.

The display is the same at the 27" iMac that went away a couple years ago.  It already has speakers, power supply, camera (with center stage), fans, and USB-C/Thunderbolt ports.   All it needs is the logic board from a MacBook Pro. a headphone jack, add a couple more Thunderbolt ports, and, poof!, it's an iMac. 

3-step program to your dream setup:

1. Buy a Macbook Pro
2. Buy a display
3. Plug them in

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1668323-REG/apple_mbp_16_sg_25_16_2_macbook_pro_with.html
M1 Max 64GB/2TB
$2699

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1757494-REG/lg_oled42c3pua_c3_42_4k_hdr.html
LG C3 42" OLED
$896

Total $3595

Are you high?  You want someone to spend $3595 for a MacBook and a Display when the 27" iMac started at $1799?  And that clearance model MacBook Pro will soon be gone and that config will be the normal $4,000+ price.  So now you are at over $5,000 with tax.  What a great recommendation.

Apple won't release another 27" iMac because that will cannibalize the overpriced Mac Studio and Studio Display, which is $2500 more than the 27" iMac.  So they have no intention of giving what the customers want.  That is Apple's new business plan.  They even admitted they intentionally use 8GB of RAM because they know they can upsell to a more expensive model to have a usable machine for a number of years, since Apple no longer allows any upgrades after purchase.  The M3 iMac is crippled with limited RAM, limited storage, limited ports, and limited features on purpose, so they can upsell more expensive Macs.

When Apple switched to Intel, the prices were the same, or lower than the PowerPC counterparts.  The Mac Pro was $800 less than the Power Mac G5, and twice as fast.  Now Apple Silicon is way more expensive than the Intel models they replaced, mostly because people are forced to pay the Apple Tax for memory and SSD upgrades.