madan

Dave Kap said:

For no good reason? How do you determine  what is a good reason?

This article is a hatchet-job on Apple for no good reason.

Apple is waiting because iMacs don't use mobility CPUs and they're between cycle right now.  It makes no sense to produce a new iMac with identical specs and just a small generational speedbump in Intel CPUs.  The 2013, 15 and 17 all have desktop class CPUs...not mobility.  That's a prime reason Apple is waiting.

They may be ironing out the technologies and economies of scale for the new screen.  Screens that rich and dense are extremely difficult to produce and to roll into an AiO pricepoint.

The biggest reason Apple is waiting is because the 2017 iMacs are using AMD GPUs: 570 and 580s.  What would they upgrade to 2 years later? Apple doesn't expect users to be clueless and purchase brand new computers based on a 7xxx to 8xxx Intel speedbump.  They also expect a noticeable, significant performance increase in graphics horsepower.  What AMD GPU would they sneak into the iMac to make that happen?

Surely they wouldn't just put another 580 in there would they?  You're going to pay 2000 dollars for a computer that gets nuked by a GTX 2060 or 1660 Ti? A 2000 dollar computer with an almost 3 year old midrange graphics card?  Only an abject fool does that.  They don't use NVidia.  So that eliminates the 1070, 1070 Ti, 1080, 2060, 1060Ti, 2070 and 2080.

AMD only has FOUR graphics cards faster than the 580: The 590, which is only 8% faster with the newest drivers.  And It has 20% more TDP no less. Then you have the Vega 56 (iMac Pro), 64 (iMac Pro) and the VII, which is faster than any of the aforementioned and is an 800 dollar card.

There simply isn't a GPU available for Apple to use in its TWO year upgrade on the iMac and using a THREE year old MIDRANGE GPU in a premium 2000 dollar computer is absolutely unacceptable.

That leaves us...and Apple waiting for AMD and the Polaris 11 based 3080 which uses about the same wattage as a 580 but has 1070 Ti- 1080 performance.

That is what we're waiting for.

JustSomeGuy1 said:

YvLy said:

How low can you go? Are there NO values left in this world. Integrity? Pride? Honesty?

Seriously? Have you not watched the news in, um...

Well, I was going to say the last three years, but really, your bar is too low.  A quarter of the country still thinks there were WMDs in Iraq. That's just stupid, not a moral failing, but the ones who convinced them of that... that's another story.

That's the media's fault.  Just like now, when people assume that the caravan is 50% women and children, when statistically, *factually* it's actually approximately 10% women and children.

nht said:

madan said:

lorin schultz said:

radarthekat said:

lorin schultz said:

To pick a nit:

Consistent gross margins don't tell me anything about changes to the affordability of products. One doesn't need to be a financial analyst to figure out that the price of a 15" MacBook Pro is substantially higher, even after inflation, than it was five years ago. If the reason for that isn't growing margins, then obviously costs have also increased. Maybe Apple has a problem with cost control and/or spending decisions?

Or maybe the ratio of costs to selling prices have remained steady for cutting edge technologies.  If it were milk or toasters we were talking about then I could understand your implication that input costs should not be increasing and perhaps even be going down.  But Apple is doing the same thing today as it was doing 10, 15, 20 years ago; developing new products with increasing performance and capabilities.  Seems that will always remain the same percentage of total costs.  

I hear you, except that price increases are accelerating compared to the past. Why are costs so much higher lately than they used to be?

It may well be that this is just how much it costs to make fancy-pants computers now. I'm neither qualified nor adequately informed to offer an opinion about what Apple should or could do. All I'm saying is the current approach is moving the income level required to be an Apple user even higher. Our middle-class household can no longer afford the products we used to buy on a three-year cycle. Maybe I need to just accept that and walk away. I hope not, though.

It's worse than that.  Not only are the products quickly escaping low-mid middle class household budgets but high-mid household budgets and even low-wealthy households are hard pressed to justify the cost.

Example.

I'm in the market for a next-gen iMac.  I'm looking for the 2019.  A Core i7 is fine. I'm sure they'll have 8th-9th gen in there by then.  I'm sure they'll have 16 GB of DDR4. The screen is spectacular and that's ok.  Storage is fine.  But a lot of my work (3D modeling and real-time texture rendering) requires a beefy graphics card and the current 580 I have is good (but not great).  I expect the new iMac to have 1080-class performance 2 years after the RX 580 iMac.  At least 1080. 

Let's assume that by virtue of the fact that Apple refuses to contract with NVidia that AMD is the only supplier they have (which Soli thinks they probably also develop nyuk nyuk). The 680 isn't ready yet.  And if it isn't ready by next May-June on iMac release, Apple may just shove another 580 in the high end non-Pro iMac.  Well, that means I'm looking at the same performance as the 2017 model for 2500-3000 dollars. Ridiculous.

My point is, it's not just about the price eliminating middle-tier families from purchasing Apple products (although that's likely to happen) but also shooing away professionals and prosumers that can get Wintel systems at the same price that, no, may not run Mac OS but are literally 100% faster. We can see that situation plain as day with the new Mini. 

It's not that Apple is simply more expensive than ever before.  It's that they seem to offer less than ever before for those high prices.

What the next gen iMac costs in 2019 is conjecture but in 2018 the entry point for a 6 Core i7 Mac is $1099.   An eGPU will have a performance tax from TB3 but may not thermally throttle as it might in the iMac (or just clock higher).  Plus you can stick a Vega in it.

So for a $3000 budget in November 2018 you get:

$1500 Mac Mini 6 Core i7 16GB DDR4 256GB SSD
  $950 ASUS Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB HBM2 + Razor Core X Bundle
------ 
$2450

$550 remaining for monitor, keyboard, and mouse.  While that's only an entry level 27" IPS 4K you can drop to a Vega 56 if you wanted a little more budget.

Second highest single core performance (5653).
Sixth best multi-core performance (23973).

eGPU performance: 

https://barefeats.com/macbook_pro_2018_egpu.html

The CPU in the mini is faster than the one in the 2018 MBP Core i9.  5653 / 23973 vs 5346 / 22575.

Your assertion is BS.  The Mac line up has never been better for pros on a budget since 2012.  And from a GPU options perspective it's much better than 2012.

Which is still trash when you can get any off the shelf computer OEM to ship you a computer for half that price with a 1080 in it.  Part of the allure of the iMac is that you have that fantastic screen gobbling up cost. When I bought my iMac 580, I knew I was getting 1060 performance but I accepted it because 900 dollars of the 2200 dollar cost was sunk into the screen.  So I paid 1300 dollars for a Mac that competed with an identical Dell. I traded a 1060 and Mac OS in exchange for a 1080 and Windows. I could live with that.

Your system costs almost 2500 dollars and you're going to get what kind of monitor for 400 dollars?  As good as the iMac's? Unlikely since that self-same LG monitor is selling for 899 on Amazon...right now.

So you get more or less the same CPU. Slightly better GPU performance (you're getting Vega 56 with your Vega 64...congrats, you paid 900 for a 1070)  and an inferior screen for $800 MORE than the competing iMac if you go with the Mini option.  Gee, sounds like a GREAT BARGAIN!

Keep shoveling that horseshit.

nht said:

lorin schultz said:

radarthekat said:

lorin schultz said:

To pick a nit:

Consistent gross margins don't tell me anything about changes to the affordability of products. One doesn't need to be a financial analyst to figure out that the price of a 15" MacBook Pro is substantially higher, even after inflation, than it was five years ago. If the reason for that isn't growing margins, then obviously costs have also increased. Maybe Apple has a problem with cost control and/or spending decisions?

Or maybe the ratio of costs to selling prices have remained steady for cutting edge technologies.  If it were milk or toasters we were talking about then I could understand your implication that input costs should not be increasing and perhaps even be going down.  But Apple is doing the same thing today as it was doing 10, 15, 20 years ago; developing new products with increasing performance and capabilities.  Seems that will always remain the same percentage of total costs.  

I hear you, except that price increases are accelerating compared to the past. Why are costs so much higher lately than they used to be?

It may well be that this is just how much it costs to make fancy-pants computers now. I'm neither qualified nor adequately informed to offer an opinion about what Apple should or could do. All I'm saying is the current approach is moving the income level required to be an Apple user even higher. Our middle-class household can no longer afford the products we used to buy on a three-year cycle. Maybe I need to just accept that and walk away. I hope not, though.

Price increases in the Mac product line represent the move to higher performance in the components for SSD, TB3, screen density, etc while achieving the size and weight desired for that product line.  The cost for software development increases because the OS is more complex than it was.

Thus margins indicate that costs have increased and not profits.

Also, the needs of most middle-class households can now be met by iPads or lower tier Macs rather than 6 core i7 15" MBP.   The downside to the product line is that the direct replacement for a MBP from 3 years ago has a smaller screen but likely also costs less.

Apple still provides the iPhone 7 at $449 when talking about iPhones.  The iPhone 8 is $599.  The three year old iPhone 6s was $649 at launch.  The 8 is a solid upgrade at $50 less than your $649 replacement budget.  The Xr costs $749 but is 6.1"...so it's a worthwhile stretch if you want to go that route and the same price as the 6S Plus.  So if your phone was a 6S Plus in 2015 the Xr is a direct replacement at the same price.

There's just this extra tier above the tier that you purchased in 2015 and there isn't a smaller option anymore.

That you don't like the upgrade path doesn't mean that Apple has priced it out of the range of a middle-class household.  If you could afford a $649 phone every three years in 2015 you can afford a $599 iPhone 8 in $2018.  The Xr should be $649 next year if the pattern holds and be an excellent replacement for a 3 year old iPhone 7.

Call it "gaslighting" but the complaints are simply entitled bullshit.  There's no "acceleration" in price increase.  The replacement for the 6S Plus is the Xr at the same price point.  There wasn't a replacement for the 6S but a viable replacement is $50 less expensive than the 6S was in 2015.  The Xs is a higher tier product than the 6S was.

6S->7->8->Xr

Your entire argument is horseshit.

You can't charge more for more performance otherwise every product in existence is an order of magnitude better than previous products.  Automobiles are much faster, fuel efficient and safer than past vehicles.  By your distorted, stunted argument every Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord should ship for 80,000 "cuz look how much better they are!".  Computers increase in performance over time.  Their prices increase relative to pv calculations and inflation fluctuations.  They might also increase as Wurthele astutely indicated because they have some intrinsic cost (ie support or services).  However products shouldn't cost more just "cuz betta".  That's nonsense because by definitions computers ard phones are *better* than the previous model.  Otherwise, what would be the *point*?

In that respect, Apple products have very much accelerated price increases.  MBP prices have increased 20%.  Mini prices have increased 50%.  Phone prices have increased 40%.  And that is not accidental.  The answer has already been divined in this thread:  Apple is compensating for dips since past super-performing sale record years.  The price of components have declined.  Screens may be more dense but prices for high density screens have declined.  SSD prices have tanked.  DDR4 RAM is no longer 100 bucks per 8 GB by default.  Even Intel has dropped its CPU prices in response to simple market economies of scale, as well as competition of AMD.

Your entire argument that computers have more abilities and should therefore cost proportionally more is asinine to the extreme, because human salaries, neither here in the US, nor anywhere else, can keep up with such advances.  Apple in fact, under your thesis, would make computers for themselves because no one would be able to afford them.

Comparing the XR to the 6S Plus is beyond disingenuous.  The 6S Plus was the best you could get at the time, while the XR is the lowest possible model.  The 6R would be analogous to something below the 6S which cost less than the XR.

Your entire argument is one long nonsensical circle jerk predicated on product cost based on capability.  That entire argument is pointless because otherwise, I could argue that a $10000 Core 2 Duo system in 2018 would be a "value" because it outperforms my old Performa or Apple IIC. 

GeorgeBMac said:

elijahg said:

rogifan_new said:

elijahg said:

rogifan_new said:

radarthekat said:

rogifan_new said:

Is this report talking about gross margins or profit margins? Do you have a comparison of average selling prices over time?

Meaningless to to this discussion.  When Dodge started selling the 12-cylinder Viper it would have had a positive effect on ASPs.   But it offered a lot more power and sportiness.  Apples latest iPhones offer a lot more performance and capabilities versus previous generations.  You’d expect ASPs to climb.  Gross margins is where the comparison should lay, and this article does a good job pointing out how they have not significantly moved during Cook’s tenure.

The 2010 MBA had more performance and capabilities than the 2008 model but it was cheaper. Same with the $329 iPad compared to the original. Anyone who doesn’t see that Apple is offsetting slower/flat unit sales growth with price increases is blind. New flagship iPhones used to start at $649, now they’re $999. Now you can argue the XS is $350 better than 6 was, that’s obviously subjective but it’s still more expensive. Take the new Mac mini. Starts at $799. The previous entry point was $499. Again, one can argue that the new mini is way better and deserves the $300 price increase but the bottom line is you used to be able to get into the Mac ecosystem for $499 and now the cheapest entry point is $799. The previous entry point to iPhone was the $399 SE. Now the cheapest entry point is the $499 7. And the cheapest iPad used to be $259; now it’s $329. In the past you could get an Apple TV for $99; now it’s $179. It costs more to get into the Apple ecosystem that’s just a fact.

Exactly, increasing prices to offset lower demand is never a good strategy. It works in the short term, but there's only so far you can go (and Apple's already there) before it affects sales in the medium to long term. I think Cook saw the revenue growth go negative in 2016, and to correct it just applied the easy fix of raise prices. The number one problem I and everyone I speak to has with regards to Apple products is the price. Apple gear is just not good value for money anymore. And articles like this don't help matters in Apple's favour; if articles excusing Apple's pricing need to exist, there's a big enough proportion of people who are concerned over the pricing, meaning there's a problem with it. People don't mind paying a bit more for quality and customer service, but people don't want to be ripped off.

Like I said, it’s subjective whether someone thinks a product is priced fairly. But it absolutely is a fact that Apple products are getting more expensive.

It is, there have always been a minority of people who have complained about Apple’s pricing, but they just weren’t Apple’s target market or couldn’t see how Apple’s devices were in fact good value. Apple doesn’t make machines for the budget end of the market so there’ll always be complaints from those people. The minority complaining about price has ballooned in recent years, and now seems to be the majority. Maybe Apple’s just trying to go after the high end; the Ferrari of the market - which would explain the pricing. Only thing is the performance doesn’t equate to the high pricing.

That maybe used to be true.

Ferrari doesn't shove Mazda engines into Ferrari chassis and call it a day.


The Mini is a prime example of that.