PDA

View Full Version : Intel Core Duo Price Drops in May?


MacRumors
Apr 10, 2006, 12:04 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The Inquirer claims (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30881) that Intel's Core Duo chips are set to see a price drop as of May 28th.

The price of the high end 2.16GHz Core Duo that is a build to order option for the MacBook Pro is set to drop as much as $214 per unit. The slower clocked chips will see more modest price drops ($129 drop for the 1.83GHz chip and $54 drop for the 1.66GHz chip). Also expected is a 2.33GHz T2700 Core Duo processor later this year.

This does not necessarily mean a price drop on corresponding Macs, however. Apple historically has been relatively consistent in their Mac pricing for the duration of a product's lifespan.

WildCowboy
Apr 10, 2006, 12:07 PM
AppleInsider posted this (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1545) six weeks ago...

matthewHUB
Apr 10, 2006, 12:07 PM
Why would anyone rate this negative?

Cheaper chips means more $$ for dedicated graphics and other more expensive stuff left out due to cost.

First post?

mashinhead
Apr 10, 2006, 12:08 PM
yay, more profits to apple. Can someone tell me when the macbooks will be available for order, not delivery, just order.

rxse7en
Apr 10, 2006, 12:08 PM
It's gonna make it tougher for me to keep waiting out a Merom-powered 'book! I just yoinked the "G" key off of my G4 'book this morning--just another reason to upgrade sooner :D

B

mashinhead
Apr 10, 2006, 12:11 PM
It's gonna make it tougher for me to keep waiting out a Merom-powered 'book! I just yoinked the "G" key off of my G4 'book this morning--just another reason to upgrade sooner :D

B


well if you knock of the 4 key take it as a sign

Lukasha
Apr 10, 2006, 12:11 PM
As soon as that 1.8 comes below $200 I'll be buying one and upgrading my mini Core Solo. Then I'll have a faster mini than what's available at less than the cost of the fastest one.

Jeff

iHeartTheApple
Apr 10, 2006, 12:16 PM
That would be just great! It would be nice to be able to pick up a MBP 2.16 for the price of a current 2.0 or a 2.0 for the price of a 1.83. That would also probably bring the 15" and 17" MBP prices in line with the 12/15/17" PB line. If there is a 17" MBP coming, that is...I'd love the 17" to replace my 17" PB, but given the current 15" MBP price, I'd need to shell out $3000+ for one and that's a great big negative, good buddy! :( Go Intel! :D

whooleytoo
Apr 10, 2006, 12:21 PM
This does not necessarily mean a price drop on corresponding Macs, however. Apple historically has been relatively consistent in their Mac pricing for the duration of a product's lifespan.


The logical thing might then be to speedbump the Intel Macs at that time while retaining the prices.

boncellis
Apr 10, 2006, 12:23 PM
I realize that there's a difference in 32 and 64 bit processing, but I still get the feeling that Apple will hold onto the Yonah in its "consumer" (if that separation still exists in the future) line, and put the 64 bit Merom and Conroe processors into the "professional" line.

What that translates into, I'm not sure--the only thing that I can foresee is that the iBook replacement will probably not have a Core Solo processor for long, if it ever does.

EricNau
Apr 10, 2006, 12:25 PM
So this is why the Macbooks will be released in May...

This better mean that Apple won't up the prices.

ipacmm
Apr 10, 2006, 12:25 PM
It would be nice to see a speed upgrade in the MBP and maybe a price drop.

YoNeX
Apr 10, 2006, 12:25 PM
I'm sorry, but i'll just say it. DUH! Of course prices for things will eventually go down in price. You know the old saying, once you bought the computer from the computer store, its already outdated. Then the very second, something like Moore's Law applies (uh you know what I mean). So give anything time, it will eventually go down in price. Just common sense. The only informative about this is predicting the time when the prices will go down and how much, but I have a feeling that these figures and dates won't be so accurate.

Mitch1984
Apr 10, 2006, 12:30 PM
I bet the MacBooks and iMac's will get a speed bump then.
opening up the possibility of a faster than planned MacBook (iBook).

zenvision
Apr 10, 2006, 12:30 PM
so the price of chips from intel may be going down, and theoretically this should affect macbook prices, but when would the consumer get to see the actual price changes?

it seems everytime im about to walk out the door and pick up a macbook pro, something else comes up saying 'WAIT!'

bah ;)

nagromme
Apr 10, 2006, 12:32 PM
I think the Solo needs a drop more than the Duo does (and I expect it will get a drop too).

swingerofbirch
Apr 10, 2006, 12:32 PM
I can't wait for Apple to pass the savings onto themselves.


(?)

boncellis
Apr 10, 2006, 12:34 PM
I think the Solo needs a drop more than the Duo does (and I expect it will get a drop too).

I hope it does get a drop...dropped from the Apple lineup entirely. ;)

Shaker
Apr 10, 2006, 12:37 PM
if apple is really serious about trying to lure PC users, they will have to drop the prices. Someone in the market for a laptop will look at Dell, Sony, Toshiba and will have even less incentive to now pay a double premium for a Mac.

MacSA
Apr 10, 2006, 12:37 PM
I can't wait for Apple to pass the savings onto themselves.


(?)


LOL........probably true.

I wonder what this will mean for the Mac Mini... any speculation?

bill4588
Apr 10, 2006, 12:38 PM
i hope this means lower Macbook prices. maybe it will make the 1k limit!

j_maddison
Apr 10, 2006, 12:38 PM
Why would anyone rate this negative?

Cheaper chips means more $$ for dedicated graphics and other more expensive stuff left out due to cost.

First post?

I would assume people are giving it a negative rating because they don't belive the savings will be passed onto the consumer. I doubt this will happen because Apple can't differentiate on hardware and keep the prices artificially high anymore, well one would hope not but with Apple who knows!

Jay

runninmac
Apr 10, 2006, 12:40 PM
Yay for Apple, hopefully they will do us a good thing and increase performance while keeping the price the same. I mean the MBP has been out for 4 months wouldn't this be in the PC world about time for an update?

D*I*S_Frontman
Apr 10, 2006, 12:41 PM
I'm sorry, but i'll just say it. DUH! Of course prices for things will eventually go down in price. You know the old saying, once you bought the computer from the computer store, its already outdated. Then the very second, something like Moore's Law applies (uh you know what I mean). So give anything time, it will eventually go down in price. Just common sense. The only informative about this is predicting the time when the prices will go down and how much, but I have a feeling that these figures and dates won't be so accurate.

Moore's Law has nothing to do with economics.

Supply and demand control pricing.

Apple has positioned itself as a premier computer brand, and they set system prices based on what they think a consumer will pay. If they think high-end laptop buyers will pay $3-4k for a great portable system (fully loaded), that's what they'll sell it for. In the past, Apple seems to find the top end sweet spot pricing-wise, then continue minor speed bumps and upgrades to systems to keep people buying at that price point.

If you establish a marquee brand, keeping the price high actually ADDS to the perception of exclusivity and quality. It also means not playing the "whore-'em-out-at-razor-thin-margins" game all the other PC makers play.

Cheaper components will NOT mean cheaper systems. It will mean room for other peripheral improvements within a system, or just more net profit for Apple, or, more likely, a combination of the two.

Apple will sell cheap laptops at right around $999, high end laptops around $2,000-3,500, iMacs in the $1000-1700 range, and high end towers for around $2,000-4,000 or so (properly loaded w/RAM, HDD, etc.). The prices have not really dropped much for these types of systems since Steve Jobs return, not will they in the foreseeable future.

Systems will, however, continue to improve in raw computational power within those price points in order to remain competitive. But don't be looking for $999 MacBook Pros anytime soon. Or ever.

Electro Funk
Apr 10, 2006, 12:41 PM
i hope this means lower Macbook prices. maybe it will make the 1k limit!

doubt it... i agree with what swingerofbirch said...

amac4me
Apr 10, 2006, 12:43 PM
I doubt that Apple will drop the price of their systems for the following reasons:

- Apple would like to prevent the mentality that customers make likely take if they passed the price drop to its customers: "if I wait, I can get the system cheaper in a few months". This would impact sales, something that Apple will want to avoid

- A drop in price would allow Apple to expand its margain per unit sold, the investment community would welcome that

supremedesigner
Apr 10, 2006, 12:44 PM
It's gonna make it tougher for me to keep waiting out a Merom-powered 'book! I just yoinked the "G" key off of my G4 'book this morning--just another reason to upgrade sooner :D

B

Do you mean I4 instead of G4? :p

babble
Apr 10, 2006, 12:47 PM
New poll on Times on Greatest Builders. Steve is in the list:

http://www.time.com/time/2006/time100/walkup/poll/

alfismoney
Apr 10, 2006, 12:57 PM
I would assume people are giving it a negative rating because they don't belive the savings will be passed onto the consumer. I doubt this will happen because Apple can't differentiate on hardware and keep the prices artificially high anymore, well one would hope not but with Apple who knows!

Jay

agreed, i think apple will have trouble keeping its prices as inflated as they used to now that financial analysts can simply go to the dell website and find out how badly apple is overcharging. while a small number of whiny consumers can be ignored, a large number of wallstreet traders being able to take a closer look at your numbers has a strong effect on the bottom line. my vote is to look for a speed bump in the MacBook Pros shortly after these prices go into effect rather than a price drop. apple sure does love that 1999 price point...

as for speed bumps in the macbook, this also seems a bit unlikely. apple obviously knew about these price drops before we did and was probably planning on using the new 1.66E duo that intel will be rolling out in may or going straight to the low voltage chip to save money and laptop weight. there are a few pieces of evidence for this one: bumping the 1.66 straight out of the MacBook Pro (imagine the cries of anger if the mac mini were running the same processor as the low end pro book for $1300 less) left the chip open for usage in the MacBook without overlap. apple also just released a 'fast' pro book for the first time in several years and would probably be hesitant to match what had been the low end macbook pro (1.8 duo) with the consumer book on its introduction. people would complain and negative press is exactly what apple is trying hard to avoid with the migration. Apple also has historically reserved faster chips for the pro machines despite them being widely available (iMac vs PowerMac G5 usage, iBook vs PowerBook G4 usage) until several months after the pro machines received their speed bump. Although the 1.8 is a possibility for a BTO option, or maybe stock in a 1399 version of the MacBook, I still vote for the entire machine being designed around the low voltage 1.66 duo and unable to use the standard 1.8 duo from the start.

MrCrowbar
Apr 10, 2006, 12:57 PM
New poll on Times on Greatest Builders. Steve is in the list:

http://www.time.com/time/2006/time100/walkup/poll/

Right next to George... Vote Steve!
EDIT: Lol i thought that was G. W. Bush there. Lol sorry

mdntcallr
Apr 10, 2006, 01:02 PM
well, i have been a apple customer for years and would actually love apple to create a more dynamic chip set and speed involvement for their computers.

For them to allow the option of buying 2.33 as a chip would be great. so would passing along the chip pricing savings along to the customer.

why? to stay more competitive with other pc makers. im actually tired of waiting 9-18 months for a model refresh.

it would be a big forward step to allow incremental upgrades in processor speeds for us, the consumers, when the chips are released to market by intel.

this would be a great thing. keeping apple forever on the forefront of speed for those who desire the most power.

Some_Big_Spoon
Apr 10, 2006, 01:10 PM
Hi, you must be new here. :-) Death, taxes, and Apple over-charging.

So this is why the Macbooks will be released in May...

This better mean that Apple won't up the prices.

~Shard~
Apr 10, 2006, 01:11 PM
This was always one of the issues that came up when Apple first announced it would be moving to Intel - would they be able to keep up with Intel's quicker product revisions and pricing? Gone are the days of 6 months between product refreshes, minimal speed bumps and constant pricing. That was the PPC era - let's see if Apple continues to keep pace with the Intel era by not ignoring this.

Collin973
Apr 10, 2006, 01:11 PM
Well, I hope apple does something: either up the processor speeds or lower the price. I'm not buying my MBP till June or July anways. By then, hopefully the bugs are worked out too. Any one have any thoughts on that time frame? Is it a good time to buy or should I wait to see if theirs a revision in August? (Need it before sept.)

--CP

Stella
Apr 10, 2006, 01:12 PM
yay, more profits to apple. Can someone tell me when the macbooks will be available for order, not delivery, just order.

No one can, not outside of Apple anyway.

Read the rumours ( by "May") - but don't be disappointed when they don't materialise on the given dates, like a lot of people here.

~Shard~
Apr 10, 2006, 01:14 PM
It will be interesting to see if this news has anything to do with the timing of the Intel iBooks. Perhaps Apple is waiting for this price drop in order to make the Intel iBooks more cost-friendly, and so that they can offer them at a lower price. I initialy thought we'd be seeing the new Intel iBooks this month, but perhaps now it won't be until June... Or, perhaps this story isn;t related to the Intel iBooks at all, and Apple will just continue on status quo and will not pass any savings onto the customer at all... ;)

weldon
Apr 10, 2006, 01:24 PM
I think that we will see Apple use these speedbumps and price drops as a natural way to differentiate the consumer and pro lines. I would expect to see revisions in June that include speedbumps for the MacBook Pro line at the same prices and the lower speed chips in the consumer MacBooks at lower prices.

What will be tricky is if Apple is willing to discount prices during those awkward "in-between" moments when wholesale prices have dropped, but faster chips haven't arrived yet. You know Dell, with their famously high number of inventory turns, is in a much better position to drop prices in step with suppliers. Apple has improved their inventory turns a great deal over the last few years, but they still have a ways to go to catch up.

deadturtle
Apr 10, 2006, 01:25 PM
It will be interesting to see if this news has anything to do with the timing of the Intel iBooks. Perhaps Apple is waiting for this price drop in order to make the Intel iBooks more cost-friendly, and so that they can offer them at a lower price.

One can only hope.

/me crosses fingers and toes
(and any one's else fingers and toes, just for good luck!):rolleyes:

Flash3441
Apr 10, 2006, 01:27 PM
Well the Meroms are coming out later this year making these core duos obsolete so this comes as no big shock. When Merom is released, the Core Duo prices will probably go down even more. I hope Apple keeps using Core Duo processors in the mini and iBook systems even when Merom comes out for pricing purposes.

Can anyone tell me what the advantages are of Merom over Core Duo, other than being 64bit? It's been stated that it will increase battery life because it runs cooler but by how much?

tmornini
Apr 10, 2006, 01:29 PM
I can't wait for Apple to pass the savings onto themselves.


(?)

This (apparently) sarcastic comment appears to presuppose that Apple's *current* margins on the MBP are already what the company and its investors have come to expect.

It's very possible that Apple will "pass on the savings to themselves" in an effort to dollar cost average and achieve target margins. It might be that current margins on MBP are below what Apple needs.

--
-- Tom Mornini

Mac Fly (film)
Apr 10, 2006, 01:30 PM
Two possible reactions!!

1. Oh no!! I just bought a MacBook Pro!! Damn!!:mad:

2. Yes!! I was looking for a new notebook. Now I can get this!! And save too!! Woopeee!!:D

j_maddison
Apr 10, 2006, 01:31 PM
Moore's Law has nothing to do with economics.

Supply and demand control pricing.

Apple has positioned itself as a premier computer brand, and they set system prices based on what they think a consumer will pay. If they think high-end laptop buyers will pay $3-4k for a great portable system (fully loaded), that's what they'll sell it for. In the past, Apple seems to find the top end sweet spot pricing-wise, then continue minor speed bumps and upgrades to systems to keep people buying at that price point.

If you establish a marquee brand, keeping the price high actually ADDS to the perception of exclusivity and quality. It also means not playing the "whore-'em-out-at-razor-thin-margins" game all the other PC makers play.

Cheaper components will NOT mean cheaper systems. It will mean room for other peripheral improvements within a system, or just more net profit for Apple, or, more likely, a combination of the two.

Apple will sell cheap laptops at right around $999, high end laptops around $2,000-3,500, iMacs in the $1000-1700 range, and high end towers for around $2,000-4,000 or so (properly loaded w/RAM, HDD, etc.). The prices have not really dropped much for these types of systems since Steve Jobs return, not will they in the foreseeable future.

Systems will, however, continue to improve in raw computational power within those price points in order to remain competitive. But don't be looking for $999 MacBook Pros anytime soon. Or ever.

Apple doesn't apply traditional supply and demand, and they don't always fully load their products either. I fear you have some false hope there. Mind you some good points, and I hope you are right and the level of componentry increases in relation to the cost benefits Apple achieves through discounted componentry.

jay

jdechko
Apr 10, 2006, 01:34 PM
The logical thing might then be to speedbump the Intel Macs at that time while retaining the prices.

I think this is the most logical choice (assuming that the faster chips are available). A previous poster hit the nail on the head that Apple has found what they consider to be the "sweet spot" for pricing. I can see a MacBook 1.83 at $999. Whether or not Apple can will be seen.

iSee
Apr 10, 2006, 01:37 PM
Well, I rated this positive, because price drops are good, but I just got a new 2.16GHz MBP (actually, according to FedEx, they just delivered it to my house, and here I am stuck at work for several more hours :mad: ). I want $200 back! ;)

Just kidding (I guess). I'd most likely have to wait for a MBP revision before the price drop is reflected in pricing anyway, which I already decided not to do.

I makes me think though: As the post says, Apple normally keeps a product's price stable between revisions, despite cost savings due to components dropping in price. But now that they are more part of the mainstream PC market, are they going to be forced to drop prices more aggressively?

In February, say, the MBP was sort-of competatively priced with other Core Duo notebooks (to get the same features for much less, you had to get a much larger/heavier laptop, w/o iLife and OSX) But by May, after the Dells and Gateways, etc. drop prices, Apple's price Feb. price will seem ridiculous... Here's to aggressive price drops by Apple! *toasts thin air*.

Phobophobia
Apr 10, 2006, 01:40 PM
You're not paying for the components when you buy a mac. Plain and simple.

p0intblank
Apr 10, 2006, 01:48 PM
Could this mean a price drop for the Mac mini by summer? :D

plinkoman
Apr 10, 2006, 01:49 PM
my predictions:

they'll bump the MBP up to 2.33/2.16/2.0 while maintaining the same price points of the 2.16/2.0/1.83 respectively. they'd probably do the same thing for the iMac.

the MacBooks will be able to take advantage of the lower prices and be able to achieve a $999 on the low end, be that a 1.66 solo or duo.

the mini will keep its specs and get a price drop to more along the lines of the G4's pricing.

^squirrel^
Apr 10, 2006, 01:58 PM
my predictions:

they'll bump the MBP up to 2.33/2.16/2.0 while maintaining the same price points of the 2.16/2.0/1.83 respectively. they'd probably do the same thing for the iMac.

the MacBooks will be able to take advantage of the lower prices and be able to achieve a $999 on the low end, be that a 1.66 solo or duo.

the mini will keep its specs and get a price drop to more along the lines of the G4's pricing.

I would have to back you up on that point.

Going on past history with Apple products they would probably keep the price of the MBP the same and just give it a speed bump.

Would be good to see the mini come down a bit as it's a little over priced at the moment.

However regardless if they do speed bump or on the off chance they lower the price of the MBP, i'm still holding out for the Merom.

There isn't going to be a major difference in performance to the average Joe ,unless you're video encoding or doing something processor intensive.

I know i'd be gutted if i bought a MBP in July and then in Aug/Sept they release the Merom. That would just put a bad taste in my mouth.

alfismoney
Apr 10, 2006, 02:04 PM
I makes me think though: As the post says, Apple normally keeps a product's price stable between revisions, despite cost savings due to components dropping in price. But now that they are more part of the mainstream PC market, are they going to be forced to drop prices more aggressively?

I think this is what we're all trying to guess. And the making of next week's MacRumors poll. i can see the options now. When Intel drops its processor prices publicly in May, will Apple:

a. bump processor speeds in the MacBook Pro/iMac
b. only drop MacBook Pro prices
c. drop all computer prices (bringing the mac mini back to 499)
d. thumb its nose at everyone and maintain the current status quo
e. maintain the status quo while it releases a new, exciting gadget to bury its penny pinching on page 2

bit density
Apr 10, 2006, 02:05 PM
my predictions:

they'll bump the MBP up to 2.33/2.16/2.0 while maintaining the same price points of the 2.16/2.0/1.83 respectively. they'd probably do the same thing for the iMac.

the MacBooks will be able to take advantage of the lower prices and be able to achieve a $999 on the low end, be that a 1.66 solo or duo.

the mini will keep its specs and get a price drop to more along the lines of the G4's pricing.

DING!

This would be precisely in keeping with the Apple Model. The Mac Mini may wait one more cycle before coming down in price. They may wait until core solo are even cheaper and there is a greater amount of UB software and there is a lesser dependancy on Rosetta at that level of user.

The Macbook will definitely have a core duo at the bottom range, again rosetta performance being the driving reason, but you may see artificial shortages of the lowest cost version to keep overall margins high, with shortages magically disappearing during the college buying season, likely to coincide with the next processor price drop.

In the fall I would expect the introduction of the Macbook Executive which will be smaller, thinner, longer battery life, using the ultra low voltage core models. And with the introduction of the the MacPro's late winter (shortly before and cointroduced with Adobe's CS3 and Leopard), the switchover will be complete. And then it will be time for...

One More Thing! (My guess is something that either competes in the Tablet or Ultra-Portable space, or possibly something for in the Living Room, rather than just the Dorm Room).

ImAlwaysRight
Apr 10, 2006, 02:32 PM
I doubt that Apple will drop the price of their systems for the following reasons:

- Apple would like to prevent the mentality that customers make likely take if they passed the price drop to its customers: "if I wait, I can get the system cheaper in a few months". This would impact sales, something that Apple will want to avoid
Uh... "if you wait, you really can get the system cheaper in a few months." Just wait until the new models are released or speed bumped, and the old ones always drop in price. :)

twoodcc
Apr 10, 2006, 02:37 PM
good news. only means better stuff will be out soon :)

andiwm2003
Apr 10, 2006, 02:49 PM
silent speedbump to the mac mini in May?

sintaxi
Apr 10, 2006, 02:50 PM
Moore's Law has nothing to do with economics.

Supply and demand control pricing.

Apple has positioned itself as a premier computer brand, and they set system prices based on what they think a consumer will pay. If they think high-end laptop buyers will pay $3-4k for a great portable system (fully loaded), that's what they'll sell it for. In the past, Apple seems to find the top end sweet spot pricing-wise, then continue minor speed bumps and upgrades to systems to keep people buying at that price point.

If you establish a marquee brand, keeping the price high actually ADDS to the perception of exclusivity and quality. It also means not playing the "whore-'em-out-at-razor-thin-margins" game all the other PC makers play.

Cheaper components will NOT mean cheaper systems. It will mean room for other peripheral improvements within a system, or just more net profit for Apple, or, more likely, a combination of the two.

Apple will sell cheap laptops at right around $999, high end laptops around $2,000-3,500, iMacs in the $1000-1700 range, and high end towers for around $2,000-4,000 or so (properly loaded w/RAM, HDD, etc.). The prices have not really dropped much for these types of systems since Steve Jobs return, not will they in the foreseeable future.

Systems will, however, continue to improve in raw computational power within those price points in order to remain competitive. But don't be looking for $999 MacBook Pros anytime soon. Or ever.

You are right but I would have to say Moores Law has everything to do with both the supply and the demand of computer hardware. Therefore the Ecconomics of Computer Hardware.

sam10685
Apr 10, 2006, 02:52 PM
As soon as that 1.8 comes below $200 I'll be buying one and upgrading my mini Core Solo. Then I'll have a faster mini than what's available at less than the cost of the fastest one.

Jeff

in the most confusing post of the day contest, we have the winner for today.

weazle1098
Apr 10, 2006, 02:59 PM
if apple is really serious about trying to lure PC users, they will have to drop the prices. Someone in the market for a laptop will look at Dell, Sony, Toshiba and will have even less incentive to now pay a double premium for a Mac.

I read an ariticle at one point that macs are actaully cheaper than PCs in the long run, just because of all the other crap you need yo buy to keep it up and running and safe and not a 1000$ doorstop, not that it isn't already one…

WildCowboy
Apr 10, 2006, 03:05 PM
in the most confusing post of the day contest, we have the winner for today.

It makes sense to me...he wants the price of the chip to drop enough that he can upgrade his current mini with the faster chip. Of course, the prices are for volume purchases, so a single chip price would be significantly higher.

iDrinkKoolAid
Apr 10, 2006, 03:06 PM
Apple never seems to lower prices. I bet what they will do is offer the 2.33 GHz for the same price as the 2.16 GHz and throw in an 8x dual-layer DVD+/-RW and maybe other hardware upgrades.

I think Apple really doesn't want to compete on price. They don't have the buying/selling power like Dull Computers.

mlrproducts
Apr 10, 2006, 03:10 PM
I for one hope Apple does NOT become the average Intel shmo, updating here and there every 3 months.

WHY?
Because then we'll end up like Dell. All of the Apple laptops and such will lose resale value dramatically due to there being a million different configurations.

As a consumer, I'd rather pay $100-200 more up front, and be able to get a 75% resale value in a year or two than save that cash and only get 50% value.

As long as Apple can hit $499 with the Mini and $999 with the MacBook in the next two revisions, I think they'll do well and fine with consistent update time frames of the past and similar pricing.

OHHH...
And the higher margins mean more money for upgrading components, and more money in my pocket as a stockholder!

aussie_geek
Apr 10, 2006, 03:23 PM
sounds great. hopefully Apple will follow suit (they probably won't :mad: ) and lower the prices of the MacBook Pro's. I find it quite outrageous to be charging an extra $460 au for 0.16 Ghz!!



aussie_geek

mattyturner
Apr 10, 2006, 03:27 PM
Sorry guys, but Moores law does not have anything to do with suppy and demand.

Apart from the fact it would seem moores law is now broken, hence Intel are talking about power and size and multiple cores as they can't keep increasing the frequency even with die shrink. Apart from the fact it's broken all it dictated was the rate at which faster processors become available.

Cache size (in terms of memory) and die size have more impact on the cost of producing and thus selling a cpu than the frequency.

Having said which, i'm not certain how supply and demand does work in the CPU industry. I mean, todays fastest processors are usually just a few lucky ones that are cherry picked from the bin because they can do a certain speed.

They are usually a few hundred dollars more expensive than the next slowest one even though they're not much faster. Is this because they are so rare that more people want them than they can produce so they charge and arm and a leg. Or is it because they are so rare they can get away with charging that much and some people buy them anyway?

yoak
Apr 10, 2006, 03:35 PM
Ofcourse, I just recieved my 20" iMac 2 hours ago;)

bilbo--baggins
Apr 10, 2006, 03:41 PM
I for one hope Apple does NOT become the average Intel shmo, updating here and there every 3 months.

WHY?
Because then we'll end up like Dell. All of the Apple laptops and such will lose resale value dramatically due to there being a million different configurations.

As a consumer, I'd rather pay $100-200 more up front, and be able to get a 75% resale value in a year or two than save that cash and only get 50% value.

As long as Apple can hit $499 with the Mini and $999 with the MacBook in the next two revisions, I think they'll do well and fine with consistent update time frames of the past and similar pricing.

OHHH...
And the higher margins mean more money for upgrading components, and more money in my pocket as a stockholder!

I think there are certain key areas where Apple must be seen to be competitive. For example, the top of the range models must always have the fastest processors available. Otherwise they will be be ridiculed with the same old claims of being overpriced (false) and underpowered (true).

I think the situation with the MacBook Pro is perfect for Apple to remain agile - having an option of a 2.16 GHz processor BTO. As soon as something faster comes along, it's effortless to change this. No worries about running down stock levels etc. :)

ImAlwaysRight
Apr 10, 2006, 03:45 PM
in the most confusing post of the day contest, we have the winner for today.
In the most confused reader of the day contest, we have our winner. :) I understood the other post just fine -- he wants to buy a 1.83 core duo processor for under $200 to put in the 1.5 mini, which, effectively, makes it faster than Apple's $799 mini for less money.

SC68Cal
Apr 10, 2006, 03:48 PM
I don't see any pricing change in the future. Remember that the iMac (Intel) was being sold along side the iMac (G5) for the same amount while they were in stock. The top end Powerbook 17" is at the same pricing point as the top end MacBook as well, don't forget.

My forecast is no change in price, possibly silent upgrade, or replace the 2.16ghz BTO option with the 2.33 BTO option, while still retaining the 2ghz as the top "off the shelf" configuration.

The only other thing that I would note is the fact that those prices are most likely RETAIL prices, (translation:after markup). Apple isn't buying processors the way you and I do, or for the price that you and I do.

Don't get your hopes up, is the tl:dr version of my post.

ImAlwaysRight
Apr 10, 2006, 03:51 PM
Intel's Core Duo chips are set to see a price drop as of May 28th.

The price of the high end 2.16GHz Core Duo that is a build to order option for the MacBook Pro is set to drop as much as $214 per unit. The slower clocked chips will see more modest price drops ($129 drop for the 1.83GHz chip and $54 drop for the 1.66GHz chip). Also expected is a 2.33GHz T2700 Core Duo processor later this year.
Man, that'd be sweet to see the 13" Intel Macbooks come in at 1.66GHz core duo for base and and 1.83GHz for higher config with a 2.0GHz option for $200 more, and then the rest of the Intel product line (except for maybe the mini) get speed bumped.

briansolomon
Apr 10, 2006, 03:55 PM
As has been said in these posts, I would imagine Apple just ups the processor speed and keeps the price points it is currently set with.

Just my two cents.

Marx55
Apr 10, 2006, 04:05 PM
Suggestion for the admins: why not include the old and new prices? Even better: percentage of price reduction. Thanks!

7on
Apr 10, 2006, 04:23 PM
I think we just figured out why in the Intel iMac the processor isn't soldered on and in the G5 iMac it is.

(ps: it's so Apple can just pop in new procs when they become available instead of changing the specific model)

yankeefan24
Apr 10, 2006, 04:26 PM
I think we just figured out why in the Intel iMac the processor isn't soldered on and in the G5 iMac it is.

(ps: it's so Apple can just pop in new procs when they become available instead of changing the specific model)


you have a point.

and they are soldered in the MBPs because they will get a redesign when merom comes.

I think apple will just upgrade the speed of MBP/iMac and lower the price of the mini.

war
Apr 10, 2006, 04:36 PM
Apple is going to have to adapt their pricing structure now that they are on intel chips. They can't just keep their computers significantly higher than the competitors with the same specs becuase it would kill possible buyers. Why buy a mac when the dell is $500 cheaper for the same stuff? Apple has to remain competitive with the other companies if they hope to sway any other switchers. They can be a bit more expensive but they can't offer an older chip for more money than HP offers a newer chip. Most people would pay less for more power if given the chance. Not changing prices would just be bad business and the press would eat them alive. Surely, Jobs and Company knew this when they decided to make the intel switch. Apple is in whole different playing field now and they must adjust accordingly.

Svennig
Apr 10, 2006, 04:49 PM
Sorry guys, but Moores law does not have anything to do with suppy and demand.

Apart from the fact it would seem moores law is now broken, hence Intel are talking about power and size and multiple cores as they can't keep increasing the frequency even with die shrink. Apart from the fact it's broken all it dictated was the rate at which faster processors become available.

Cache size (in terms of memory) and die size have more impact on the cost of producing and thus selling a cpu than the frequency.

Having said which, i'm not certain how supply and demand does work in the CPU industry. I mean, todays fastest processors are usually just a few lucky ones that are cherry picked from the bin because they can do a certain speed.

They are usually a few hundred dollars more expensive than the next slowest one even though they're not much faster. Is this because they are so rare that more people want them than they can produce so they charge and arm and a leg. Or is it because they are so rare they can get away with charging that much and some people buy them anyway?

Moores law is vitally linked to economics, both supply and demand. Moores law, in its original form, states that the complexity of a circuit with respect to minimum component cost, will double every 18 months.

Note the minimum component cost.

Imagine you are Intel. As a chip builder, you can create processors from simple 150 transistor systems to complex chips with 1000s of millions of transistors. So why don't they just double the size of a chip (lets say they quadruple the cache of a core duo) and charge twice as much? The answer is that it costs more than that (perhaps 3 or 4 times) to manufacture. This reduces demand, increases costs, and therefore decreases profits.

Moores law states that, for a given state of technological advancement, on a given area of silicon, chips of a certain complexity are economically most viable for consumers and manufacturers.

sintaxi
Apr 10, 2006, 04:50 PM
Sorry guys, but Moores law does not have anything to do with suppy and demand.

Apart from the fact it would seem moores law is now broken, hence Intel are talking about power and size and multiple cores as they can't keep increasing the frequency even with die shrink. Apart from the fact it's broken all it dictated was the rate at which faster processors become available.

Cache size (in terms of memory) and die size have more impact on the cost of producing and thus selling a cpu than the frequency.

Having said which, i'm not certain how supply and demand does work in the CPU industry. I mean, todays fastest processors are usually just a few lucky ones that are cherry picked from the bin because they can do a certain speed.

They are usually a few hundred dollars more expensive than the next slowest one even though they're not much faster. Is this because they are so rare that more people want them than they can produce so they charge and arm and a leg. Or is it because they are so rare they can get away with charging that much and some people buy them anyway?

Well I guess then you wouldnt mind paying 5 grand for one of those first few 386 today. The bottom line is Because of moores law the supply exceeds the demand for that chip (therefore you can buy one at a garage sale for next to nothing).

generik
Apr 10, 2006, 04:51 PM
This (apparently) sarcastic comment appears to presuppose that Apple's *current* margins on the MBP are already what the company and its investors have come to expect.

It's very possible that Apple will "pass on the savings to themselves" in an effort to dollar cost average and achieve target margins. It might be that current margins on MBP are below what Apple needs.

--
-- Tom Mornini

Do you think the average consumer that Apple is trying so hard to capture cares a damned about Apple's effort to achieve target returns.

Right now the MBPs actually do look pretty competitive in the marketplace, fast forward 3 months and if everyone else drops by $300 and Apple fails to follow suit, it looks really ugly.

gnasher729
Apr 10, 2006, 04:55 PM
Why would anyone rate this negative?

You just need to visit the inquirer web page and read their headline, then you know why.

And the stupid idiots didn't notice that Apple has already been buying all the chips for the MacBook Pro at the reduced prices. Or did you think Apple equipped all MacBook Pros with the next faster version of the Core Duo because they thought otherwise they would make too much profit?

billyboy
Apr 10, 2006, 04:56 PM
Apple is in whole different playing field now and they must adjust accordingly.
How about Dell are in a whole new playing field and have to adapt to the challenge of an amazing software package included with all (expensive) Apple hardware.!!!!

Apple have all the balls in their court with all 3 main OS es able to run natively and the killer advantage is that arguably the best of the OS es, OS X is fully supported by Apple who happen to be the manufacturer of the hardware it runs on. This is something Dell and co cant even think about offering, let alone do. Mikey and the Intel-using PC manufacturers without an OS or any decent bundled multimedia software of their own will be reevaluating their business model, not Steve.

gnasher729
Apr 10, 2006, 04:59 PM
so the price of chips from intel may be going down, and theoretically this should affect macbook prices, but when would the consumer get to see the actual price changes?

They already did.

Compare the MacBook Pro as it was announced with the MacBook Pro as it has been shipping. Then compare the new Intel prices with the old ones and notice that the next faster chip costs exactly as much as the slower one cost before. Then ask yourself whether Apple has to wait for reduced prices as anyone else, or whether there is maybe a special relationship between Intel and Apple.

LethalWolfe
Apr 10, 2006, 05:00 PM
Apple is going to have to adapt their pricing structure now that they are on intel chips. They can't just keep their computers significantly higher than the competitors with the same specs becuase it would kill possible buyers. Why buy a mac when the dell is $500 cheaper for the same stuff?
I haven't been over to Dell.com for a while, but would you mind spec'ing out a Dell w/comparaible hardware and software to a Mac so I can have the most update picture of the significant price difference between the two?

I tend to agree w/the posters that think we'll see speed bumps but not price drops.


Lethal

fishkorp
Apr 10, 2006, 05:25 PM
Asking someone to just go to dell.com isn't a fair evaluation of their pricing. If you've ordered from Dell before or hunt deal websites you get coupons to greatly lower the price of a machine. Just last week they had this config:

Intel Core Duo processor T2300 (2MB Cache/1.66GHz/667MHz FSB)
Genuine Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005
15.4 inch Wide Screen XGA Display
FREE 1GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz, 2 Dimm
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950
40GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
Integrated 10/100 Network Card and Modem
24X CD Burner/DVD Combo Drive
Dell Wireless 1390 802.11b/g Mini Card (54Mbps)
53 WHr 6-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr Mail-In Service, and 1Yr HW Warranty Support

For $578 +tax/shipping after coupons. Granted it's not up to MBP specs, but it's also $1500 less. The Acer with comparable specs to the MBP goes for about $1499, $1299 when on sale at CompUSA.

Irregardless of the price, I'm keeping my eyes open for the 13.3" MacBook when it's available :)

BenRoethig
Apr 10, 2006, 05:27 PM
yay, more profits to apple. Can someone tell me when the macbooks will be available for order, not delivery, just order.

Yeah, pretty much. I doubt we're going to see a cent of that price drop.

wildmannz
Apr 10, 2006, 05:49 PM
Some people seem to forget that Apple got a RATHER good deal with Intel in the first place.
Apple would have started with a very aggressive price point for the Intel chips... probably a decent margin under what competitors pay.
These price drops (which don't state quantities - i.e. per 1000) might just bring that to par with what Aple already pays.

Some other people also forget about the speed bump that MBPs got on release.
No price drop on the MacBooks and MacBook Pros.
And why would you expect one. Perhaps this time next year when an upgraded product is out.:)

BWhaler
Apr 10, 2006, 06:05 PM
yay, more profits to apple. Can someone tell me when the macbooks will be available for order, not delivery, just order.

You're joking, right?

Apple hasn't even announced that the product exists, is going to be called MacBook, specs, etc. Sure, the replacement is coming, but you need to be patient.

zenvision
Apr 10, 2006, 06:05 PM
when do you think we'll see the speed bump to 2.33? june? i'm wondering whether to wait...

ah theres always something better around the corner... ;)

MacinDoc
Apr 10, 2006, 06:09 PM
In the most confused reader of the day contest, we have our winner. :) I understood the other post just fine -- he wants to buy a 1.83 core duo processor for under $200 to put in the 1.5 mini, which, effectively, makes it faster than Apple's $799 mini for less money.
...which would work just fine, if he wanted to upgrade 1000 Minis, but since this is unit price when ordered in lots of 1000 processors, I doubt it will save him much money...

weldon
Apr 10, 2006, 06:41 PM
...which would work just fine, if he wanted to upgrade 1000 Minis, but since this is unit price when ordered in lots of 1000 processors, I doubt it will save him much money...
You'd be surprised at how close the 1000 lot price is to the retail price. The Core Duo 2.0GHz (T2500) already sells for less at retail than the price announced for 1000 lot orders less than two months ago (Mid Feb). As another point of reference, the current retail price is 20% less than the 1Ku tray unit pricing published in Jan '06.

SoGood
Apr 10, 2006, 07:04 PM
Apple can keep their price point, as long as they increase the value of other components eg. HD, RAM, optical drives etc.

SeaFox
Apr 10, 2006, 08:46 PM
The price of the high end 2.16GHz Core Duo that is a build to order option for the MacBook Pro is set to drop as much as $214 per unit. The slower clocked chips will see more modest price drops ($129 drop for the 1.83GHz chip and $54 drop for the 1.66GHz chip). Also expected is a 2.33GHz T2700 Core Duo processor later this year.

This does not necessarily mean a price drop on corresponding Macs, however. Apple historically has been relatively consistent in their Mac pricing for the duration of a product's lifespan.

So who cares? :rolleyes:

I haven't ever seen Apple lower the price of a product when the components get suddenly cheaper mid life. I assume part of the reason is Apple gets contracted prices that are lower than regular retail to start with.

BillyShears
Apr 10, 2006, 10:19 PM
Uh... "if you wait, you really can get the system cheaper in a few months." Just wait until the new models are released or speed bumped, and the old ones always drop in price. :)

There are a lot of people in the Mac community that want the fastest Mac they can get.

For them, if Apple drops the price on the high end models that is ideal.

If Apple drops the price on the current high end models, and introduces faster models at the old price, this is no good. They still have to pay the same price and get no benefit. (Except the speed/specs increase, but this is negligible to them, anyway.)

Lollypop
Apr 11, 2006, 12:37 AM
I think Apple (if they will be saving anything) will absorb the profit, but hopefully they use to to further improve their other hardware offerings, improved iSight, bigger HDD, new case designs and materials, R&D.... I wont mind if apple keeps the money but in the end of the day spend it to make their hardware even cooler!

gnasher729
Apr 11, 2006, 02:21 AM
Asking someone to just go to dell.com isn't a fair evaluation of their pricing. If you've ordered from Dell before or hunt deal websites you get coupons to greatly lower the price of a machine. Just last week they had this config:

If you managed to order one and receive one at that price and get all the money for your coupons, you can post it here. Dell doesn't want you to get the machine cheap. If they wanted that, they would just sell them cheap.

Last week, I had to help someone on a very, very limited budget to buy a computer. A Mac Mini plus monitor was unfortunately not within the budget. Dell was definitely not the cheapest (in a usable configuration); the cheapest was a local supermarket. And there is nothing, absolutely nothing out there that can beat the 17 inch iMac at value for money. There are crap PCs that are cheaper, but nothing at the same price that comes near it.

jamieg
Apr 11, 2006, 03:02 AM
I will be looking to replace my 12" PowerBook when the intel replacement comes, I'm getting a bit confused!

Will these price drops affect the price/spec of the MacBook straight away? I dont want to shell out for one to find the has been a drop in price or bump in spec soon after.

With these price drops are apple likely to put 2.33GHz T2700 into higher end laptops (or even in MacBooks)? Do you think its wise to wait and see what happens once the 2.33GHz T2700 is out there before replacing my 12" PowerBook?

In fewer words, WHEN will it be safe to replace my 12" PowerBook without wishing I held out for a few weeks/months more?

BWhaler
Apr 11, 2006, 03:20 AM
if apple is really serious about trying to lure PC users, they will have to drop the prices. Someone in the market for a laptop will look at Dell, Sony, Toshiba and will have even less incentive to now pay a double premium for a Mac.

Not necessarily true at all.

Apple's doesn't want the $299 CompUSA buyer. They are massively unprofitable on the whole. It's why the PC side of the business has basically fallen apart except for the high end and Dell. Everyone else is gone or dying.

I STRONGLY recommend everyone read www.daringfireball.com to understand how Apple thinks and works.

In there John Grubner, astutely points out key points pundits and Apple fans alike miss:

1. Apple's market share is not a random 3-5% of the market, it is the premium market.
2. Apple has a high share of the profits of the industry
3. The mass market of the PC business is highly unprofitable
4. Apple makes 95%+ of their money from hardware.
5. For Apple to explode their revenue, they need to add 1-3% of the high end PC market, not 25% marketshare of the unprofitable masses. Therefore, they don't need to massively drop their prices.

So, expect prices to be more competitive, but thinking it's smart for Apple to go after the $299 desktop business or the $699 laptop business shows a basic lack of understanding of how Apple remains competitive and healthy. (Don't forget the cheap clones almost killed Apple.)

BWhaler
Apr 11, 2006, 03:24 AM
Some people seem to forget that Apple got a RATHER good deal with Intel in the first place.

Bingo. You seem to be the only poster who gets this.

Apple has their own deal with Intel. So the mass market (for lots of 1,000 chips) prices drop, so what.

And seriously, has anyone thought this through? Apple lowers the price, and then upgrades the chip in 3 months and raises the price. Then, 6 months later, lowers the price and then... It's idiotic.

Apple, who negotiated to buy 10's of millions of Intel chips over several years, has an entirely different deal. This is not news at all.

LethalWolfe
Apr 11, 2006, 03:47 AM
For $578 +tax/shipping after coupons. Granted it's not up to MBP specs, but it's also $1500 less. The Acer with comparable specs to the MBP goes for about $1499, $1299 when on sale at CompUSA.


Well crank it up to MBP specs and get back to me w/the cost. Of course a lesser product should cost less. That is the reason I asked for machines w/"comparable hardware and software." Does the Dell come w/programs comparable to iMovie, iDVD, Garageband, iPhoto, or Front Row (w/remote)? Does it have a built in webcam? How much more is it to bump the Dell up to at least an 80gig HDD? Blue tooth? DVI out? Optical audio out? A comparable GFX card? Firewire? DVD burner?


Lethal

Kelmon
Apr 11, 2006, 04:58 AM
Well the Meroms are coming out later this year making these core duos obsolete so this comes as no big shock. When Merom is released, the Core Duo prices will probably go down even more. I hope Apple keeps using Core Duo processors in the mini and iBook systems even when Merom comes out for pricing purposes.

Can anyone tell me what the advantages are of Merom over Core Duo, other than being 64bit? It's been stated that it will increase battery life because it runs cooler but by how much?

I was kinda hoping that someone else would address this question. However, as no one else has I'll have a bash at it myself.

The big difference between Yonah and Merom, as best as I can tell, is one of performance and power consumption. Yonah represents a re-design of the older Pentium M processor that worked so well in older notebooks while Merom (and the rest of the Intel Core Microarchitecture processor family) represents an all-new architecture. As you noted, 64-bit and power consumption are the biggest new factors that Merom brings. From my reading on the subject (see AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2715) and Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture)) the following are the main benefits:

1. 64-Bit processing to support more than 4GB RAM (great for desktops/servers, perhaps of limited use in a notebook)

2. Lower power consumption by doing things like combining 2 instructions into 1 and therefore saving a clock cycle, and scaling power usage according to processor load

3. Support for faster Front Sided Bus to access main memory (800MHz with Merom; 1.33GHz for the Server/Desktop versions)

Hardware supported virtualisation had been proposed as another selling point for these processors but, as we know from the Parallel Workstation product, this is already supported in Yonah.

While the power consumption required by Merom is lower than Yonah, don't expect to be seeing much in the way of increased battery performance. Most likely the laptop will be set to use its more efficient processing to do more with the same power and therefore outperform an equivalently clocked Yonah by about 20% or more (Quake 4 demonstration showed a 25% performance increase over Yonah in the AnandTech article).

This is most definitely the processor that I have been waiting for but, as the AnandTech article shows, there's another decision to make - do you buy a Merom system with Napa Refresh platform or do you wait for the Santa Rosa platform to be released in 2007 (Q1, I believe)? The Napa Refresh will basically give you what is provided in a MacBook Pro today (i.e. 667MHz FSB, 802.11b/g wireless support, etc.) whereas Santa Rosa will allow the FSB to run at 800MHz and provide 802.11n wireless support. Personally, I'm through waiting so I'll be ordering a Merom-based 17" system as soon as they are announced, but if you don't need one straight away then it may be wise to wait a few months. Of course, just because Intel releases these chips doesn't necessarily means that Apple will release new MacBook Pro's, but we can hope...

AidenShaw
Apr 11, 2006, 07:35 AM
1. 64-Bit processing to support more than 4GB RAM (great for desktops/servers, perhaps of limited use in a notebook)

2. Lower power consumption by doing things like combining 2 instructions into 1 and therefore saving a clock cycle, and scaling power usage according to processor load

3. Support for faster Front Sided Bus to access main memory (800MHz with Merom; 1.33GHz for the Server/Desktop versions)
4. Higher performance (in 64-bit mode) due the ISA changes in the x64 architecture (more registers, etc)

Also, for your point #1, 64-bit is needed for a single process to use more than 4 GiB of RAM - it is not needed to support more than 4 GiB per *system*.

A G4 can support 64 GiB of RAM, as can 32-bit Intel workstation/server CPUs. Apple never exploited this capability, but it was common for 32-bit Intel servers to support 8 GiB, 12 GiB or more. The Intel/AMD x64 chips can support up to 64 GiB even when running in 32-bit mode.

D*I*S_Frontman
Apr 11, 2006, 08:46 AM
Apple's doesn't want the $299 CompUSA buyer. They are massively unprofitable on the whole. It's why the PC side of the business has basically fallen apart except for the high end and Dell. Everyone else is gone or dying.

I STRONGLY recommend everyone read www.daringfireball.com to understand how Apple thinks and works.

1. Apple's market share is not a random 3-5% of the market, it is the premium market.
2. Apple has a high share of the profits of the industry
3. The mass market of the PC business is highly unprofitable
4. Apple makes 95%+ of their money from hardware.
5. For Apple to explode their revenue, they need to add 1-3% of the high end PC market, not 25% marketshare of the unprofitable masses. Therefore, they don't need to massively drop their prices.

So, expect prices to be more competitive, but thinking it's smart for Apple to go after the $299 desktop business or the $699 laptop business shows a basic lack of understanding of how Apple remains competitive and healthy. (Don't forget the cheap clones almost killed Apple.)

Best post so far. Dead on.

BTW, the healthy profit margins + insane iPod profits = aggressive R&D, which means better systems in the future. No, Apple is not designing CPUs, GPUs, or any other component on in their products. But they have the deep pockets to get design details right, to craft very user-friendly and stable software, and to focus on end-user ease of use and productivity with near-evangelistic zeal.

To focus on initial price and ignore TCO is a fool's game. I have NEVER had to reinstall an OS on a system. I got the "Scores" virus on my old 512ke back in the late 80's, which was the last time I have ever had a virus of any kind. Where I work the IT department deals with viruses, trojan horses, and goofball XP incompatabilities on almost a daily basis. The main system in my department has had XP reinstalled twice in the 2 years I've been with the company, all due to virus hacks.

For people in content creation fields, downtime is VERY expensive. In a recording studio, even a cheap DIY home one, people bill anywhere from $30-100/hour for studio time. Just one system glitch that takes half a day to resolve completely eats up whatever savings might have been realized from buying a PC vs. a Mac. Not to mention how it affects your reputation, or your own piece of mind.

Apple is NOT going to lower prices on most of their line. The Minis and iMacs will be the lower cost "switcher" systems, and prices there may dip just a bit, but they'll never be a true "bargain" compared to PC offerings. And higher-end towers and laptops will always be offered at premium prices.

That's the price of superior hardware/software integration, security, stability, and user-friendliness.

ready2switch
Apr 11, 2006, 09:22 AM
You're not paying for the components when you buy a mac. Plain and simple.

Agreed. If you're just shopping for the cheapest components you can find "usable" machines for well under Apple's price points.

But, you get what you pay for :p

bbyrdhouse
Apr 11, 2006, 09:22 AM
Personally I don't think it would be wise for Apple to lower their prices too much.
I think it would create a couple of problems:

1. There would be too many people switching to Macs too fast. This would create alot of customer support issues. (I know that for all of the "better designed, better built" arguments out there, I have had to send in my G4 Powerbook in for repair 4 times in less than a year.)

2. Apple (the company) needs to be able to grow with it's customer base. So that they will be able to handle the supply / demand issues.

People are switching to Macs all the time now and that trend will continue IF, Apple maintains an attitude of creating a better product that just works.

Lowering the prices too low would I think do more to harm Apple than help Apple. (note Gateway, Dell)

Apple is not a "bargain basement" computer. Although, when you buy a Mac you really do get a bargain.

Whistleway
Apr 11, 2006, 09:34 AM
1. Apple's market share is not a random 3-5% of the market, it is the premium market.
2. Apple has a high share of the profits of the industry
3. The mass market of the PC business is highly unprofitable
4. Apple makes 95%+ of their money from hardware.
5. For Apple to explode their revenue, they need to add 1-3% of the high end PC market, not 25% marketshare of the unprofitable masses. Therefore, they don't need to massively drop their prices.



There are some tiny holes in this logic. You can't just increase 1-3% of high end PC market. Because it just doesn't exist. Anyone who spends major moola to get a computer knows about Apple and still choose to buy PC. Their reasons may vary. Apple's strategy to create artificial barriers discourages them away from ever trying out a Mac. But, they are improving now with Bootcamp as a start.

Apple has long been missing out the low hanging fruits that would push them to around 10% market share with a marginal change in their strategy. Why create barriers that prevents them from switching?

While you are at it, fire most of the apple store employees who just think they are too cool to be out there. ;)

odedia
Apr 11, 2006, 04:07 PM
Not sure if this was posted, but Apple does not pay the same price as consumers do for the Core Duo chips. They pay with really big discount, like any other big Intel customer.

Dell is offering 1.83Ghz Core Duo laptops as low as 600-700$, so they can't really do that if they pay like consumers do.

Oded S.

AidenShaw
Apr 11, 2006, 08:46 PM
Not sure if this was posted, but Apple does not pay the same price as consumers do for the Core Duo chips. They pay with really big discount, like any other big Intel customer.
Thanks for the refreshing bit of sanity - I've laughed at the posts that assume that Apple got a "special deal" on a large volume of chips - when the other Intel system manufacturers buy in lots many times larger than Apple.

Flash3441
Apr 12, 2006, 01:00 AM
I was kinda hoping that someone else would address this question. However, as no one else has I'll have a bash at it myself.

The big difference between Yonah and Merom, as best as I can tell, is one of performance and power consumption. Yonah represents a re-design of the older Pentium M processor that worked so well in older notebooks while Merom (and the rest of the Intel Core Microarchitecture processor family) represents an all-new architecture. As you noted, 64-bit and power consumption are the biggest new factors that Merom brings. From my reading on the subject (see AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2715) and Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture)) the following are the main benefits:

1. 64-Bit processing to support more than 4GB RAM (great for desktops/servers, perhaps of limited use in a notebook)

2. Lower power consumption by doing things like combining 2 instructions into 1 and therefore saving a clock cycle, and scaling power usage according to processor load

3. Support for faster Front Sided Bus to access main memory (800MHz with Merom; 1.33GHz for the Server/Desktop versions)

Hardware supported virtualisation had been proposed as another selling point for these processors but, as we know from the Parallel Workstation product, this is already supported in Yonah.

While the power consumption required by Merom is lower than Yonah, don't expect to be seeing much in the way of increased battery performance. Most likely the laptop will be set to use its more efficient processing to do more with the same power and therefore outperform an equivalently clocked Yonah by about 20% or more (Quake 4 demonstration showed a 25% performance increase over Yonah in the AnandTech article).

This is most definitely the processor that I have been waiting for but, as the AnandTech article shows, there's another decision to make - do you buy a Merom system with Napa Refresh platform or do you wait for the Santa Rosa platform to be released in 2007 (Q1, I believe)? The Napa Refresh will basically give you what is provided in a MacBook Pro today (i.e. 667MHz FSB, 802.11b/g wireless support, etc.) whereas Santa Rosa will allow the FSB to run at 800MHz and provide 802.11n wireless support. Personally, I'm through waiting so I'll be ordering a Merom-based 17" system as soon as they are announced, but if you don't need one straight away then it may be wise to wait a few months. Of course, just because Intel releases these chips doesn't necessarily means that Apple will release new MacBook Pro's, but we can hope...

Based on your awesome reply, I am now very thankful I didn't buy the current Macbook Pro because Merom seems to be a significant upgrade to Yonah. No wonder they are droping the price. Looks like I'm sticking with the Thinkpad till December. Hopefully a 17" Macbook Pro will be out with Merom by then.

Kelmon
Apr 12, 2006, 01:37 AM
Also, for your point #1, 64-bit is needed for a single process to use more than 4 GiB of RAM - it is not needed to support more than 4 GiB per *system*.

A G4 can support 64 GiB of RAM, as can 32-bit Intel workstation/server CPUs. Apple never exploited this capability, but it was common for 32-bit Intel servers to support 8 GiB, 12 GiB or more. The Intel/AMD x64 chips can support up to 64 GiB even when running in 32-bit mode.

Really? Huh. You live and learn...

AidenShaw
Apr 12, 2006, 07:48 AM
Really? Huh. You live and learn...
It helps to read more than Apple advertising copy.... ;)

(Especially since Apple advertising hasn't mentioned "64-bit" since last June :eek: )

appleguyincbus
Apr 12, 2006, 08:52 AM
Excuse the stupid question..... but why buy this round of MacBooks other than the fact "I bought the first wave"? I see a few schools now slashing the G4s to $750.00. Wouldn't it make more sense to buy a G4 for $750 use it for 5 months and dump it on EBAY and then buy a MacBook for Christmas. Or if you have a G4/G3 just hold onto it...

Guess the question is aren't the Duo books like a 3-4 month life expectancy laptop at best? In our hands June-ish timeframe and then "obsolete" in the fall with the MacBook upgraded chip.....

again the stupid question... why buy one now? and not wait 5-6 months...

AidenShaw
Apr 12, 2006, 11:14 PM
again the stupid question... why buy one now? and not wait 5-6 months...
Prices on the fuel for Steve's jet are going up - help support his travel.

Paulhammer
Apr 13, 2006, 01:16 AM
A quick question, what do you all think the odds are of the MacBook (non-pro) being upgraded to merom along with MBP before september (yes, i know its a huge stretch and is probably super unlikely) because i'll be needing a laptop around then to begin the school year...

^squirrel^
Apr 13, 2006, 02:23 AM
A quick question, what do you all think the odds are of the MacBook (non-pro) being upgraded to merom along with MBP before september (yes, i know its a huge stretch and is probably super unlikely) because i'll be needing a laptop around then to begin the school year...

I think we might just get the Merom in the Pro in Sept. We would be very lucky if we go the Merom in the non Pro.

But I guess we can only hope.

AidenShaw
Apr 13, 2006, 06:55 AM
I think we might just get the Merom in the Pro in Sept. We would be very lucky if we go the Merom in the non Pro.

But I guess we can only hope.
IMO, you're right. Apple will probably use Merom/Yonah as a Pro/Amateur distinction to help steer people from the Amateur to the Pro.

On the other hand, Merom prices will be about the same as current Yonah prices. So they could switch to Merom without changing prices.

It's possible that we'll see

a WWDC announcement that 10.5 will be true 64-bit for the Intel platform
Meroms replacing Yonah is all systems
An ad campaign "All 64-bit, All ready for Leopard"
Prices on eBay for soldered 'books plummet

RollTide
Apr 13, 2006, 09:45 AM
So do you guys think that the MacBook will be able to take a Merom chip when/if they are used in MacBooks, if so I would buy a MacBook right away, but if not then I may wait for a while, hmmmm decisions

^squirrel^
Apr 13, 2006, 10:01 AM
So do you guys think that the MacBook will be able to take a Merom chip when/if they are used in MacBooks, if so I would buy a MacBook right away, but if not then I may wait for a while, hmmmm decisions

If i was you just wait a while. It's only around the corner, my guess is Sept.

It might not be a simple as you think and it would invaildate your warranty.

Paulhammer
Apr 13, 2006, 10:12 AM
It's more than likely that the processor will be soldered into the computer, making it near impossible to replace...

Here's hoping that everything goes to merom...

Sammie2u
Apr 13, 2006, 05:58 PM
So I admit I only read what was being said on pages one and two, but my question is, why do you think that apple would lower the prices when half of you end your post with "before I go buy my MBP"? Apple knows you are going to buy them anyway, so why would they lower the price?

Just an observation from a first time visitor to Macrumors...

JDOG_
Apr 13, 2006, 06:02 PM
It's more than likely that the processor will be soldered into the computer, making it near impossible to replace...

Here's hoping that everything goes to merom...

Agreed. I'm sure as soon as someone from Apple saw the posts about users buying their own chips and upgrading they started soldering the chips right quick. :(

tonyl
Apr 13, 2006, 10:09 PM
Agreed. I'm sure as soon as someone from Apple saw the posts about users buying their own chips and upgrading they started soldering the chips right quick. :(

It may increase the popularity, since PC guys are switching, they like to upgrade for themselves.

MarkAlanEis
May 28, 2006, 10:23 PM
The intel chip prices are being reduced tomorrow? Does this mean apple will have the 2.33 ghz chip in the MacBook Pro soon?

Nate4747
May 29, 2006, 01:16 AM
I agree with the previous posters, I think the MB will retain the 32 bit duo and the Pro will get the 64 bit version. This will be a good way to keep the lines separate, as they are very similar right now.

Personally I just picked up a cheap MacBook to hold me over until the 64 bit MBP's come out. Hopefully whine free.

mjstew33
May 29, 2006, 01:17 AM
Personally I just picked up a cheap MacBook to hold me over until the 64 bit MBP's come out. Hopefully whine free.
What are you doing that the MacBook can't do? :confused:

Papercut
May 29, 2006, 07:33 AM
The Macbook is priced as if the Core Duo chips have already been discounted. Currently, they are only available from the Apple store where Apple makes a higher profit to compensate for the slighty higher hit it takes on sales this early. Intel is rumored to announce a discount on the Core line on Monday the 28th. Will Apple announce new CPUs on the Mini and iMac on Tuesday?

Waiting to replace my struggling HP laptop (almost dead) and switch BACK to a Mac (Apple IIe, Mac Plus, Mac II, Mac SE, iMac G3 600 user over the years). Too bad I live in Taiwan where I have to wait 2 months for new Macs (even though they are produced by Taiwanese companies just over in China). You'd think I could get one faster.

Cheers

grockk
May 29, 2006, 09:45 AM
if dell, gateway and HP are using merom in their consumer lines, then apple will be forced to do the same. another benefit of being on the same chips as everybody else.

uv23
May 29, 2006, 10:01 AM
According to the updated Intel roadmap (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2546), the 2.33GHz Yonah isn't being released until June 25th. So don't look for a MBP processor upgrade just yet in response to the price drop.

manic
May 29, 2006, 02:30 PM
I believe MBP and MB are getting merom as soon as its out. Its priced similarly to yonah and theres no reason for apple to allow PC competitors to get the faster machines out there before.

I also believe merom is crucial for future proofing your new mac. Leopard is said to be fully 64-bit compatible and, even if you get your mac with tiger, youll surely want to get leopard once its out. Merom is more likely to support its more advanced features.

Its all on intels court now. if they manage to get merom out august/sept, well se MB and MBPs in early October (very much hopefully). Does anyone have any new info on why this may not be true?

ffakr
May 29, 2006, 04:09 PM
I believe MBP and MB are getting merom as soon as its out. Its priced similarly to yonah and theres no reason for apple to allow PC competitors to get the faster machines out there before.

I also believe merom is crucial for future proofing your new mac. Leopard is said to be fully 64-bit compatible and, even if you get your mac with tiger, youll surely want to get leopard once its out. Merom is more likely to support its more advanced features.

Its all on intels court now. if they manage to get merom out august/sept, well se MB and MBPs in early October (very much hopefully). Does anyone have any new info on why this may not be true?

I find that unlikely.
64 bit processors are larger than 32bit processors. They have more transistors to expand the width of the integer registers and the integer processors. They often have more transistors in their memory registers though as Aiden has mentioned some "32 bit" bit processors had larger memory registers. I think the G4 has 40 or 48bit memory registers though they aren't usually available when you're writing C code in a 32bit compiler. If you really wanted to you could build a G4 that addressed a load of memory.
It's far more likely that the Core Duo will become the lower end product and Merom will become the 'pro' laptop chip. Intel is saying ~30% better performance (best case) with merom but the litho will come out a little larger for the 64bit chips.
Merom will cost more to manufacture and it will perform a little better. It should support virtualization, real virtualization, and it will smoke the Core Duo in large integer math (64bit of course).
These features are great if you need them but most people don't. I can't think of a single App that someone will be running on a low range laptop with integrated video that will require a 64bit processor so there's really no reason to move the MacBook line to the Core2 Duo (Merom).
Apple will leave those products with the lower range chip because it's already VERY fast and it'll be cheaper than Merom.

Also, I saw someone mention that Merom and Core 2 are entirely different architectures while Yonah is just a revision of Pentium-M. I don't agree, not from what I've seen. Core2 will be a big update but it's still an incremental improvement. That's why it's still called Core*. Yonah was a big improvement over PentiumM (reworked SSE, dual core, unified L2 cache among other things).. Core2 will be a big change but it's still an incremental step. This isn't like the difference between the Core/PentiumM arch and the NetBurst P4 architecture. Intel dropped the NetBurst arch and decided to base everything off the P-M foundation (which was, in turn, vaguely based off older architectures that date all the way back to PentiumPro as I understand).

ffakr.

manic
May 29, 2006, 04:23 PM
In reply to post #124 by FFAKR,

Apple shown its ready to live with a small cpu performance gap between the MB and MBP by giving the MBs a Core Duo instead of a "logical" Core Solo.

This article http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060529A6027.html says that the the 2ghz merom chip will sell for $294, which the same it currently ask for the Core Duo T2500 2.0GHz http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31989 .

This is in line with what the rumour mill has been predicting for the past few weeks. I agree that its surprising theyre pricing it so agressively, but they are.

Apple knows people are thrilled by merom and they must be as well. I see no reason other than shortages for them to refrain from updating the whole notebook line to meroms. Apple likes to stay on the cutting edge of things.

Merom offers significant power improvements thanks for its revamped architecture and mainly to its 4 MB L2 Cache (Yonah only has 2MB).

Im new to macs, so i dont know how OSX benefits from 64bits at present, but im sure it will be all over the place with leopard.

ffakr
May 29, 2006, 05:09 PM
Yes, Intel has been pushing prices down aggressively to fight AMD. They seem to have been pricing their dual-core P4 chips lower than anyone suspected too.

I don't see this as being about how cheap Merom will be though. It's about what price Core Duo will fall to. It's also about supply chain and market perceptions.

I understand the point about the Core Duo in the Macbook but in reality.. the price differential between a low end core duo and a core solo isn't as large as the difference in the Core Duo line between the low end and the top tier parts. In other words, there wouldn't be that much of a difference in price and it positions the recently released macbook to be the younger sibling of a revised Core2 MacBook Pro. I'm looking at it as leapfrog. If the macbook and the macbook pro had been released simultaneously we'd have likely seen the core solo in the macbook. Since it came out just recently, the duo made more sense.

JMHO of course. I think there is an economical reason for a yonah and a conroe but there is also a marketing issue. There is a balancing act between making a new product obsolete proof to have enough value and putting in too much or too little cpu. With Intel pushing the release schedules, Apple may have decided to go dual core 32bit on the low end if only because they didn't want the macbook to look hopelessly out of date in 3 months. Apple certainly doesn't have a history of frequent product line changes.

manic
May 29, 2006, 07:05 PM
I think the macbooks would look relatively underpowered to dells and the like if they werent fitted with the merom. Apple is not going to push their prices down. Theyve been pretty clear theyre comfortable with the current spec difference between the MB and MBP. Graphics pros are going to stick with the Pro. Macbooks are for students/ home and small business users. Im seriously in line for a macbook, but I can imagine thousands probably going with a similarly priced dell if they were available with merom.

My point is, keeping the distance between MBs and MBPs doesnt seem enough reason for apple to cripple its consumer notebook. And it would be the only reason, given that the core2duos can fit in the same socket its been used today and that prices are the same.

its just not like apple.

ffakr
May 29, 2006, 09:11 PM
The 'dell angle' is a good point. I had honestly not considered that which is depressing because it's so obvious in retrospect.
Apple has real parity with other vendors now so they can't fudge the performance figures on the hardware side.

I don't think this is an indication that Apple will drop Core Duo. Perhaps I've missed it but I didn't see any indication that Merom will kill off the Core processor line. I was under the impression that Core Solo and Core Duo will continue. They'll likely become the new Celeron.
I'd be shocked if Intel killed off a perfectly good product line because something better came along just months after release.. especially since they'll get a significantly larger yield per wafer on Core compared to Core2. The increased logic will be nothing compared to the space used by doubling the L2. Core will just be cheaper to make and it will still be plenty fast for a long time.
Seriously, a Core Duo machine in a laptop with integrated graphics is very computational heavy. If we're talking about the value side of computing, Dell is certainly going to keep Core even if it only saves a few dollars per unit because that's Dell's business model.. make money in the pennies per component.

Unless Intel is planning to kill Core Solo and Core Duo when Core 2 comes out.. there's no chance they'll stop making Core laptops. This will eventually become the chip for the $499 laptop specials in the Small Business Store.

manic
May 30, 2006, 09:42 AM
youre right that core duos wont be phased out immediatly and that they will surely drop in price. Maybe youre surprised that intel would do such a thing (cannibalize its core duo line), but remember, its otellini now.

Just read yesterday in cnn/money that he said, in a meeting with analysts, that woodcrest will be out in june, conroe in july and merom in august, stating it was very ambitious programme. they want to show a clear reaction to amd because analysts have been hammering them pretty bad lately. it really benefits us in the end.

And remember. you just said it youself: dells business model is to make pennies. apples is not. they charge a serious premium for computers that are beyond their direct competitors.

anyway, were just guessing here. perhaps apple will keep the macbooks wth core duo and drop their prices, but i think they probably offer a high end merom MB because they know people will hold back from buying if meroms are available and the macbooks are only available with yonahs.

manic
May 30, 2006, 01:11 PM
this is just out today. Meroms will come in 2MB and 4MB L2 cache flavors. Perhaps the low white macbook will be fitted with the 1.83 part with 2MB and the Black high with the 2 (upgradable to 2.16) 4MB part. Macbook Pros would then be fitted with the (much) more expensive 2.16 and 2.33 parts.

remember that theses chips are much more efficient per clock than were the P4s, so a 166Mhz bump is not as shabby as it would have been on the P4s, let alone a 333mhz one.