They had every good reason as the iMac cluster f'ed rollout very clearly demonstrated. The laminated retina screens were a new production technology that may not scale well. Apple chose the likely lowest run rate (the most expensive, 15" ) to do first. They put a large gap inbetween to work out the kinks and then did the 13". The process and screens will likely be more expensive than previous generation/technology for at least 12 months so they ran them in parallel.
The laminated screens caused way more of a debacle for the iMacs than they did for either retina model. Also, and this will be a recurring theme throughout my reply to you here: I know that SSDs don't cost as much as Apple charges for them. But don't be fooled, Apple isn't overcharging on the SSDs to make up for the cost in the display. The display is costly to them, but nowhere near THAT costly. Apple likely needed time so that they weren't SOLELY shipping MacBook Pros that had 90% of pre-existing Mac apps looking crappy on them. Otherwise, the only other reason to have a transition like that would be to ease customers of their most popular line into the new changes. Apple tends to not care about how expensive their models are. And again, compared to WHAT THEY ARE CHARGING for a non-retina MacBook Pro with an SSD, the retina model is cheaper.
The iMacs are spread out over a relatively broad price zone $1099-1,999+ there was no room to run both nor a huge necessity (the growth rate of iMac is lower than laptops). There probably also was likely some hubris mixed in that the new production technology would work much better than it did. The difficulties probably didn't scale linearly with screen size. Probably much worse.
There's also overlap in the MBP line. Overlap in the iMac wouldn't have been horrible for them. Though, I agree, there's not that much of a necessity for it. In this case, overlap would've likely solved supply problems...though there would've been little reason to do the kind of overlap that they did with the MacBook Pro lines (with both machines running Ivy Bridge). They should've announced that the 21.5" iMac would be updated immediately and that the 27" one would've been updated two months later.
I wouldn't discount 2.5 SSD playing a role in revised Mac Pros but yes there is the "reuse of component factor". The looming problem for Apple though is the overall SSD market. Macs just don't only sell against Macs. The limitations on the mSATA blades is capacity. Prior to 2013 Flash was more prohibitatively expensive. Mainstream drives now are getting close to cracking the $1/GB range. Expectation levels of not have to sacrifice storage space for a SSD are going to substantially rise this year along with the following ones.
This is an area that I actually know little about. I only assumed that, since 768GB SSDs were uncommon in the 2.5" SATA form factor arena, mSATA and 2.5" SATA drives were more or less in parity in terms of cost and technological availability (and with that I make the assumption that Apple is overcharging for its mSATA SSDs as much as it is for its 2.5" SATA SSDs)
mSATA only will bite them in the butt once capacity more critical evaluation factor.
Again, technologically speaking, they seem to be in parity with each other. But again, this is an area, I don't know much about. I think mSATA makes it substantially easier for them to make their drives proprietary, which is great for them and terrible for us consumers. But that's Apple for you.
Sell the kool-aid to the clueless. Simple math proves otherwise.
cMBP 15" (2.3GHz , 4GB , 500GB ) $1,799
+ $60 for 8 GB (2x4GB kit) (
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade/DDR3_1600MHz_SDRAM )
+ $204 for Samsung 830 256 GB (
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147164 )
+ $100 install fee. ( or lower. )
total: $2,163
rMBP 15" (2.3GHz , 8GB , 256GB ) $2,199
I think you missed a key point of my argument. Again, this is the main point I want to drive here. I recognize that Apple over-charges for their own SSDs. That much is incredibly hard to refute. I also recognize that you can buy a non-retina MacBook Pro with the base hard drive, and swap that out for a much cheaper after-market SSD. That's not my point. My point is that
for what Apple is charging for SSDs on both machines the 15" retina model is cheaper than the 15" non-retina model. Given this, it is a fair assumption that either, the retina screen doesn't cost all that much, or Apple is marking up the mSATA SSDs much less than the 2.5" SATA SSDs.
No Kool-Aid here, bro. I know exactly how much Apple is ripping me off with its SSD prices.
Last I checked $2,163 (or lower ) was less than $2,199 . So yes there is a price premium for the retina model. [ NOTE: haven't sold the replaced HDD or RAM either. Or repurposed the HDD as an new external back up target. Nor haven't sold off the ODD which haven't sold off either (or added to the price of the rMBP system to even the spec equivalences). ]
Again, the point I made above sort of makes your argument here, while true and valid, moot.
Note also that these aftermarket parts are not being bought in quantities of 1,000's or 10,000's so actually paying more for those than Apple is. So yes the Retina displays do significantly drive up the prices. That doesn't say they don't add value, but it is paid for value with a price premium.
See above point.
Nope, not really.
$2,199 + $550 + $50 => $2,799
$2,799
[ $550 for Samsung 830 512GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147165
$50 install fee.
There are some 512GB SSD in the sub $400 range Curcial M4. But Apple usually leverages Samsung stuff so trying to keep it even. ]
There is a lower gap here because the higher end cMBP 15" comes bundled with the same skewed priced RAM as was much more easily sidestepped by the lower end version. Same issues with differences in bulk buy pricing.
There is an illusion that Apple (and others ) is presenting about Retina display being the "same" as classic display but it is largely an illusion.
Again, I'm not talking about comparing a non-retina MacBook Pro bought with the cheapest storage option and upgraded with an aftermarket SSD; I'm talking about one customized from Apple with an Apple-supplied SSD inside. I know that it's not the cost-effective route to go, but when comparing their pricing of one machine to their pricing of another, that's the best way to measure out how much Apple itself sees the worth of these machines.
You don't have to buy it... but that non-buy isn't based on quantitative evidence.
It is if you ignore the DIY-SSD upgrade (which wasn't part of my original argument to begin with) and focus on only the Apple-sanctioned configurations and price-points, which is the basis of my argument to begin with. I'm not saying that anyone with knowledge of how to use a screw-driver would go for the Apple-sanctioned SSD config for the non-retina MacBook Pros, but my comparison involves THAT configuration in comparison to the retina models, not any other.
No it doesn't if Apple is using skewed prices to blow smoke. There is substantial disinformation in Apple's pricing. It would be quite another thing if Apple was adding the nominal corporate 40% mark-up. That is far, far about that level.
Skewwing prices or not, I'm comparing Apple prices to Apple prices. Again, it reveals that either the retina display isn't that expensive, or it reveals that they take much less of a profit from the mSATA SSDs than they do from the 2.5" SATA SSDs.
