Originally posted by aryeh
First post,
Been visiting this site for a while now.
RE: the mareketing of the 12" powerbook
The 12" powerbook is new technology.
I don't see why they just didn't price it accordingly according to the screen size. Not everyone wants to shlep around a 17" powerbook to get the level 3 cache (needed for soft synth plug in performance and more). At home/studio, one can always hook up a second monitor to the 12" so...
(And the following is from a post by Paul on the Motu users board.
Motu makes the Digital Performer Mac sequencer as well as other audio products.)
Absolutely 100% agreed. It makes sense to move the old line down to move out existing stock (they're doing that with the 15" PowerBook, obviously), but I think Apple made a VERY bad move with the new 12" Powerbook. And it's not just the L3 cache--there are several ways in which the 12" is not up to par with the 17", and that simply makes it less desirably. The strange thing is that Apple is only marketing the 17" in its massive screen and the 12" on its portability. All the things the 17" has that the 12" doesn't are totally glossed-over and not marketed. Why then would they be afraid that the 12" would cannibalize 17" sales? Why not make a true high-end sub-compact? No one will buy the 12" if they want the 17" screen, and no one will buy the 17" if they want ultra-portability. The fact is, there's very little reason to buy the 12" PB over the 12" iBook--THAT is what they should be worrying about.
With the iMacs and eMacs and PowerMacs the line upgrade system makes sense because there's so little cross-over. But in the portable line, it's harder to position the iBooks and PowerBooks to be sufficiently different to merit SEVEN different configurations (four iBooks, three PowerBooks). Why Apple should make the situation worse bypositioning the 12" as a "low-end" PowerBook is beyond me--the iBook IS a low-end PowerBook. What they really need is a high-end sub-compact!