It seems to me that the 2011 MBP is showing a quicker rate of depreciation in secondary markets like eBay than the 2010 model did.
Anyone else noticing this?
Anyone else noticing this?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2011 MBP Secondary Market Value Dropping faster than 2010 Did (No Actual Price Talk)
- Thread starter punchwalk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's because more people are returning/trading the 2011 than the 2010. In my experience the 2010 was superior in almost every way to the 2011. It ran cooler, took any drive I threw at it, was reliable, even backlighting...there just weren't that many issues.
To compare, I'm on my third 17" MacBook Pro trying to get one that can handle SATA III like the chipset says it should. All three have uneven backlighting in the same place on the keyboard - the 5 brighter than the 6. Two of the three get inordinately hot doing basic tasks such as file copying. One has black screen issues.
None of those issues ever happened on the 2010 17" that I sold last month. I even told the guy that in some ways I regretted selling it. Apple of course has tons of 2011s already refurbished...so it's not surprising the value is dropping in a crazy way.
Thanks for your insights. Definitely sheds some light on why I'm seeing these trends.
Wow, I've felt almost the opposite. I think the 2010 model was one of the worst that Apple has released. I believe the 2011 is one of the best releases Apple has made in a long time. Here are my observations as a university professor that teaches, does research, and owns my own technology company:
2010 MBP
CPU
While the CPU went from C2D to i7 it was crippled by the lack of quad core. We do image manipulation on TIFF images (I'm talking sizes ranging from 1/2 gig to 4 or 5 gig). I had students with $900.00 Sonys that were running all over the MPBs that were twice (or more) as expensive. Seriously, I had students ask my if their machines were broken because they were so much slower in PS on some processes. Given the price, I don't blame them for being upset.
GPU
The GPU was one of the biggest disappointments in the MBP line. Apple could have offset the lack of a quad core option with a nice GPU with at least a GB of memory. Instead, they put in a very old GPU with only 512 MB of memory.
Again, students with Asus, Sony, or other brands usually had 1 GB of video memory with a card that was much faster on a notebook that was cheaper.
In the end, Photoshop ran much faster on these compared to the 2010 MBP.
Memory
While I think its hard to believe that in 2011 Apple still sells a PRO notebook with only 4 GB of memory, the 2010 wasn't even able to address more than 8 GB.
Ports
When you are working with large files USB is just not reasonable anymore and FW 800 is pretty pokey as well. While the 2010 and 2011 MBPs don't offer USB3 at least the 2011 offers hope where the 2010 does not.
I'm not trying to offend anyone but I think the 2010 MBP was a great example of Apple needing to bump the line before a major change in hardware. They had the issue of dealing with nVidia and Intel over the chipset problem which resulted in the weak choice for the GPU.
What I really like about the 2011 MBP:
Quad Core - Finally, a $2000+ machine is able to compete with much cheaper machines on performance
Memory - My God, I am ready to leap from 8 Gig to 16 Gig as soon as the price drops below a grand!
GPU - The memory and performance of this GPU is very good.
Thunderbolt - The promise of something faster than pokey USB/FW 800.
Finally, I am not surprised at all that there are more 2011 MBPs in the refurbished section than the 2010. However, let's look at why that might be. The 2010 MBP had the benefit of really being a 2008/2009 MBP with just a few minor changes. C2D to i7 (same cores) and a minor GPU bump. Nothing cutting edge and nothing pushing the envelope.
Now look from 2010 to 2011:
Quad Core CPUs
Chipset Change
SATA increased
Memory increased
GPU changed
GPU memory increased
etc...
I realize that not everyone is using their machines in the environments that I'm speaking from which they probably don't care about the extra power. However, I think -speaking empirically- that the 2011 is a bigger leap from the 2010 than the 2010 was from the 2009...
-P
I think your basis for this thread is very silly. I know many people who have gone from a 2010 to a 2011 and have not looked back - So a few more are selling on eBay than with 2010 models - Perhaps this is because so many more 2011 MBPs were sold when compared to the 2010 models.
The 2010 version is positively anemic when compared to its very powerful 2011 replacement. I owned a 2010 version and my 2011 MBP crushes it - the 2011 MBPs even hold up very well when compared to the 2011 iMacs.
I'd have to say my 2011 MBP is my favorite Mac I've ever owned and I've owned at least 20 macs in the last decade....
The 2010 version is positively anemic when compared to its very powerful 2011 replacement. I owned a 2010 version and my 2011 MBP crushes it - the 2011 MBPs even hold up very well when compared to the 2011 iMacs.
I'd have to say my 2011 MBP is my favorite Mac I've ever owned and I've owned at least 20 macs in the last decade....
My point was to provide a heads up to perennial "flippers" - those who buy the newest version each year and sell it on the secondary market when the next year's version comes out to pay for the upgrade. As someone who has seen and spoken to many such folks on this board, I think this information is relevant and not at all silly.
I never said anything about making money. But I watched eBay completed listings for 15" and 17" 2010 MBPs closely since the Fall of 2010 and they weren't falling very far from retail - usually within $350. This trend continued up until the 2011s were released. The 2011s have already fallen up to $500 in the secondary market and one can only imagine that this trend will continue as time goes by.
Again, this info might not be useful to you if you're not one of the aforementioned flippers.
You aren't exactly convincing in your initial post..."seems to me" is a very wishy-washy statement. Also, considering that in order to fully back up this claim, you'd have to go to every resale site and compare the sales of all used 2010 models shortly after release to all used 2011 currently on sale.
If you haven't done this, then your claim is completely silly and is really nothing more than a random guess.
More users = more sellers!
Wouldn't more users lead to more buyers and higher prices?
While the 2010 has less performance, the flip side is cooler running and longer battery life. Not everyone needs a Ferrari in the parking lot.... and these are clearly advantages for those users.
Other than the monster horsepower, if you don't need it there is not a lot of difference between these machines. 2010 17" users do have the expresscard to upgrade to eSATA or TB in the future.
To the Professor:
I think a lot of what your talking about is a Mac vs. PC difference. Most software just runs better on PC since that's what it's originally coded for. I have no doubt the 2011 chews through it faster than the 2010, much the same the 2012 will the 2011, and the 2013 the 2012. I bet it takes forever just to open or save a 5 GB tiff on a laptop... and that would be heavily reliant on hard drive speed and RAM which I suspect is equal in the comparison $900 sony?
Forget about the "apple costs x thousands dollars argument" it doesn't work. If price mattered there would be far less mac users. Veteran apple users understand and accept Macs run slower than PC's, but that doesn't stop us.... by the way, what is the battery life the $900 sony user gets? I bet that's a trade-off for the performance. Thank apple or curse them, but this is why Macs are different and it doesn't seem to be stopping anyone from buying.
Other than the monster horsepower, if you don't need it there is not a lot of difference between these machines. 2010 17" users do have the expresscard to upgrade to eSATA or TB in the future.
To the Professor:
I think a lot of what your talking about is a Mac vs. PC difference. Most software just runs better on PC since that's what it's originally coded for. I have no doubt the 2011 chews through it faster than the 2010, much the same the 2012 will the 2011, and the 2013 the 2012. I bet it takes forever just to open or save a 5 GB tiff on a laptop... and that would be heavily reliant on hard drive speed and RAM which I suspect is equal in the comparison $900 sony?
Forget about the "apple costs x thousands dollars argument" it doesn't work. If price mattered there would be far less mac users. Veteran apple users understand and accept Macs run slower than PC's, but that doesn't stop us.... by the way, what is the battery life the $900 sony user gets? I bet that's a trade-off for the performance. Thank apple or curse them, but this is why Macs are different and it doesn't seem to be stopping anyone from buying.
I think people are freaking out over the increased heat in the 2011 models. If anything it's weeding out the people who would buy the top of the line just because they wanted the best while not noticing as many of the drawbacks of a high performance laptop (heat, battery). I would say more than ever before the 2011 update was truly an update for professionals. Thunderbolt, quad-cores, SATAIII and the ability to handle 16GB of 1600MHz RAM (though not in BTO) are all major improvements in a pro laptop that the average user would never truly require or even notice the difference.
I for one couldn't care less if users who are scared away by the heat and battery life or current lack of Thunderbolt peripherals are whining and selling their 2011s for 2010s. This laptop has what I need in a mobile computer that more than makes up for its drawbacks.
I for one couldn't care less if users who are scared away by the heat and battery life or current lack of Thunderbolt peripherals are whining and selling their 2011s for 2010s. This laptop has what I need in a mobile computer that more than makes up for its drawbacks.
i am trying to sell mine and can tell you this is absolutely true. i think the reason for it is that you can get a 2010 version for fairly cheap nowadays, which is comparable in performance to the 2011 for most people.
I can understand why there were some early returns/sales of the 2011 models. Some people have struggled putting 3rd party SSDs into them. Until the early May EFI, etc. updates, my 17" did not feel very fast.
With the announcement of a SATA cable fix in April, and the software fixes of early May, I think the situation is much improved. YMMV, of course.
With the announcement of a SATA cable fix in April, and the software fixes of early May, I think the situation is much improved. YMMV, of course.
It's more that there's a proliferation of Apple devices and they don't quite carry the exclusivity factor that they once did. Bit less conversation piece a bit more ho-hum.
I liken them to the early Mini Cooper I bought. Only car I drove for 2 years and sold for more than I paid because the exclusivity and cachet of the car drove up the value to crazy levels. Now you see them as Zipcars.
Exactly this. When I say the 2010 was superior, I'm talking about general reliability and stability.
- As stated, I'm on my THIRD 17" MacBook Pro 2011, trying to find one that just works. It's at the point I'm tempted to sell it off and just go get a refurb 2010. If it weren't for Apple cheaping out on the box I would do that.
- 2010 did not kernel panic on me. Not once. With this third MacBook Pro, I have hit 3 kernel panics...in two days. That's NOT good.
- 2010 ran WAY cooler. By a wide margin.
- 2010 booted faster. By a WIDE margin. With a SSD in the 2010, I could cold boot in 12 seconds. Same SSD on a fresh install for a 2011 = 20-25 seconds. Makes no damn sense.
- 2010 had even backlighting on the keyboard. Every 2011 has an overbright 5 key and an underbright 6 key.
It's not just about raw speed and power. IN fact I would submit that as stated before, the laymen user won't notice a difference between a quad core i7 and a dual core i7 in real world usage. You'd get more performance from going from HDD to SSD. The 2010 series just worked.
You all must be buying up a bad batch or something, I got the 1st 17" 2011 MBP from my apple store and it has been running perfectly ever since. Only time it got "hot" was when playing CIV 4 but it maintained it's self. My machine is perfect, boots quick runs at a level temp with level fans, even in aperture and has no backlight issues. I'm not accusing you guys of lying but I don't see the issues. (apart from apple using cheap noisy hard drives since 2009)
Sell and revert.
I've personally had zero issues and when i tried to sell mine recently i got a decent offer for it *shrug*
Last edited:
How did the 2010 fair when they were just released? I have learned never to buy an Apple products just after a major change. Apple usually corrects issues they never admit to in the manafacturing process. That is why I am waiting till about june to pick up a 2011 model. I would argue that the late 2010s were very stable, I can see teething issues with the 2011.. as you have explained. Now a Rev A apple product.... now your really gambling he he he
I agree, I'm so happy I didn't sell my fully loaded BTO 2010.
If I had, I'd be screwed right now since Apple is replacing my 2011 for the third time. I've paid for a computer that I haven't been able to use since day one.
48 days later I'm still using my 15" 2010. Nice work Apple
What are your specs? Is yours a Built To Order?
How is the box relevant?
Unless you were worried about selling it and having to tell people it was a refurb?
SSD's are not big enough for me to realize a performance boost. I did a little math and came to the conclusion that unless you booted your system twenty times a day, started up each app twenty times a day that an SSD was not worth the expense.
When they begin making 1 TB SSD's, I'll begin to consider them as a viable asset.
At this point, SSD's give you nothing more than Bragging Rights!