Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Confirms Retina MacBook Build-to-Order Pricing for 1.3 GHz Processor

KPOM said:
This is targeting the same market as the original MacBook Air. Eventually, the Core M processors will improve (starting with Skymont next year) so that this can become the mainstream MacBook again in a few years, following the same pattern the MacBook Air took from January 2008 to July 2011.

I'm not sure I understand the criticism. It isn't as if Apple hasn't done this before. They know where they want to take the notebook, but the technology isn't quite there to make it mainstream. So they are releasing it as a niche machine alongside the existing MacBook Air and MacBook Pro lines (which will still be their top sellers) until it is powerful enough to replace one of them.
Click to expand...

The difference was when the first MacBook Air came out there wasn't anything like it. A mainstream laptop that could fit inside a manilla envelope was unheard of. But this new MacBook? Less than half a pound lighter than the 11" MBA and less than 1/5 of an inch difference in thickness. Most people on the street probably wouldn't even notice the difference. If Apple had put a higher res screen in the MBA and waited for the Core M processors to improve before switching, then people would be less pissed.
 
Agent-P said:
The difference was when the first MacBook Air came out there wasn't anything like it. A mainstream laptop that could fit inside a manilla envelope was unheard of. But this new MacBook? Less than half a pound lighter than the 11" MBA and less than 1/5 of an inch difference in thickness. Most people on the street probably wouldn't even notice the difference. If Apple had put a higher res screen in the MBA and waited for the Core M processors to improve before switching, then people would be less pissed.
Click to expand...

and there's no fan, so it's quiet.
 
Piggie said:
Well, they are at a position now.
A perhaps dangerous one.
Where they are under the impression, and so far it's correct.
That they can make whatever they want, as long as it's marketed right, and has 'Fashionably' Good looks that many many people will pay the price they ask.

Until people stop buying, they have no reason to change the route they are now on.

Of course, as with all things, there will come a point where this is going to backfire on them, but I suspect we have a little way to go yet.
Click to expand...

Thank you for putting this so well. That's really the only explanation for a lot of their recent moves.
 
Kariya said:
Information about SKUs was added after my post.
Click to expand...

He meant that you wrote 0.1MHz instead of 0.1GHz. ;) Also the information about SKU's is what this article is about, how could it have been posted after yours?

----------
HobeSoundDarryl said:
"light computing", "pro" etc are all ambiguous terms defined more as eye-of-the-beholder. But that goes both ways. So discounting what "pro" means as part of rationalizing this MB should similarly discount what "light computing" means to rule out going with the Air or rMBP as well... or even the iPad.

And I agree about the pricing. If they put this out down at the lower end of pricing and offered higher-priced BTO options, then this perception of price vs. value would be very different. Too bad they didn't do that.
Click to expand...

100% Agreed on all counts. You know as well as I that they didn't do the 4/128GB at $999 because it is the new showcase model for all the new tech - force touch, butterfly hinge keyboard, super thin retina display, USB-C, fanless design, iPad and iPhone sized logic board, battery packaging tech, 100% metal, etc.

That was never going to be priced lower than the 5 year old design of the MBA.
 
Piggie said:
Well, they are at a position now.
A perhaps dangerous one.
Where they are under the impression, and so far it's correct.
That they can make whatever they want, as long as it's marketed right, and has 'Fashionably' Good looks that many many people will pay the price they ask.

Until people stop buying, they have no reason to change the route they are now on.

Of course, as with all things, there will come a point where this is going to backfire on them, but I suspect we have a little way to go yet.
Click to expand...

Even if it "backfires" the new Macbook is such a tiny fraction of their product line, it won't hurt. I bet they recoup the R&D for it within the year. As usual, it won't satisfy the ~1-2% of Apple users who need workhorses, but most users will have all of their needs met with this machine.

Even the Apple Watch Edition isn't a very risky bet. The aren't going to produce millions of them, they will wait to see how strong demand is, and worst case it becomes a super-niche option, while they sell millions of Sports and steel Watch versions.
 
$250 to go from the 1.1 to the 1.3 is ridiculous. Its only $100 to go from a 2.7 to a 2.9 in the MBP and $150 to go from the 1.6 to the 2.2 in the MBA. Apple have become more and more greedy and ridiculous. A $250 jump for .2Ghz? $1550 for a Core M 1.3Ghz with a 256 SSD and no ports, what an absolute joke. Pathetic.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Apple already produces the Air- better specs in a very thin case, at a much cheaper price. Repackage that hardware in this case, jettisoning the ports (as they have done) and it seems like they could stay around Air pricing.
Click to expand...

The current CPUs in the MBA would dissipate too much power in the new much thinner and fanless MacBook case. There would need to be a substantial clock speed reduction to get the power dissipation down to a reasonable level. Add to that the higher power dissipation of the retina display which is not used in the Air. It's about making tradeoffs commensurate with a positive customer experience - i.e. performance. vs battery life vs. feature set vs. price.

For now, Apple is locked to what Intel can produce. Intel has a CPU roadmap. Apple has a laptop roadmap. I suspect each projects out 5 to 10 years. When a new laptop is introduced. i.e. the new MacBook, Apple is forced to choose reasonable CPUs from Intel at that point in time.

As time goes on, Intel tweaks their process increasing yields for higher speed (and/or) lower power parts at reduced prices to customers such as Apple. In accordance with that, over time, Apple will offer better performing laptops at lower pricing and power dissipation.

It has always been that way.
 
Does anyone know for certain that the .1Ghz bump is the only difference between the processors?
 
beanbaguk said:
Apple appear to be targeting a very odd market. The pretentious, nouveau-rich crowd.

People must be insane to spend this amount of cash on an underpowered laptop! Pretty it may be, but just like the Apple Watch, they seem to be going for a different market.
Click to expand...

They may be king of the hill right now but Apple has been headed in the wrong direction since Jobs died, and its getting worse. Meanwhile, Microsoft has been doing everything right. SP 3 was a huge hit and the upcoming Surface 3 for $499 will be a massive hit too. Meanwhile, Apple is over here making $1300-$1800 netbooks.
 
Agent-P said:
The difference was when the first MacBook Air came out there wasn't anything like it. A mainstream laptop that could fit inside a manilla envelope was unheard of. But this new MacBook? Less than half a pound lighter than the 11" MBA and less than 1/5 of an inch difference in thickness. Most people on the street probably wouldn't even notice the difference. If Apple had put a higher res screen in the MBA and waited for the Core M processors to improve before switching, then people would be less pissed.
Click to expand...

There were ultralight PCs back then. Toshiba and Sony long had ultra-portables. The Air was the first that attempted to be mainstream, however, and the first with a full-size keyboard. And don't underestimate the weight difference. The MacBook Air lacks a retina display, and would be heavier if it had one since it would need a bigger battery. That's why Apple went with the Core M. Sure, the Core M will get a lot better soon, but that's exactly the position Apple was in back in January 2008 when they released the original MacBook Air. The November 2008 revision used a much improved processor that ran cooler (and thus didn't throttle), and had a more affordable and speedier SSD.
 
QCassidy352 said:
But, I'd guess your use case is very rare. You're probably carrying your laptop an order of magnitude further than the amount most people carry theirs each day.
Click to expand...

I believe that it depends on where you look. In most european metropolitan areas, I think, you will find that a lot of people commute by public transport/walking/biking. A highly mobile professional is an important market, and its also people who can afford to pay more for thin and light.

In the end, its about what is important for the user. Personally, I'd be happy if my laptop would weight under a kg, but I need the power for what I do, and I am perfectly fine with carrying around my 15". I am not willing to sacrifice the power and flexibility of my laptop for more mobile comfort. However, a lot of people would be willing to make such a sacrifice — because for them this won't be a sacrifice at all. I just think its a bit sad that many people here would a-priori discard the 12" MB as 'ridiculous' and 'useless' simply because it does not fit their very narrow view of the world. Look around — and you will find a lot of potential buyers. Of course, same things have been claimed about the original MacBook Air — and the result? That 'ridiculous' and 'useless' laptop killed the netbooks and transformed the laptop market in its entirety. As long as there are people that work on the go and want to do that comfortably, there is no such thing as 'too light'.
 
dexterbell said:
They may be king of the hill right now but Apple has been headed in the wrong direction since Jobs died, and its getting worse. Meanwhile, Microsoft has been doing everything right. SP 3 was a huge hit and the upcoming Surface 3 for $499 will be a massive hit too. Meanwhile, Apple is over here making $1300-$1800 netbooks.
Click to expand...

Please, enlighten me on the massive market on surfaces, and while you're at it show me a netbook that is anything like a macbook.

Hyperbole is the lazy man's argument.
 
"- 1.3 GHz with 512 GB storage: $1749"

So, $2250 in Sweden then..

Or..

$400 on a trip to America, $1750 to AppleStore and $100 left for Dunkin Donughts #win :)
 
MyopicPaideia said:
Also the information about SKU's is what this article is about, how could it have been posted after yours?
Click to expand...

well...

oneMadRssn said:
Why present this information in such a confusing paragraph/sentence manner?

$1300 - 1.1ghz Core M / 8GB / 256GB
$1550 - 1.3ghz Core M / 8GB / 256GB
$1600 - 1.2ghz Core M / 8GB / 512GB
$1750 - 1.3ghz Core M / 8GB / 512GB

There. 4 skus, easy to compare. Price rounded up $1 to make price differences easier to see / mental math.

EDIT: I see they added this to the article now.
Click to expand...
 
dexterbell said:
Have you been living under a rock?

http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/26/microsoft-fiscal-q2-2015-earnings/
Click to expand...

" It's not revealing shipment numbers for the Surface, but it notes that revenue for the slate computers shot up 24 percent versus a year earlier, thanks in no small part to the Surface Pro 3."

24% up from...what exactly? If this were a massively popular product they wouldn't be obscuring the numbers in the same manner that Apple has with the iPod line (reclassifying them under a different division's reporting numbers).

I thing the surface is a good product for what it's designed to be, but I wouldn't call it a runaway success. I'd like to see real numbers for the device, not a single line in a story that is touting MS's "turnaround" while still posting a massive loss.
 
NT1440 said:
" It's not revealing shipment numbers for the Surface, but it notes that revenue for the slate computers shot up 24 percent versus a year earlier, thanks in no small part to the Surface Pro 3."

24% up from...what exactly? If this were a massively popular product they wouldn't be obscuring the numbers in the same manner that Apple has with the iPod line (reclassifying them under a different division's reporting numbers).

I thing the surface is a good product for what it's designed to be, but I wouldn't call it a runaway success. I'd like to see real numbers for the device, not a single line in a story that is touting MS's "turnaround" while still posting a massive loss.
Click to expand...

You have the internet apparently. Why don't you try a Google search for it. The SP3 has been a huge hit and the S3 will probably be even bigger given its $499 price tag. Maybe you'll prefer this one?

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...ofts-surface-pro-3-sales-soared-as-apple.aspx
 
No MagSafe, no buy.

This laptop sacrifices way too much, again.

With Apple continuing this, we will soon have a laptop as thin as paper that will easily get damaged or break. Only because people follow form over function.

On the other hand, the iPad is practically dead and needs a reinvention. This laptop seems like a good replacement, but it's still on OS X.

This seems more like an interim solution to me, only for people that read emails and do some websurfing. And there's more of them every day. Welcome to the new world.

Have fun, it's your money after all.
 
newellj said:
I'm am not Apple...;)...personally, agreeing with you, I would have popped a 1080p IPS panel into the MBAs. It would have been an out-of-the-park home run, I think. What do I know...?
Click to expand...

Ah, I misunderstood you then. We're in complete agreement. :)
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Relative to the point I was making, if you (or I) have to bring along those adapters, that "little bit" only needs to be .38lbs to nullify the post that said I'd definitely feel the difference. In other words, if I need the adapters to come along with the laptop and they weigh close to .38lbs, the weight savings won't be felt with this laptop, unless one can feel the difference of .38lbs when it's sitting on our laps.

At some point <.38lbs, that "definitely feel the difference" would lose the punch of "definitely". So even if the adapters weigh <.38lbs, it will need to be MUCH less to persist "definitely".
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't realize that we were talking about the difference between the new Macbook and the 11" Air, where I'd agree that the weight difference may not be all that great once adapters are involved, although, as I mentioned, the modularity of the new Macbook will allow me to avoid the weight in adapters much of the time, and I'm not sure how many adapters it would take to equate to over 1/3 pound.

Either way, it's the screen that forced me to return my 11" Air, and the new Macbook solves that problem.
 
KPOM said:
There were ultralight PCs back then. Toshiba and Sony long had ultra-portables. The Air was the first that attempted to be mainstream, however, and the first with a full-size keyboard. And don't underestimate the weight difference. The MacBook Air lacks a retina display, and would be heavier if it had one since it would need a bigger battery. That's why Apple went with the Core M. Sure, the Core M will get a lot better soon, but that's exactly the position Apple was in back in January 2008 when they released the original MacBook Air. The November 2008 revision used a much improved processor that ran cooler (and thus didn't throttle), and had a more affordable and speedier SSD.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The batteries of the new Macbook and the Air 11" are about same capacity, despite the new Macbook having similar battery life and powering that retina screen. Core M is what made that happen.

Had Apple thrown a retina screen into the current Air body, they still would have had to go Core M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back