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

beanbaguk said:
Apple appear to be targeting a very odd market. The pretentious, nouveau-rich crowd.
Click to expand...

That is Apple's market.

----------
Macboy Pro said:
Way way way way over priced!!!
Click to expand...

I guess the market will decide if this is the case, but Apple products have always been overpriced. There's always a similar product for a quarter of the price, but people are always willing to pay more for the Apple logo and the design and build that comes with it. And, of course, OS X.
 
I don't get the people saying they have or had a 2011 MBA and their programs run fine on it, so it will run fine on this. The 2011 MBA featured a 1.6Ghz i5 or a 1.8Ghz i7. Benchmarks aside, there is a huge difference between an i7 or even an i5 and a Core M chip.
 
dexterbell said:
I don't get the people saying they have or had a 2011 MBA and their programs run fine on it, so it will run fine on this. The 2011 MBA featured a 1.6Ghz i5 or a 1.8Ghz i7. Benchmarks aside, there is a huge difference between an i7 or even an i5 and a Core M chip.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Core M is a better chip in every regard compared to the Ivy Bridge. Its essentially a very energy efficient Broadwell i7 die. Again, what exactly is your point?
 
leman said:
Yeah, the Core M is a better chip in every regard compared to the Ivy Bridge. Its essentially a very energy efficient Broadwell i7 die. Again, what exactly is your point?
Click to expand...

Do I have to explain it to you? The 2011 MBA didn't have to push a retina display. The new rMBP 13 is having problems with UI lag and you think a Core M is going to fair better? Lol
 
dexterbell said:
Do I have to explain it to you? The 2011 MBA didn't have to push a retina display. The new rMBP 13 is having problems with UI lag and you think a Core M is going to fair better? Lol
Click to expand...

The new rMBP13 is certainly not having any problems with the UI lag, save for few rare cases which are probably due to SMC bugs. If my HD4000 can run a 3840x2400 resolution then I am sure the HD5300 (which is faster) can manage 40% less pixels.
 
C-Dub said:
same here, been waiting on a retina macbook air until finding out the MacBook's benchmark is is comparable to a 2011 MBA. Decided to pickup a 2014 8GB/256GB rMBP for less than $1k instead.
Click to expand...

I had the same exact thought. Better you can go for the 512 and get a sweet deal. Look in the macrumors deals and you properly will find something good. For me I wanted the bit better graphics to drive the screen better. Also I believe this should be a good laptop because it is the end of this line. The next one which runs on sky lake will be better but as a first generation device you should expect delays or problems in the future.
 
Traverse said:
It's a littlebit thicker and almost twice the weight.

If someone values portability above power and ports, the rMB is a better choice and not overpriced.
Click to expand...

It is overpriced (for what it is) even if it is suitable for someones purpose. But granted, some may be willing to pay that price to get what whatever properties they want from a MP - and if they understand exactly what they are doing in the process, good for them.

I think the down side is many who dont understand what they are buying will buy them for the fashion aspect - and ultimately fall out of love with the mac ecosystem and osx when they find it running like poo in the not too distant future.

Like others have commented, I think the Apple bubble is going into dangerous new fashionista, weird culture, where prices are set on fashion aspects and desirability. I doubt this can work long term, and the bubble will eventually pop. Either that or I am overestimating the intellect of the typical consumer, and Apple might actually be onto a winner here.

When they get the MP thin and light enough, perhaps they can be worn as ear ring ornaments in the next London high end fashion cat walk production. "They arent overpriced", people will say, "they make fabulous ear rings, and are just right for my purposes". And they would be right, no one could argue with that.
 
rekhyt said:
You sound like one of those people who prefer Windows laptops.

"Look at those Macs! Overpriced piece of aluminium hunk! My Windows laptop cost a fraction of the price and performs better!"
Click to expand...

I know! It's crazy to think I own two MacBooks (Air and Pro), a couple of iPads, iPhone, Apple TV, Time Capsule, etc, etc....

I do however own a Windows Plex server....it's my dirty little secret....
 
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...

I'd say Apple knows what they're doing. Those people will gobble these up just like they gobble up iPads
 
In terms of total cost of ownership (purchase price, apps included, efficiency, uptime, longevity, software upgrades, etc), Apple computers are FAR cheaper than comparable Windows machines. You've either got to be rich or stupid-with-money to buy Windows machines. Apple products are much cheaper to own and use. I expect the new MacBook will be the same.
 
jarred125 said:
Have to agree. My rMBP (granted it was refurb) was ~$1200 and it is much more of a machine than this.
Click to expand...

My rMBP is much more of a machine than this, but it was 2500.

and it weighs twice as much, and is twice as big.

obviously, you're not the target demographic.
you can get a desktop PC for half the price of your rMBP that's triple the performance...

Point:
These aren't the same types of computer, just like you can't compare a desktop to a laptop, you can't compare a laptop to an ultra-portable. They didn't aim for power, they aimed for portability and low energy consumption.

More-over, it has more than enough CPU power for an average user.

why are we still arguing this?

----------
Xenomorph said:
I've had 3-4 things plugged into my MacBook Pro on several occasions.

Power, Ethernet, Second monitor, and iPhone.
Click to expand...

There you go. You clearly need more, why do you think this is the machine targeted at you as a buyer?
 
MacHiavelli said:
In terms of total cost of ownership (purchase price, apps included, efficiency, uptime, longevity, software upgrades, etc), Apple computers are FAR cheaper than comparable Windows machines. You've either got to be rich or stupid-with-money to buy Windows machines. Apple products are much cheaper to own and use. I expect the new MacBook will be the same.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree in terms of iDevices, which have been extremely solid and reliable for me. But with iMac and macbooks, they have all ended in disaster after short lived lives. Right now I'm in desperate need to replace a mbp whose gpu has been reflown 3 times, keyboard replaced (now that was a hell of a job, I think 80 odd screws), and one fan replaced (despite regular cleaning). Now its just about ready for another gpu reflow to keep it going.

Granted, you are right though, the windows alternatives are pretty horrid. I dont think of buying macs as something fantastic. I think of it more as buying the least bad product.
 
MacHiavelli said:
You've either got to be rich or stupid-with-money to buy Windows machines.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous statement. Have you ever stepped foot in the enterprise? What if you require Windows to do your job? What if you don't have over £1000 to buy a Mac?

----------
Ploki said:
you people really care about the quality of your FaceTime camera?
Click to expand...

Err, yes. When Macs and the computer industry has standardised on at least 720p for the last few years, why would people be happy to accept anything less for their money? There is no reason whatsoever that Apple couldn't fit a better camera inside. It's just Apple being greedy and saving a few cents per machine.
 
MacHiavelli said:
In terms of total cost of ownership (purchase price, apps included, efficiency, uptime, longevity, software upgrades, etc), Apple computers are FAR cheaper than comparable Windows machines. You've either got to be rich or stupid-with-money to buy Windows machines. Apple products are much cheaper to own and use. I expect the new MacBook will be the same.
Click to expand...
If you believe that, I own a Casino I can sell you cheap. 90% of the population know you're wrong.
 
MacHiavelli said:
In terms of total cost of ownership (purchase price, apps included, efficiency, uptime, longevity, software upgrades, etc), Apple computers are FAR cheaper than comparable Windows machines. You've either got to be rich or stupid-with-money to buy Windows machines. Apple products are much cheaper to own and use. I expect the new MacBook will be the same.
Click to expand...

You have to be rich to buy a windows machine? Apple products are much cheaper? While its great you have convinced yourself, sorry that is not the reality.

----------
Steve121178 said:
Ridiculous statement. Have you ever stepped foot in the enterprise? What if you require Windows to do your job? What if you don't have over £1000 to buy a Mac?
Click to expand...

What he should have stated, once you purchase a mac, if you can afford to, the support costs are lower, as you get free OS updates going forward. His statement as is, is plain wrong.
 
dexterbell said:
Do I have to explain it to you? The 2011 MBA didn't have to push a retina display. The new rMBP 13 is having problems with UI lag and you think a Core M is going to fair better? Lol
Click to expand...



Just make it simple, Apple wont sell a laptop with that specs if it going to lag like ****. Even if it does really lag, they will find ways to optimise their OS. Just like the processor in the iPhone, compare to Samsung and other brands, their processor is the slow and less core, but it still run so smooth.

It's that simple, either you buy or you dont.

I'll just buy the 1.3ghz specs with 512gb
 
brinary001 said:
This is just a Chromebook or an iPad with a desktop OS on it and the minimum hardware needed to run such. However, this minimum hardware has the maximum price attached to it, which is just BS. It's almost like Apple was worried about it not selling well and overpriced it to compensate for those who didn't buy it. Just a theory though... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You clearly have no idea what a Chromebook is, or even what an iPad is. Where does nonsense like this come from?

----------
ColdShadow said:
According to tests,it performs just like the 4 years old 2011 Macbook Air.
But the price is more expensive than 2015 Macbook Pro.:D just because it has a more beautiful casis.
Click to expand...

You mean the "tests" that were posted with the video with the fake machine, the video that was posted on April Fools Day, the video that was taken down on April Fools Day?

But I digress. The question is: since when do we live or die by benchmarks? That's especially true where benchmarks haven't been tuned to reflect real world hardware and use cases, which is very likely true with Core M.
 
Steve121178 said:
There is no reason whatsoever that Apple couldn't fit a better camera inside. It's just Apple being greedy and saving a few cents per machine.
Click to expand...
Maybe. The retina screen panel is .88mm thick. That sounds stupidly thin. Is there a better camera that's in that same range of thickness?
 
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