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

[KPOM]

I mean, the Air was an actual computer. This is just a tablet's logic board bundled with a buck load of batteries, with a keyboard slapped on it and a screen attached.
Aside from the 8 gigs of ram and the extra capacity this is a tablet...

??? The original MacBook Air had a single USB port and an underpowered Core 2 Duo that ran so hot most of the time only a single core was running. People panned it since it cost so much more than the MacBook, which was "only" 1.5lbs heavier and so much more powerful with the SuperDrive, FireWire, and extra USB ports. The MacBook Air was going to be one of Steve Jobs' biggest flops, if you go back and read the Macworld message boards from January 2008.

This machine is about as fast as last year's baseline MacBook Air. It's no speed demon but is much more powerful than a tablet, or the new Surface 3 that people here were raving about.

 

[pgiguere1]

Introducing the world's first $250 0.2 GHz.

When I bought my Mid-2012 15" rMBP, it was $250 to go from 2.6GHz to 2.7GHz.

 

[SusanK]

Pricey netbook

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Could someone find Fonzie? And move that ramp over there next to the shark pen.

 

[Traverse]

Even the 13" is a better deal more ports more power more screen big deal it's a little thicker

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.

 

[MrXiro]

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.

Makes sense but the MBA was released at close to $2k and up and then was dropped down to the current pricing scheme. This price seems odd because it overlaps both MBA and rMBP so much. MBA prices should have been lowered if it's going to be bottom rung of the ladder, while the MBP should have been released with more storage for $100 higher IMO.

 

[verpeiler]

Well.. let's be honest: it's a glorified facebook machine for the hipsters... sure, you could do some work on it, but I'd rather buy a MBPr for the money.

 

[Donz0r]

Are you people all BLIND to the fact that HP and Lenovo are charging the exact same amount for their similar machines?

HP EliteBook 1020 is the same price, same processor, same ram, worse screen, worse sdd, worse design...

 

[Macboy Pro]

No one is forcing you to buy one. The HP Elitebook 1020 has the same processor and a comparable price, though.

LOL, I didn't comment that I was forced to buy this. I didn't compare it to a Windows system. I just pointed out that it is WAY OVERPRICED. And it is. You can get a rMBP significantly better spec'd for 2/3 the price.

 

[sirdir]

base speed not important

You should stop posting the 'base' processor speeds. if anything, the turbo-boost speed is important.
1.2 or 1.3 seems pretty irrelevant anyway. And the turbo boost speed won't be that interesting as well, because the cooling system won't allow for longer periods of turbo speeds anyway.

 

[KPOM]

Or you can pay 2/3 of the price for a Macbook Pro Retina with twice the machine.

oh... but its 2mm thicker so it is not Apple innovation anymore.

The rMBP is a better deal for most people, just like the MacBook was a better deal for most people in 2008 when Apple first released the MacBook Air. However, some people, including fans of the January 2008 MacBook Air (like me) like our notebooks as thin and light as possible and are willing to pay a premium for it. It's just fine for running Office, Mail, Safari, and even occasional light editing on Photos.

Eventually, it will get cheaper. Skymont is a big improvement on Broadwell. Once the 4.5W processors improve sufficiently and USB Type C is ubiquitous (probably within 2 years), I think Apple will reposition this as the base MacBook. Until then, they'll offer the MacBook Air.

----------

Makes sense but the MBA was released at close to $2k and up and then was dropped down to the current pricing scheme. This price seems odd because it overlaps both MBA and rMBP so much. MBA prices should have been lowered if it's going to be bottom rung of the ladder, while the MBP should have been released with more storage for $100 higher IMO.

What that is saying is that the MacBook is being sold at a lower premium to the rest of the line than the MacBook Air was in 2008. That's a good thing, IMO. Remember when the 64GB SSD version was $2999? It was quickly lowered in November 2008 (when I jumped onto the SSD bandwagon), the 128GB version of which I got for about $2,400 IIRC. Now, for $1749 (completely consistent with how Apple historically "overcharges" for CPU upgrades across its entire product line) you get 512GB of storage and 8GB of RAM.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Are you people all BLIND to the fact that HP and Lenovo are charging the exact same amount for their similar machines? HP EliteBook 1020 is the same price, same processor, same ram, worse screen, worse sdd, worse design...

I'm thinking these "blind people" probably won't see value in the competitor's versions of this laptop either.

 

[KPOM]

LOL, I didn't comment that I was forced to buy this. I didn't compare it to a Windows system. I just pointed out that it is WAY OVERPRICED. And it is. You can get a rMBP significantly better spec'd for 2/3 the price.

But the rMBP weighs 75% more and is 50% thicker. Again, this is no different from the original MacBook Air vs. the MacBook/MacBook Pro of 2008. We all know how that turned out. I think it will be the same with the new MacBook. It's definitely skating to where the puck is going, not where it is now.

 

[Karma*Police]

Did someone actually say this is for the nouveau rich? It's $1,299! Value is in the eye of the beholder. Specs these days mean very little to most people. If it's sufficiently fast for their needs, then things like design and weight will trump specs.

Also, there's tremendous engineering that went into this machine: new display that's thinner and more eco friendly, terraced batteries, tiny motherboard, fanless, all aluminum design, revamped keyboard with individual LEDs, next gen trackpad and the fact that this thing only weighs a fraction more than the Surface "tablet" is a significant engineering achievement.

That doesn't mean it's a good value for people who need ports and more speed, but that's why the Airs and MBPs exist. For people who want the lightest sexiest laptop out there, I haven't seen anything comparable to the new MB.

 

[Pman17]

Meh, just the beginning. I remembered when the MacBook Air was ridiculously expensive when it first came out. Always gotta start low to bring awe to customers when the next version comes out. Like the Apple Watch, gotta wait for the second version.

 

[jsagurton]

The rMBP is a better deal for most people, just like the MacBook was a better deal for most people in 2008 when Apple first released the MacBook Air. However, some people, including fans of the January 2008 MacBook Air (like me) like our notebooks as thin and light as possible and are willing to pay a premium for it. It's just fine for running Office, Mail, Safari, and even occasional light editing on Photos.

Eventually, it will get cheaper. Skymont is a big improvement on Broadwell. Once the 4.5W processors improve sufficiently and USB Type C is ubiquitous (probably within 2 years), I think Apple will reposition this as the base MacBook. Until then, they'll offer the MacBook Air.

----------



What that is saying is that the MacBook is being sold at a lower premium to the rest of the line than the MacBook Air was in 2008. That's a good thing, IMO. Remember when the 64GB SSD version was $2999? It was quickly lowered in November 2008 (when I jumped onto the SSD bandwagon), the 128GB version of which I got for about $2,400 IIRC. Now, for $1749 (completely consistent with how Apple historically "overcharges" for CPU upgrades across its entire product line) you get 512GB of storage and 8GB of RAM.

*Skylake, not Skymont.

 

[darkslide29]

Introducing the world's first $250 0.2 GHz.

Totally read that in a British accent.

 

[spaceballl]

A lot of negativity here... No need to buy it. As for me, getting two maxed out versions on Friday!

 

[musika]

When I bought my Mid-2012 15" rMBP, it was $250 to go from 2.6GHz to 2.7GHz.

But was there also an SSD or RAM bump too?

 

[AlecZ]

So about 19% extra money for an 18% faster computer if you get 1.3GHz instead of 1.1GHz. Doesn't sound worth it.

 

[maflynn]

1549 for a 1.3Ghz laptop that is slower then a current gen MBA seems outrageously expensive to me.

 

[celo48]

VERY expensive, even the cheapest option.

 

[winston1236]

I know someone who plans on buying one of these "because it comes in gold."

 

[kagharaht]

I can see myself using this to replace an aging iPad. I do love my iPad, but if I can have something almost as light and thin as the iPad with full Mac OS X functionality, this new Macbook may be it.

 

[spaceballl]

Also,

I agree that this doesn't make sense as a primary machine for most people. For me, I have a Pro at home for all my heavy lifting. This is the perfect machine to have on the go.