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.
Apple Confirms Retina MacBook Build-to-Order Pricing for 1.3 GHz Processor
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But not to me. I'm not sure I'll pay $1749 for the 1.3GHz version, but I am eying the 512GB 1.2GHz version at $1599. I'll keep my 2013 13" rMBP around as a "server" so I can set up a remote drive, but plan to make the MacBook my travel Mac. It will fit into the inner pocket of my messenger bag alongside my Windows PC that I use for work (an HP 820 with a MacBook Air-class processor).
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I thought that was the rationalization for iPads vs. laptops. They are much thinner and lighter than this, for "simple tasks" (not editing a movie). Even an iPad with a quality keyboard will cost less than half what this costs and still be thinner & lighter.
Exactly. Most of the discussions I've observed around here usually remain civil despite the difference in opinions, and these threads would be dead boring if we all agreed with one another.
What mistakes? I see none. It was a breakthrough device driven by the technology available at the time at a reasonable price. The price of the new MacBook will come down as capability is increased. Just like all new Apple products of the past; i.e. iPod, iPhone, etc.
There were less costly and more powerful MacBooks available when the Air came out. Today, the Air is Apple's best selling laptop, driven by size/weight and reasonable performance. The same will be true with the new MacBook with a further 33% reduction in weight and likely reductions in price with increasing performance. People still have a choice with MBP models if greater performance is needed.
I think there's a market for a laptop in between an iPad and a Macbook Pro. Now I agree that they should've just slapped a retina screen on the Air, but Apple probably figured they would make more money this way.
They make for different lugging experiences. 1.5 pounds is a good among to cut from a bag or to carry by hand with textbooks and other items.
I see no reason to get the in between models. Either the base model or the max model. I'll probably get the base model if I do buy one. More than enough. Mostly because Apple didn't gimp it with only 4GB of RAM and offered it with a proper 8GB.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
2.38 lbs vs. 2 lbs. Is .38lbs significant?
.11-.68" thick vs. .14-.52". Is .03-.16" significant?
Those are the numbers. Sure, this one is a little lighter and a little thinner than the Air, but the adjective "little" is quite applicable there. "Significant" is eye-of-the-beholder ambiguous but, for me anyway, it implies differences greater than .38lbs and .03-.16" thick.
Would what be noticeable?
----------
Exactly. There are cases where the weight matters more than the number of (unused!) ports.
There are really four arguments against the MacBook:
1. It is not a 15" rMBP.
2. It is not a 13" rMBP.
3. It is not the classic 13" MBP.
4. It is not a MacBook Air.
Each argument is equally daft.
And they will be happy with their purchase and live happily ever after, while teeth gnashing continues on MacRumors (not by me).
2-3 revs from now, the rMacBook will be the de facto standard for notebook computers just like the Air before it. It is going to take some time for technology to mature and the price to come down.
Until then, the 13" rMBP is the best value per dollar in the lineup balancing performance, hi-res display, and price.
Until then, the 13" rMBP is the best value per dollar in the lineup balancing performance, hi-res display, and price.
No one said it was a bargain. You want a good deal? Buy a Windows Desktop. That's probably your best power to cost ratio if that's what makes something a good deal....
The processors in these things are quite a bit slower than the ones in the current-gen Macbook Airs. They also generate less heat and can rely entirely on passive cooling.
You've never tried to work with complicated Word docs or Excel spreadsheets on an iPad.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
By "mistakes", I was addressing the recurring suggestion that Apple already did this "overpriced" & "thinnest" laptop before (with that first Air) which then had to go through several iterations of hardware improvements and price reductions to "get it right".
And I suggest the reason why the Air is the "best selling laptop" is because it is priced lower than other laptops. Why do the 16GB iDevices outsell the higher capacity devices? Why do stock configurations of Macs outsell BTO versions?
So, rather than wait through a couple rounds of improving the hardware and reducing the price, why not just "get it right" this time?
Personally, I think this is a sharp little laptop, mispriced (too high) based on what it is. To me, it looks like it should be the entry-level product at an entry-level price, possibly retiring the Air rather than carrying on with three lines. And if I was buying mostly for "thin & light", I'd buy the Air. If I was buying for utility and power, I'd buy the MBP. For me anyway, I don't see where this fits in unless I want thinner & lighter at MBP pricing over utility & power.
Last edited:
There's a lot of talk in this thread about how the MacBook is overpriced and not worth it compared to the rMBP. Yes the rMBP is roughly the same price for a much more powerful machine, but most consumers don't need that power and would probably benefit from the lighter portability of the MacBook.
We don't really know exactly how these will perform in comparison to the current MacBook Airs yet, nor do we fully know how they will cope as a fanless system. If the MacBook is close to the performance of the Airs, which I suspect it will be, and able to stay cool and silent throughout operation it could prove to be quite a nice laptop for the average buyer.
I do agree that the 1.3GHz processor bump pricing is a bit over the top though, it's £120 in the UK to go from 1.2GHz to 1.3GHz. That's too much for such a small bump in performance. I'm hoping to get the 1.2GHz / 512GB configuration to replace my 2008 MacBook. Seems the better deal.
We don't really know exactly how these will perform in comparison to the current MacBook Airs yet, nor do we fully know how they will cope as a fanless system. If the MacBook is close to the performance of the Airs, which I suspect it will be, and able to stay cool and silent throughout operation it could prove to be quite a nice laptop for the average buyer.
I do agree that the 1.3GHz processor bump pricing is a bit over the top though, it's £120 in the UK to go from 1.2GHz to 1.3GHz. That's too much for such a small bump in performance. I'm hoping to get the 1.2GHz / 512GB configuration to replace my 2008 MacBook. Seems the better deal.
It will make a wonderful travel machine, but it costs $300 higher than is reasonable for its power. Better to get a MacBook Pro 13" Retina for the same price and only a marginally higher weight (maybe have to pay more for same memory).