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

[MTD's Mac]

Just to provide some context for people who seem surprised by Apple selling this product:

I buy a new MacBook every 2 years or so. I spend between $1300 and $1700. I've had Airs, Pros, etc.

Right now, based on what's available, my top priorities are:

1) OS X (for multitasking, some apps not on iOS)
2) Portability (weight and size make a big difference - going from an Air to a rMBP was tough, but I did it because of...)
3) Retina screen. Makes reading, typing, online research, just about everything more pleasant.
4) 256 GB storage (I like all my photos and music local, and 128 is not quite enough.)

iPad offers me 2 & 3. Current MBA offers 1, 2, & 4. My current rMBP offers all 4, but the new MacBook is much more portable for using on an airplane, on the couch, carrying around at work.

So, rMB is right up my alley. I love the design, and am not worried about ports (I'll use it like my iPhone - charge when not using, then unplug to use). The price is within my budget. So I'll be ordering Friday.

My one question is whether upgrading from 1.1 GHz to 1.3 GHZ is worth it; $250 to offset some of the concerns about low power. We'll see...

 

[e93to]

Top end model will be over $2000 in Canada... That's a serious premium for light weight and thin design. I'll go for the base model if I decide screen size is enough for my needs. For $2000+, I'd rather spend extra couple of hundred dollars for 15" MBP.

 

[newellj]

I thought this was supposed to be an entry level Apple device?
Seems pretty expensive for something that is the lowest-end Apple computer product available.

This macbook is just another nail in the coffin of post Steve Jobs era.
Apple's brand grew from making less products with better quality... and now Apple is making more products will less quality.

Bad Apple... Bad.

In fairness to Apple, I don't think I've read or heard anything to that effect. If $1300 is entry level, Apple has clearly charted a new path.

----------

See 13" retina MBP: http://www.apple.com/mac/compare/results/?product1=macbook&product2=macbook-pro-retina-13 More horses, adapter (ports) built in, about the same-to-cheaper price depending on specific hardware "guts" you might want.

Hey, check my sig, I own and carry one of those!

----------

At that point, there's not much difference between the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro. The base 13" rMBP with the 28W Core i5 is about as fast as the MBA with the upgraded 15W Core i7 processor.

My guess is that Apple wants to re-differentiate the lines between Pro and "regular," but the current crop of Core M processors isn't powerful enough to make it mainstream yet. It will be in 2 years or so.

I agree that it will take a couple of years and revisions to shake out the current lineup. Apple is better than many at taking a longer view and executing on it successfully. We shall see!

 

[KPOM]

I know how that goes (with the employer). However, if you're thinking of laying out $1599 anyway, if you buy a Mac and ask IT to set it up as your Windows computer (bootcamp or parallels) then you can park that whole other (HP) computer at home and have one Mac to do everything. Of course, if your employer demands that they work is only done on that HP, there's less you can do. But if they would be willing to let you use your own "windows" laptop, the weight of your bag would be cut HUGE and the same money would buy you a much more powerful Mac for OS X work too.

People have asked that question. It's tough to get a large employer to change their thinking. One of their stated concerns is that they insist on compatibility with the Kensington lock. I'm sure another concern is that some programs don't work right on Boot Camp (the current versions don't even support Windows 7 anymore). Also, I think the real concern is that they don't want work items on personal computers (it creates issues if/when we get subpoenas, regulatory requests, etc.). With mobile devices it's a bit different since they can limit access and require remote wiping.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

This macbook is a perfect product for my wife who does not know anything about computer component.
1.2ghz is "better" than 1.1ghz.
That's how she would understand, and that's how a sales representative would explain to her.
And worse, the specs looks just fine for what she does. Email, facebook, iPhoto, and net surf.
Then, I am the one paying.

The components are expensive. That core M itself costs hundreds; 8gb of memory, SSD, proprietary battery, logic board, case. The price sounds about right to me. I would not buy that one for myself though.

So why is the Air or rMBP not perfect for that wife? They will do pretty much everything that MB can do, better than that MB can do it. Since she doesn't know the difference beyond 1.2 > 1.1, why would she prefer MB to MBA or rMBP? Her answer will need to be wanting the gold color option and/or wanting "thinnest" & "lightest" case bad enough to justify the price premium you will be paying. Else someone who understands 1.2 > 1.1 will need to care about butterfly keyboard & track pad force touch mechanisms.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

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.

Pricing argument is a bad one. If they had started the base model wth 4GB RAM and a 128GB SSD, then they could have (and would have) started the pricing at $999. Everyone with your argument would have been happy. The fact that they did not do this tells you something about their strategy with this product and/or the product line in general. This is new and showcases Apple's latest design and tech engineering, it was never going to be offered as the lowest priced Macbook in the line-up. Not for rev 1 in any case.

For rev 2 they will either

1. introduce a 4GB/128GB entry level machine for $999 and kill the MBA line completely at the same time.
2. Not introduce a lower RAM/Capacity variant and keep the MBA around another year.

This will depend mostly on what they do with the MBP line, I think. If the MBP line gets a redesign in 2016 that is in line with the new MB as inspiration at the same time as the rev 2 MB comes out, or in conjunction with that release, then I think you cam say bye bye to the MBA at that time. However, if the MBP chassis stays the same for Skylake processors, the MBA buys itself another year of existence as the entry level Mac laptop.

The new MB with 8GB/256GB will never be priced at $999. It will continue to get the improved latest CPU/GPU, RAM, SSD, and display tech, (and possibly gain one more USB-C port, but I wouldn't bet on that) and remain $1299. Maybe a $100 price drop at rev 3...maybe, again, wouldn't bet on it.

 

[xibis]

Am I reading this right? I could get a loaded 13 inch macbook pro for $1799 or a loaded macbook for $50's less? Why on earth would anyone go with the Macbook over the Pro? Am am missing something?

 

[pgiguere1]

But was there also an SSD or RAM bump too?

Nope, that was the price just for the CPU bump in BTO options.

The Ivy Bridge 2.7 also had a larger cache, which meant it offered the same performance boost as going from the 2.3 to 2.6, IIRC.

Yeah, it had 8MB L3 cache rather than 6MB. However it didn't translate into much higher Geekbench scores.

2.3GHz = 2737 points
2.6GHz = 2940 points
2.7GHz = 3030 points

Unless you have a real need for a beefy CPU (e.g. it's your work computer and your type of work requires constant large CPU load), it's rarely cost-effective to go with the highest-end CPU option on Macs.

 

[KPOM]

I thought this was supposed to be an entry level Apple device?
Seems pretty expensive for something that is the lowest-end Apple computer product available.

This is not entry level, at least not yet. The current MacBook Air is entry level and is priced accordingly.

This macbook is just another nail in the coffin of post Steve Jobs era.
Apple's brand grew from making less products with better quality... and now Apple is making more products will less quality.

Bad Apple... Bad.

You mean the same Steve Jobs era when he introduced the original MacBook Air that sold for as much as $2999 with a 64GB SSD, and the slowest processor of any in the entire Mac line (which throttled down to a single core most of the time)?

This is not a low quality machine at all. Sure, it has a low-power CPU, but the build quality and materials look as Apple as ever.

 

[AppleWarMachine]

Am I reading this right? I could get a loaded 13 inch macbook pro for $1799 or a loaded macbook for $50's less? Why on earth would anyone go with the Macbook over the Pro? Am am missing something?

because it's new, thinner and lighter

 

[KPOM]

Am I reading this right? I could get a loaded 13 inch macbook pro for $1799 or a loaded macbook for $50's less? Why on earth would anyone go with the Macbook over the Pro? Am am missing something?

1.5 lbs less weight and a much smaller, more portable package.

 

[brianvictor7]

Just to provide some context for people who seem surprised by Apple selling this product:

I buy a new MacBook every 2 years or so. I spend between $1300 and $1700. I've had Airs, Pros, etc.

Right now, based on what's available, my top priorities are:

1) OS X (for multitasking, some apps not on iOS)
2) Portability (weight and size make a big difference - going from an Air to a rMBP was tough, but I did it because of...)
3) Retina screen. Makes reading, typing, online research, just about everything more pleasant.
4) 256 GB storage (I like all my photos and music local, and 128 is not quite enough.)

iPad offers me 2 & 3. Current MBA offers 1, 2, & 4. My current rMBP offers all 4, but the new MacBook is much more portable for using on an airplane, on the couch, carrying around at work.

So, rMB is right up my alley. I love the design, and am not worried about ports (I'll use it like my iPhone - charge when not using, then unplug to use). The price is within my budget. So I'll be ordering Friday.

My one question is whether upgrading from 1.1 GHz to 1.3 GHZ is worth it; $250 to offset some of the concerns about low power. We'll see...

You're rich. Or are you reselling?

 

[Mike MA]

Have to agree. My rMBP (granted it was refurb) was ~$1200 and it is much more of a machine than this.

You're comparing apples D) with pears actually...

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Pricing argument is a bad one. If they had started the base model wth 4GB RAM and a 128GB SSD, then they could have (and would have) started the pricing at $999. Everyone with your argument would have been happy. The fact that they did not do this tells you something about their strategy with this product and/or the product line in general. This is new and showcases Apple's latest design and tech engineering, it was never going to be offered as the lowest priced Macbook in the line-up. Not for rev 1 in any case.

For rev 2 they will either

1. introduce a 4GB/128GB entry level machine for $999 and kill the MBA line completely at the same time.
2. Not introduce a lower RAM/Capacity variant and keep the MBA around another year.

This will depend mostly on what they do with the MBP line, I think. If the MBP line gets a redesign in 2016 that is in line with the new MB as inspiration at the same time as the rev 2 MB comes out, or in conjunction with that release, then I think you cam say bye bye to the MBA at that time. However, if the MBP chassis stays the same for Skylake processors, the MBA buys itself another year of existence as the entry level Mac laptop.

The new MB with 8GB/256GB will never be priced at $999. It will continue to get the improved latest CPU/GPU, RAM, SSD, and display tech, (and possibly gain one more USB-C port, but I wouldn't bet on that) and remain $1299. Maybe a $100 price drop at rev 3...maybe, again, wouldn't bet on it.

Pricing vs. perceived value IS the issue. I think this is a hot little laptop, classic Apple cool. I can easily argue the merits of thinner & lighter for mobile computers too. But objectively looking at it relative to the other offerings from Apple, pricing seems wrong. (IMO) it looks like it should be the entry-level laptop from Apple but it's priced up at the "pro" level while lacking "pro" horsepower, pro hardware utility, etc. If this wasn't the case, it would make more sense to those that compare it to Apple's other laptops.

Objectively, it looks like it's a match for those who need "light computing" needs addressed a notch above what can be done with an iPad or iPad + keyboard, something only available in OS X but not too demanding (else the Air or rMBP gains points), and thinner & lighter needs to be paramount (but not so important to try to make a go of it with the much cheaper iPad Air or iPad + keyboard)! Ports can't be very important (else, we have to pretend that the weight & bulk of adapters don't count when saving .38lbs in the laptop vs. laptop comparison). Maybe gold color needs to be pretty important? Maybe one is turned onto butterfly keyboard and force touch trackpad mechanisms?

Else, it's difficult to compare MB vs. Air vs. rMBP and easily see MB as THE best choice. Try it yourself:
MB vs. Air: http://www.apple.com/mac/compare/results/?product1=macbook&product2=macbook-air-13
MB vs. 13" rMBP: http://www.apple.com/mac/compare/results/?product1=macbook&product2=macbook-pro-retina-13

I know, I know: somebody is going to talk about the "experience" but most of the experience will be OS X, which runs on all 3 options.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

Am I reading this right? I could get a loaded 13 inch macbook pro for $1799 or a loaded macbook for $50's less? Why on earth would anyone go with the Macbook over the Pro? Am am missing something?

Nope, a maxed 13" MBP is $2699, but you get 16GB RAM, a 1TB SSD, and a 3.1GHz i7.

You also get crap battery life (comparatively speaking) and a 75% heavier machine.

Yes, if this is a choice for a laptop that is going to be doing a stationary desktop impersonation as the owner's only computer, then the MBP is a no brainer.

However, if it is a mobil first machine that travels to and from the office, and regularly on planes, trains, and automobiles across half the world, then yeah, it suddenly becomes a very attractive option.

I also say we should wait for proper benchmarking and real world reviews before we judge performance. I have a feeling it might not be as compromising as you may have assumed.

 

[brianvictor7]

Pricing vs. perceived value IS the issue. I think this is a hot little laptop, classic Apple cool. I can easily argue the merits of thinner & lighter for mobile computers too. But objectively looking at it relative to the other offerings from Apple, pricing seems wrong. (IMO) it looks like it should be the entry-level laptop from Apple but it's priced up at the "pro" level while lacking "pro" horsepower, pro hardware utility, etc. If this wasn't the case, it would make more sense to those that compare it to Apple's other laptops.

Objectively, it looks like it's a match for those who need "light computing" needs addressed a notch above what can be done with an iPad or iPad + keyboard, something only available in OS X but not too demanding (else the Air or rMBP gains points), and thinner & lighter needs to be paramount! Ports can't be very important (else, we have to pretend that the weight & bulk of adapters don't count when saving .38lbs in the laptop vs. laptop comparison). Maybe gold color needs to be pretty important? Maybe one is turned onto butterfly keyboard and force touch trackpad mechanisms?

Else, it's difficult to compare MB vs. Air vs. rMBP and easily see MB as THE best choice. Try it yourself:
MB vs. Air: http://www.apple.com/mac/compare/results/?product1=macbook&product2=macbook-air-13
MB vs. 13" rMBP: http://www.apple.com/mac/compare/results/?product1=macbook&product2=macbook-pro-retina-13

I know, I know: somebody is going to talk about the "experience" but most of the experience will be OS X, which runs on all 3 options.

Nice to finally meet you online Mr. Schiller

It is indeed a cool and awesome laptop. No denying. But the price is still too high.

 

[rcalderoni]

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.

This is the same path as the MacBook Air IIRC, in a few years it should be better and cheaper.

It's pretty common in business too, the reason luxury items become cheaper is because people are buying them when they are more expensive.

 

[John.B]

Just waiting for the Macworld and Ars Technica reviews...

 

[lcseds]

Am I reading this right? I could get a loaded 13 inch macbook pro for $1799 or a loaded macbook for $50's less? Why on earth would anyone go with the Macbook over the Pro? Am am missing something?

Yes you are missing something. Like almost this entire thread.

 

[pgiguere1]

I thought this was supposed to be an entry level Apple device?
Seems pretty expensive for something that is the lowest-end Apple computer product available.

My guess is that like the original MacBook Air, this will eventually become the lowest-end MacBook. For now however, it's a slightly futuristic device that they don't expect to sell in very large quantities.

For one, If Apple intended it to sell in larger quantities, they could have slashed $300 right away by making a base model with 4GB/128GB instead of starting at 8GB/256GB.

It's a first-gen product that's most likely supply constrained and its price will drop when they can make more units. See the 13" rMBP's original price compared to now, it hasn't always exactly been a bargain either.

This macbook is just another nail in the coffin of post Steve Jobs era.
Apple's brand grew from making less products with better quality... and now Apple is making more products will less quality.

Bad Apple... Bad.

Oh please, not that Steve Jobs thing again...

The original MacBook Air had an even worse performance/price ratio compared to the rest of the MacBook lineup at the time. It only had between 64GB and 80GB of storage, a single USB port and no optical drive (in 2008, before digital software distribution was common). And guess what, that was in the Jobs era. Killing legacy tech to force people to move to new habits is a very Steve Jobs-y thing to do.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It's pretty common in business too, the reason luxury items become cheaper is because people are buying them when they are more expensive.

...or people aren't buying them as expected and the price is cut to move more of them.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

Pricing vs. perceived value IS the issue. I think this is a hot little laptop, classic Apple cool. I can easily argue the merits of thinner & lighter for mobile computers too. But objectively looking at it relative to the other offerings from Apple, pricing seems wrong. (IMO) it looks like it should be the entry-level laptop from Apple but it's priced up at the "pro" level while lacking "pro" horsepower, pro hardware utility, etc. If this wasn't the case, it would make more sense to those that compare it to Apple's other laptops.

Objectively, it looks like it's a match for those who need "light computing" needs addressed a notch above what can be done with an iPad or iPad + keyboard, something only available in OS X but not too demanding (else the Air or rMBP gains points), and thinner & lighter needs to be paramount! Ports can't be very important (else, we have to pretend that the weight & bulk of adapters don't count when saving .38lbs in the laptop vs. laptop comparison). Maybe gold color needs to be pretty important? Maybe one is turned onto butterfly keyboard and force touch trackpad mechanisms?

Else, it's difficult to compare MB vs. Air vs. rMBP and easily see MB as THE best choice. Try it yourself:
MB vs. Air: http://www.apple.com/mac/compare/results/?product1=macbook&product2=macbook-air-13
MB vs. 13" rMBP: http://www.apple.com/mac/compare/results/?product1=macbook&product2=macbook-pro-retina-13

I know, I know: somebody is going to talk about the "experience" but most of the experience will be OS X, which runs on all 3 options.

Yup the experience is going to be good on all the laptops, because they are all Apple laptops. My point is that if Apple had chosen to give the MB an entry level spec of 4GB RAM and a 128GB SSD, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now, because it would have been priced at $999.

With single core benchmarks that will meet or exceed half of last year's MBA models, I think your performance point is a bit overemphasized here. Was last year's MBA barely capable of doing moderately intensive "pro" work (whatever that means? Is "pro" defined exclusively as heavy video/audio/photo editing only?? I consider what I do to be very professional, its just not hard core CPU/GPU intensive).

 

[Kariya]

True; but it would be worth 150 bucks to help you get better at math.

$150--> .1 GHz
$250--> .2 GHz

Information about SKUs was added after my post.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yup the experience is going to be good on all the laptops, because they are all Apple laptops. My point is that if Apple had chosen to give the MB an entry level spec of 4GB RAM and a 128GB SSD, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now, because it would have been priced at $999.

With single core benchmarks that will meet or exceed half of last year's MBA models, I think your performance point is a bit overemphasized here. Was last year's MBA barely capable of doing moderately intensive "pro" work (whatever that means? Is "pro" defined exclusivel as heavy video/audio/photo editing only?? I consider what I do to be very professional, its just not hard core CPU/GPU intensive).

"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.

 

[brentsg]

yet tray price on 5y71,5y51 and 5y31 is the same. So Apple is either taking people for a ride or compensating for whatever discount they get from Intel (or both as usual).

It may also be related to the quantity that Apple can source the 2 different parts as well.