I lold at this for some reason. Dont the macbooks ship with a wimpy 160gb standard? Every other laptop i have seen on the market has at least 250 unless its a bargain bin model.
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 to Introduce Cheaper Macs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I lold at this for some reason. Dont the macbooks ship with a wimpy 160gb standard? Every other laptop i have seen on the market has at least 250 unless its a bargain bin model.
I've had 4 GB of RAM and 320 GB of drive space in my Macbook since 2007. Back when it was expensive you know?
lol i remember paying like 220 for a 250 gig hdd and 100 for a gig of ram for my mb
i thought it was a steal too lol
Apple won't do anything that will tarnish the brand. So whatever cheaper Mac comes out will look like quality. The internals will be all the same as every other PC and probably a generation or two(or three) behind the bleeding edge. This is where costs will be cut to maintain margins.
My $379 Acer laptop I bought over last Christmas is 160 Gig.
I think a lot of the NetBooks are going for 160 Gig hard drives as well...
I haven't found Apple's hardware to be bleeding edge since the original Core Duo launch. Even then it was only the MacBook Pro.
We're already getting bottom of the barrel Core 2 Duos, the P7350, in the MacBook and Mac mini. Going lower would be Pentium Dual-Core and Celeron. I believe the only reason they don't go lower is that they can't call it a Core 2 Duo, even though they are, and it would "confuse" people that want to buy a Mac.
I thought my hard drive for $169.99 and RAM for $79.99 were a steal too.
I thought the C2D move was well timed but surprised that that was the only thing that changed at that time (no new graphics, for instance). Since then, meh. They really don't have to do anything to be at the bottom of the barrel, just keep the same, slow, upgrade pace as they have been doing. P7350 is the Pentium Dual-Core of H2 2009 so all they have to do is keep it there for a while. They showed how long they could stretch the age of tech with the last gen mini. A GMA950 in 2009! Only Apple could sell that.
It was embarrassing that Apple held onto the GMA 950 and X3100 for so long.
Bottom of the barrel "true" Core 2 Duo is a effectively the middle ground for mobile processors. I don't think any Mac should have anything lower than a P8xxx right now but Apple does nonetheless.
Because all of the Apple Fan People continue to flood the polls with positive reviews while the PC Fans are more honest in their evaluations. Statistics do not lie, but those who appreciate decent products are therefore assumed to be blinded by their comparatively superior and more reliable user experiences.Even with all these defected computers, Apple kicks the crap out of your PC companies in satisfied customers. Wonder why?
Dell is putting desktop quad-cores into the same package size (at a similar price). Where is Apple's shame?
My guess is that more Macs will go quad core when Snow Leopard launches and Apple will extol unto us unworthy masses the glory of more than two cores.Dell is putting desktop quad-cores into the same package size (at a similar price). Where is Apple's shame?
Then again it'll feel like 2007 again for me and old friend the Q6600.
I'll believe it when I see it
This article makes no sense whatsoever. Apple (in recent history) has never worried about pricing - at least in so far as cutting prices on their newest machines. Take iPods. They have always had a slew of competitors with lower cost MP3 players yet they did not reduce their margins (they reduced prices somewhat based on cost savings in production) to compete. Instead they created the most attractive product, filled in the line of iPods with more attractive products and stuck with pricing more or less. This is crazy talk. Apple is more likely to simply introduce the rumored iPad as a higher priced alternative to the netbooks, which at present are not very profitable. This is simply iPod strategy 2.0.
This article makes no sense whatsoever. Apple (in recent history) has never worried about pricing - at least in so far as cutting prices on their newest machines. Take iPods. They have always had a slew of competitors with lower cost MP3 players yet they did not reduce their margins (they reduced prices somewhat based on cost savings in production) to compete. Instead they created the most attractive product, filled in the line of iPods with more attractive products and stuck with pricing more or less. This is crazy talk. Apple is more likely to simply introduce the rumored iPad as a higher priced alternative to the netbooks, which at present are not very profitable. This is simply iPod strategy 2.0.
No, but owning one, or more, most definitely improves your sex life.
by not getting viruses when proning it up? lol
Didn't work for me but then I'm married so I have no sex life anyhow.No, but owning one, or more, most definitely improves your sex life.
Not to mention at the computer store today, people walking out with $299 - $349 NetBooks, all with the GMA950 graphics chips...
Bring on cheaper Macs!
Sadly that is Intel's IGP solution for netbooks. The GN40 is an improvement. Ion works well for nettops where you can use the dual core Atom.Not to mention at the computer store today, people walking out with $299 - $349 NetBooks, all with the GMA950 graphics chips...
Bring on cheaper Macs!
I'm a little wary of its mobile power usage though.
I agree about the hole in the lineup.
Selling an imac-spec'ed unit without a (g-damned glossy) screen would cut the price quite a bit.
Same here. HP especially cuts corners on its products because they know what the big selling point numbers are: gigahertz, gigabyte, inch. "A 2.4 gigahertz computer with 2 gigabytes of RAM, a 500 gigabyte hard drive and a 16-inch display (for notebook)." In car lingo, you're saying a "a four-door x.x-liter engine with cd player."
People will buy that computer, be happy with it during a newness phase -- just as most of us would. But then the honeymoon ends, and you've gotta live with it. Your back hurts from lugging a 7-pound computer. Your speed isn't quite as good because you have bargain basement memory that slows down the rest of the system, not to mention all the crap running in the taskbar (anti-virus!!). You call tech support and might get someone that knows what you're saying. It's even worse if YOU know what you're doing, because their scripts don't account for smart users.
After two years of a MacBook Pro and nearly no problems, I'm glad I dropped $1800 on it. It's nearing the end of being able to run "everything" since Red Alert 3 required my GPU as a minimum. But I can pretty much upgrade everything else. IT JUST WORKS.
By all accounts, I don't see Win7 as actually adding value to PCs. It'll sell "because it's Windows" and not for any other real reason. Microsoft has already done enough damage to itself through its products and its marketing. They've lost a reasonable amount of consumer confidence, but they're nowhere near to feeling the pinch yet, let alone hurting.
However, if you really want to get inside the skull of Microsoft, just look at the business decisions they've been making lately. It's clear they're scared of Apple and F/OSS simply because they've either tried to attack them or they've been trying to appeal to those who use those products (or might be potentially lured by them). And you've got that jack-a-napes Ballmer for a CEO who is a complete idiot. Doesn't mean Apple, F/OSS and the rest of us shouldn't fear him at all, but it does mean we need to see him for what he is, and get on with our lives accordingly.
It would be great to see Apple compete with PCs, but the timing here is everything. The last thing I think Apple should do is to allow it to look like they dropped their prices because Microsoft said it would be a good idea. That makes them come off as not "better" so much as "knowingly over-priced". Now, make what arguments you will about being "under-spec'd" or "under-featured" or "over-priced" but you can't argue with the success Apple has had in selling their hardware, which of course is really just a platform for them to sell their OS.
"Always in motion is the future." -- Yoda
However, if you really want to get inside the skull of Microsoft, just look at the business decisions they've been making lately. It's clear they're scared of Apple and F/OSS simply because they've either tried to attack them or they've been trying to appeal to those who use those products (or might be potentially lured by them). And you've got that jack-a-napes Ballmer for a CEO who is a complete idiot. Doesn't mean Apple, F/OSS and the rest of us shouldn't fear him at all, but it does mean we need to see him for what he is, and get on with our lives accordingly.
It would be great to see Apple compete with PCs, but the timing here is everything. The last thing I think Apple should do is to allow it to look like they dropped their prices because Microsoft said it would be a good idea. That makes them come off as not "better" so much as "knowingly over-priced". Now, make what arguments you will about being "under-spec'd" or "under-featured" or "over-priced" but you can't argue with the success Apple has had in selling their hardware, which of course is really just a platform for them to sell their OS.
"Always in motion is the future." -- Yoda
Macbook Pros cheaper?
Do you think they are going to make the macbook pros cheaper? I just bought one and dished out 2400 for it?!?!?! Also i am dissapointed at apple for making the macbooks and macbook pros look the same ( not that it matters) but it used to make macbook pro owners feel glad that they paid more not to get plastic!
Do you think they are going to make the macbook pros cheaper? I just bought one and dished out 2400 for it?!?!?! Also i am dissapointed at apple for making the macbooks and macbook pros look the same ( not that it matters) but it used to make macbook pro owners feel glad that they paid more not to get plastic!