ImAlwaysRight
macrumors 6502a
Uh... "if you wait, you really can get the system cheaper in a few months." Just wait until the new models are released or speed bumped, and the old ones always drop in price. 🙂amac4me said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Core Duo Price Drops in May?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
andiwm2003
macrumors 601
D*I*S_Frontman said:
You are right but I would have to say Moores Law has everything to do with both the supply and the demand of computer hardware. Therefore the Ecconomics of Computer Hardware.
weazle1098
macrumors regular
Shaker said:
I read an ariticle at one point that macs are actaully cheaper than PCs in the long run, just because of all the other crap you need yo buy to keep it up and running and safe and not a 1000$ doorstop, not that it isn't already one
sam10685 said:
It makes sense to me...he wants the price of the chip to drop enough that he can upgrade his current mini with the faster chip. Of course, the prices are for volume purchases, so a single chip price would be significantly higher.
iDrinkKoolAid
macrumors regular
Apple never seems to lower prices. I bet what they will do is offer the 2.33 GHz for the same price as the 2.16 GHz and throw in an 8x dual-layer DVD+/-RW and maybe other hardware upgrades.
I think Apple really doesn't want to compete on price. They don't have the buying/selling power like Dull Computers.
I think Apple really doesn't want to compete on price. They don't have the buying/selling power like Dull Computers.
I for one hope Apple does NOT become the average Intel shmo, updating here and there every 3 months.
WHY?
Because then we'll end up like Dell. All of the Apple laptops and such will lose resale value dramatically due to there being a million different configurations.
As a consumer, I'd rather pay $100-200 more up front, and be able to get a 75% resale value in a year or two than save that cash and only get 50% value.
As long as Apple can hit $499 with the Mini and $999 with the MacBook in the next two revisions, I think they'll do well and fine with consistent update time frames of the past and similar pricing.
OHHH...
And the higher margins mean more money for upgrading components, and more money in my pocket as a stockholder!
WHY?
Because then we'll end up like Dell. All of the Apple laptops and such will lose resale value dramatically due to there being a million different configurations.
As a consumer, I'd rather pay $100-200 more up front, and be able to get a 75% resale value in a year or two than save that cash and only get 50% value.
As long as Apple can hit $499 with the Mini and $999 with the MacBook in the next two revisions, I think they'll do well and fine with consistent update time frames of the past and similar pricing.
OHHH...
And the higher margins mean more money for upgrading components, and more money in my pocket as a stockholder!
aussie_geek
macrumors 65816
sounds great. hopefully Apple will follow suit (they probably won't 😡 ) and lower the prices of the MacBook Pro's. I find it quite outrageous to be charging an extra $460 au for 0.16 Ghz!!
aussie_geek
aussie_geek
Sorry guys, but Moores law does not have anything to do with suppy and demand.
Apart from the fact it would seem moores law is now broken, hence Intel are talking about power and size and multiple cores as they can't keep increasing the frequency even with die shrink. Apart from the fact it's broken all it dictated was the rate at which faster processors become available.
Cache size (in terms of memory) and die size have more impact on the cost of producing and thus selling a cpu than the frequency.
Having said which, i'm not certain how supply and demand does work in the CPU industry. I mean, todays fastest processors are usually just a few lucky ones that are cherry picked from the bin because they can do a certain speed.
They are usually a few hundred dollars more expensive than the next slowest one even though they're not much faster. Is this because they are so rare that more people want them than they can produce so they charge and arm and a leg. Or is it because they are so rare they can get away with charging that much and some people buy them anyway?
Apart from the fact it would seem moores law is now broken, hence Intel are talking about power and size and multiple cores as they can't keep increasing the frequency even with die shrink. Apart from the fact it's broken all it dictated was the rate at which faster processors become available.
Cache size (in terms of memory) and die size have more impact on the cost of producing and thus selling a cpu than the frequency.
Having said which, i'm not certain how supply and demand does work in the CPU industry. I mean, todays fastest processors are usually just a few lucky ones that are cherry picked from the bin because they can do a certain speed.
They are usually a few hundred dollars more expensive than the next slowest one even though they're not much faster. Is this because they are so rare that more people want them than they can produce so they charge and arm and a leg. Or is it because they are so rare they can get away with charging that much and some people buy them anyway?
mlrproducts said:
I think there are certain key areas where Apple must be seen to be competitive. For example, the top of the range models must always have the fastest processors available. Otherwise they will be be ridiculed with the same old claims of being overpriced (false) and underpowered (true).
I think the situation with the MacBook Pro is perfect for Apple to remain agile - having an option of a 2.16 GHz processor BTO. As soon as something faster comes along, it's effortless to change this. No worries about running down stock levels etc. 🙂
ImAlwaysRight
macrumors 6502a
In the most confused reader of the day contest, we have our winner. 🙂 I understood the other post just fine -- he wants to buy a 1.83 core duo processor for under $200 to put in the 1.5 mini, which, effectively, makes it faster than Apple's $799 mini for less money.sam10685 said:
I don't see any pricing change in the future. Remember that the iMac (Intel) was being sold along side the iMac (G5) for the same amount while they were in stock. The top end Powerbook 17" is at the same pricing point as the top end MacBook as well, don't forget.
My forecast is no change in price, possibly silent upgrade, or replace the 2.16ghz BTO option with the 2.33 BTO option, while still retaining the 2ghz as the top "off the shelf" configuration.
The only other thing that I would note is the fact that those prices are most likely RETAIL prices, (translation:after markup). Apple isn't buying processors the way you and I do, or for the price that you and I do.
Don't get your hopes up, is the tl:dr version of my post.
My forecast is no change in price, possibly silent upgrade, or replace the 2.16ghz BTO option with the 2.33 BTO option, while still retaining the 2ghz as the top "off the shelf" configuration.
The only other thing that I would note is the fact that those prices are most likely RETAIL prices, (translation:after markup). Apple isn't buying processors the way you and I do, or for the price that you and I do.
Don't get your hopes up, is the tl:dr version of my post.
ImAlwaysRight
macrumors 6502a
Man, that'd be sweet to see the 13" Intel Macbooks come in at 1.66GHz core duo for base and and 1.83GHz for higher config with a 2.0GHz option for $200 more, and then the rest of the Intel product line (except for maybe the mini) get speed bumped.Macrumors said:
briansolomon
macrumors 6502
As has been said in these posts, I would imagine Apple just ups the processor speed and keeps the price points it is currently set with.
Just my two cents.
Just my two cents.
Suggestion for the admins: why not include the old and new prices? Even better: percentage of price reduction. Thanks!
yankeefan24
macrumors 65816
7on said:
you have a point.
and they are soldered in the MBPs because they will get a redesign when merom comes.
I think apple will just upgrade the speed of MBP/iMac and lower the price of the mini.
They will have to adapt pricing structure
Apple is going to have to adapt their pricing structure now that they are on intel chips. They can't just keep their computers significantly higher than the competitors with the same specs becuase it would kill possible buyers. Why buy a mac when the dell is $500 cheaper for the same stuff? Apple has to remain competitive with the other companies if they hope to sway any other switchers. They can be a bit more expensive but they can't offer an older chip for more money than HP offers a newer chip. Most people would pay less for more power if given the chance. Not changing prices would just be bad business and the press would eat them alive. Surely, Jobs and Company knew this when they decided to make the intel switch. Apple is in whole different playing field now and they must adjust accordingly.
Apple is going to have to adapt their pricing structure now that they are on intel chips. They can't just keep their computers significantly higher than the competitors with the same specs becuase it would kill possible buyers. Why buy a mac when the dell is $500 cheaper for the same stuff? Apple has to remain competitive with the other companies if they hope to sway any other switchers. They can be a bit more expensive but they can't offer an older chip for more money than HP offers a newer chip. Most people would pay less for more power if given the chance. Not changing prices would just be bad business and the press would eat them alive. Surely, Jobs and Company knew this when they decided to make the intel switch. Apple is in whole different playing field now and they must adjust accordingly.
mattyturner said:
Moores law is vitally linked to economics, both supply and demand. Moores law, in its original form, states that the complexity of a circuit with respect to minimum component cost, will double every 18 months.
Note the minimum component cost.
Imagine you are Intel. As a chip builder, you can create processors from simple 150 transistor systems to complex chips with 1000s of millions of transistors. So why don't they just double the size of a chip (lets say they quadruple the cache of a core duo) and charge twice as much? The answer is that it costs more than that (perhaps 3 or 4 times) to manufacture. This reduces demand, increases costs, and therefore decreases profits.
Moores law states that, for a given state of technological advancement, on a given area of silicon, chips of a certain complexity are economically most viable for consumers and manufacturers.
mattyturner said:
Well I guess then you wouldnt mind paying 5 grand for one of those first few 386 today. The bottom line is Because of moores law the supply exceeds the demand for that chip (therefore you can buy one at a garage sale for next to nothing).
generik
macrumors 601
tmornini said:
Do you think the average consumer that Apple is trying so hard to capture cares a damned about Apple's effort to achieve target returns.
Right now the MBPs actually do look pretty competitive in the marketplace, fast forward 3 months and if everyone else drops by $300 and Apple fails to follow suit, it looks really ugly.
gnasher729
Suspended
matthewHUB said:
You just need to visit the inquirer web page and read their headline, then you know why.
And the stupid idiots didn't notice that Apple has already been buying all the chips for the MacBook Pro at the reduced prices. Or did you think Apple equipped all MacBook Pros with the next faster version of the Core Duo because they thought otherwise they would make too much profit?