Intel Ultrabooks Unable to Undercut MacBook Air Prices

[-hh]

The cost.

If they put the same hardware (or close enough) inside a computer with an enclosure like the White MacBook and they dropped the SSD then it wouldn't be anywhere near as expensive.

True, but this point is irrelevant, because it is trying to ignore (and thus, "devalue") one of the main features of this product.

You're missing the point.

I don't want to pay MORE for a computer that:

-has a 1.7GHz processor
-features Intel Graphics
-has fixed RAM
-has 2 USB ports (which aren't even USB3)
-features a small (albeit fast) SSD

The size benefit of the MacBook Air does not justify the cost OR the tradeoffs above.

For that narrow list, sure. However, it is also packaged differently, which leads to other attributes that you don't mention on your list.

The fallacy is that just because you don't consider a particular attribute to have a significant 'worth' to you ... doesn't mean that it can't be considered to be of worth to other consumers.

Personally, I've probably carried laptops now for well over 100,000 miles and I've learned that the difference between a 6.5lb to 5lb to 3lb one isn't to be simplistically ignored, particularly if one is only saving a mere $500 or so across a few years.

Far too expensive.

I went with a Sony Laptop instead. They offered me what I needed at a pretty reasonable price...

I used to have a lightweight Sony VAIO ... pretty, but it fell apart far too rapidly for my liking, so I've been buying Thinkpads ever since. Much less fragile. The Thinkpad 2xx Series I have now still isn't anywhere near as light - or elegant (understandably) - as a MacBookAir, so I very well might go for a MBA the next time. Considering that every one of my Thinkpads have cost north of $1500, I don't see where there's a particularly strong case to be made about saving tons of money somehow.

If Apple does not cater to your needs, it doesn't make their offering overpriced, it makes their offering not fit for your needs.

A simple mistake a lot of posters seem to make.

What does that have anything to do with the article, there's no law that forces Apple to have a low-end offering at all. They are free to cater only to the higher-end crowd if that is what they want to do.

Well said on all points.


-hh

 

[rockyroad55]

Compared to the MBA, these ultrabooks are not worth it. Sony Z series start out at around $1900 and others go above $1000. While the specs on the Windows machines do look better, I would not shell out that much cash for them. i3 machines should go for under $1000 but the i5 and i7, which MBA does match, go for much higher price points.

 

[Navdakilla]

funny how Apple can innovate and create new categories of products over and over, and still be cheaper than the competition. Same deal with tablets. They are stomping on everyone in overall design and quality of ecosystem, and they're not being undercut price-wise.

yup, once again Apple is the leader and everyone else is following

 

[ModerateFKR]

That's 40% of the weight... It's a really big deal.

The plastic MacBook cost $999, same price as the entry level air.

Basically, it seems you're bemoaning the switch to SSD, but it seems clear you're not very interested in all the benefits of SSD (lighter, smaller, no moving parts, better power consumption, ABSURDLY faster)

You sound like the perfect example of the kind of past-clinging semi-Luddite which apple has absolutely zero interest in pandering to. A glance at revenue and profit sheets will show you how successful apple has been ignoring your demographic. Enjoy your Sony, and more importantly, enjoy buying a new computer in approximately 2 years while the MacBook air will live on for 5. You get what you pay for, and generally speaking, very low up front costs lead to higher costs in the future.

Have you considered that the plastic MacBook was over priced and could have been retained at a very competitive $799 maybe? - without cannibalizing the MBA market, which I see as being very different from the plastic MacBook's.

This is actually the reverse of what Apple did with the eMac which was introduced as an education only device in April 2002 and later offered to consumers when the original iMacs were discontinued.

Odd move Apple.

 

[ssk2]

That's 40% of the weight... It's a really big deal.

The plastic MacBook cost $999, same price as the entry level air.

Basically, it seems you're bemoaning the switch to SSD, but it seems clear you're not very interested in all the benefits of SSD (lighter, smaller, no moving parts, better power consumption, ABSURDLY faster)

You sound like the perfect example of the kind of past-clinging semi-Luddite which apple has absolutely zero interest in pandering to. A glance at revenue and profit sheets will show you how successful apple has been ignoring your demographic. Enjoy your Sony, and more importantly, enjoy buying a new computer in approximately 2 years while the MacBook air will live on for 5. You get what you pay for, and generally speaking, very low up front costs lead to higher costs in the future.

Firstly, I call BS on that price - I got my Macbook A LOT cheaper brand new. I'm also not bemoaning anything, SSDs are fantastic, I just don't feel the need to pay a premium for them right now.

Finally, we move on to the massive fanboi rant/insult. The Macbook has been one of Apple's most successful lines, so clearly Apple did enjoy many years both pandering too and taking money from, people like me. Sorry to pop your bubble. I also have no interest in Sony laptops, as I currently write on my 2006 white Macbook, a computer that's been running solidly for 5 years.

Finally, 2lbs?! 0.9kg?! Less than one small bag of sugar. If that's making a massive difference to your life, you have bigger issues.

 

[paul4339]

I dont get it. This article makes it sound like Apple took Intel's stuff and put it in the Air but Intel has problems putting things in something that looks like the Air.

Apple couldn't have made the new Air with out extensive help from Intel. When the new Air shipped Apple sent thank you cards to the people at Intel for making it possible.

The Air essentially IS an "Intel Ultrabook" just not marketed as one.

It means that Apple's production line is more efficient that other companies. They definitely make and sell more than other laptop companies so they're probably making some up in volume.

i don't think the article is saying that... it's saying:

...Those requirements have, however, pushed up the cost of those components beyond that of the modular ones typically used in PCs, resulting in Ultrabook pricing coming in at the same levels as Apple's MacBook Air.

The MBA is an integrated device and the PC industry often has a modular approach. It's mere saying that for the PC industry to build an 'Ultrabook' it has to use a integrated approach and so far it costs about the same.

.

 

[err404]

I didn't say it was overpriced. Underspecified yes.

Pick an argument. You're complaining that the MBA is under spec, yet you suggest that Apple should make a machine with a slower i3 CPU?
As for RAM and SSD size, they do offer machines with more...

 

[trsmith24]

It's entirely possible to say that the MBA is overpriced.

It's Apple's entry level product.

I'm not prepared to pay a premium for a (slow) computer just because it's thinner.

For what you're getting it might be good value, but it's now your only choice other than a "pro" machine.

The Macbook Air is not Apple's entry level product. The iPad is (well technically the iPod touch is the most entry-level product that can run productivity software), then comes the Mac Mini (the true entry-level intel-based Mac), then Macbook Air 11" then Mackbook Pro 13", then Macbook Air 13", then Macbook Pro 15" +

Also, the Macbook air has been benchmarked as performing quite well, including better than the Macbook Pro in many areas:

http://osxdaily.com/2011/07/20/macbook-air-2011-benchmarks/

On top of that, you are not attributing any value to portability to a product in the portable category which doesn't make any sense. It is certainly reasonable for the Macbook Air to not be the right fit for you. But there is no arguing that in the product category it is in, the Macbook Air has tremendous bang-for-the-buck.

 

[KnightWRX]

Aren't you referring to Apple's most popular Mac line ever there?

Obviously, Apple didn't see it that way now did they.

 

[Bigdaddyguido]

Firstly, I call BS on that price - I got my Macbook A LOT cheaper brand new. I'm also not bemoaning anything, SSDs are fantastic, I just don't feel the need to pay a premium for them right now.

Finally, we move on to the massive fanboi rant/insult. The Macbook has been one of Apple's most successful lines, so clearly Apple did enjoy many years both pandering too and taking money from, people like me. Sorry to pop your bubble. I also have no interest in Sony laptops, as I currently write on my 2006 white Macbook, a computer that's been running solidly for 5 years.

Finally, 2lbs?! 0.9kg?! Less than one small bag of sugar. If that's making a massive difference to your life, you have bigger issues.

To the first point. That was a great deal you got then. Mad props. It would logically follow that MBA will see similar deals in the future.

As to the 2nd. How is it massively fanboy-esque to point out apples philosophy? Also, read a few posts on this thread from people saying similar anecdotal evidence that the entry Sony's tend to break much quicker than apple products. There's tons of evidence of higher satisfaction and longer lifespans to apple products. Also, the statement about you get what you pay for applies to every industry, from towels, to computers, to cars and houses. There is a bell-curve, and ultra-premium devices tend to lose on the length of life returns (see voodoo pcs, ferrari's, and other super luxury items.

Experience and wisdom do not a fanboy make.

 

[Ubuntu]

Have to admit they did a good job with that Asus, it actually looks pretty good.

 

[andiwm2003]

Have you used one? I have a 13" i5 MBA on my desk right now and it's as fast as my 3 month old MBP (sitting right next to it) and it was cheaper.

his point is that the absolute price is too high since the cheapest notebook from apple you can buy now is $999 and it has only a 11" screen.

for most people a 11" screen is too small so they need to buy a 13" screen.

a well equipped 13" MBA with a 256GB SSD would be around $1500. This compares to a macbook for ~$1000 or a halfway decent windows notebook for $800.

yes they are not as good (in terms of built quality, weight) as a MBA but if you want to spend less than $999 for a notebook then there is nothing in apples product line.

many people would like to have a mac notebook for $800 and would happily accept higher weight, less design, no SSD.

 

[linux2mac]

Wait, that means no optical drive. OH, THE HUMANITY!!!



Wait, no way to argue about the existence of an Apple Tax®? OH, THE HUMANITY!!!



"Integrated components" and "non user-replaceable batteries?" OH, THE HUMANITY!!! Somebody get Doctorow on the phone.

If you can't beat Apple, copy them. LOL!!

 

[KnightWRX]

I didn't say it was overpriced. Underspecified yes.

Underspecified... compared to what ? Again, size and weights are specifications. They count in the overall specifications.

It's neither underspecified or overpriced for what it is. The fact that what it is is not what you need does not change that.

 

[alent1234]

sometimes i wonder why some computer makers even make computers. intel and microsoft take so much money of the price of a computer there is nothing left for the maker.

it's not like when the japanese invaded with commodity electronics in the 1980's. this time the US companies are keeping most of the money and the asians are getting the crumbs

 

[Daveoc64]

his point is that the absolute price is too high since the cheapest notebook from apple you can buy now is $999 and it has only a 11" screen.

for most people a 11" screen is too small so they need to buy a 13" screen.

a well equipped 13" MBA with a 256GB SSD would be around $1500. This compares to a macbook for ~$1000 or a halfway decent windows notebook for $800.

yes they are not as good (in terms of built quality, weight) as a MBA but if you want to spend less than $999 for a notebook then there is nothing in apples product line.

many people would like to have a mac notebook for $800 and would happily accept higher weight, less design, no SSD.

Quite.

This was entirely my point.

The old MacBook range suited my needs (performance, size, cost) well. The MacBook Air and MacBook Pro fail to do that.

 

[Bonfire]

Great, now you can see the blue screen of death on an ultra-thin laptop.

Piece of junk

 

[Bilbo63]

Hardly surprising. Apple's MacBook Air pricing has been very aggressive since the Rev D. For the price, you get a very light notebook and for people looking at size and weight as specs, there's hardly anything out there to compete with it.

Agreed.

It leaves me wondering if the reasons that Apple can be this aggressive on price is because of 1) Their immense purchasing power. 2) Being the number one vendor of media consumables for the device. 3) Creating both the hardware and software.

Those three reasons alone make it an uphill battle for any and all newcomers.

 

[Ulf1103]

Have to admit they did a good job with that Asus, it actually looks pretty good.

Are you insane?!?

I mean, just look at it...

sure the general looks are fine, but imagine yourself typing on it for hours... The looks of that keyboard are making me sick, and I only watched for like 10 sec...

 

[*LTD*]

The same old notebooks running Windows. Except a bit thinner.

So are these "ultrabooks" supposed to divert attention from the rest of the industry totally failing to produce a viable iPad competitor? Or are these supposed to be the new form factor for notebooks in general, going forward?

 

[reverie]

To me this looks like a new varation on a very old topic: Macs are very competitively priced right after they've been refreshed, but then Apple will keep that configuration and pricing level for 6 to 18 months steady, while PC manufacturers drop their prices by 10 to 30 % in the same timeframe and bring out faster configs at the original level.

In this case, I'll bet that Asus & Co. will undercut the MacBook Air by the end of the year and Intel will reach their 40 % goal by the end of 2012. As a result, MacBook Air will be nothing special anymore within a year—which is a shame, but it was fun while it lasted.

This is how it always goes. The Mac is trapped next to the Windows monopoly, and the only thing Apple can do about it is keep growing iOS until it outsells Windows and disrupts the traditional PC market as we knew it. Only that can take the curse off the Mac.

 

[Mousse]

Finally, we move on to the massive fanboi rant/insult. The Macbook has been one of Apple's most successful lines, so clearly Apple did enjoy many years both pandering too and taking money from, people like me. Sorry to pop your bubble. I also have no interest in Sony laptops, as I currently write on my 2006 white Macbook, a computer that's been running solidly for 5 years.

Finally, 2lbs?! 0.9kg?! Less than one small bag of sugar. If that's making a massive difference to your life, you have bigger issues.

I hear ya, brother. These ultra light, ultra thin laptop just doesn't cut if for me either. I want a full featured laptop and would gladly deal with the extra weight. A few pounds difference doesn't matter to me.

 

[ssk2]

The same old notebooks running Windows. Except a bit thinner.

So are these "ultrabooks" supposed to divert attention from the rest of the industry totally failing to produce a viable iPad competitor? Or are these supposed to be the new form factor for notebooks in general, going forward?

You mean... like the same old (Apple) notebooks running OSX. Except a bit thinner. (And both with the huge price jump).

Why are you bringing in the iPad comparison? That's got nothing to do with this news story at all.

 

[ftaok]

Quite.

This was entirely my point.

The old MacBook range suited my needs (performance, size, cost) well. The MacBook Air and MacBook Pro fail to do that.

Dave,

I follow your point that Apple could easily have continued with the Macbook line with updated specs. The problem with that is at the $1000 price level, a 13" MB with the same component specs as the 11" MBAir would be severly overpriced. So to keep a 13" MB at $1000, Apple would need to have substantially better specs than the 11" Air. I'm guessing Apple felt that a 13" MB (with the same general specs as the 13" MBP) would eat into the 11" Air sales. At the same time, I don't think Apple wants to sell an $800 laptop either as that may encroach on iPad2 sales.

In the end, Apple made a decision that they felt would maximize their revenues and profits.

BTW, in the USA, you can get the 13" Macbook Pro for $999 at Microcenter. They had the $200 off for the last 2 13" MBP models from day one. They also used to run the 13" Macbook at $800.

 

[trsmith24]

If Apple had maintained the White MacBook line then they could have easily refreshed it with a newer 2.0GHz+ i3 or i5 processor.

You're just making assumptions here, but the facts are that the 2011 1.7Ghz Core i5 in the Macbook Air outperforms the 2011 2.3Ghz Core i5 in the Macbook Pro according to GeekBench. So even if Apple had updated the Macbook like you suggest, the Air would outperform it considerably - not just in benchmarks, but also in battery life, portability, display quality, build quality, weight, etc.