Oh if people just compared the original mac's price to today using 1984 inflation adjusted dollars.
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.
Leaker: Upcoming MacBook Pro to See Price Hike Over Current Model, Equal Performance Across 14 and 16-Inch Sizes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would wager the net cost of an M-series chip, taking the background R&D into account and the fact that Apple purchased most of TSMC’s 5nm capacity, isn’t much cheaper than what Intel charged Apple. Intel had economies of scale on its side, and Apple was one of many OEMs they cranked out chips for at vastly discounted rates compared to what they sold to consumers for. This move has always been about platform control and building system with cooler, lower power chips, not saving money.
The Macintosh IIx would cost the equivalent of $17,000 in today’s money! The original Macintosh 128k would be closer to $6000.
It’s the difference between a CEO who wants to maximize impact on the world and each user vs. a CEO that wants to maximize profits (Jobs balanced that quite well… Cook is a bit too weighted to the profits side and I think Apple has major risk factors over the 1-2 decade time horizon)
Seems pretty basic information, though October is getting closer and closer so it'll be interesting to see if that actually happens. Hopefully, the 16inch Macbook Pro will be a pretty good machine for Final Cut Pro cutting and an HDR-capable screen.
Of course they will. The current $1800 Intel 13" gives you 512GB and 16GB of RAM. I can guarantee that the 14" will match this.
Is totally different, in those days produce that computers cost more, less demand, expensive components etc.
In this days eveything is more cheap and accessible, you even can build your own mac in your house for cheap.
If the new MBP's don't support Multi Stream Transport, I'm done. For them to not include this on a professional machine in 2021 is absolutely mind-boggling.
Read the bold text. The high-end 13" models are still running Intel processors. The M1 MBP replaces the low-end Intel model. Of course the M1 MBP is clearly more powerful than the high-end 13" MBP, but that isn't the comparison being made.
The 16" also has a much more powerful (and discrete) GPU, which is probably more important for some users than the CPU. I'm one of those - I'm really curious to see whether Apple will be able to match the best AMD mobile dGPUs (e.g. AMD Radeon Pro 5600M / RX5700M) in Apple Silicon.
Are those the fastest mobile GPUs from AMD?
I (kinda) assume that Nvidia has faster mobile GPUs though?
How close does a 32 vote GPU get to the fastest PC mobile GPUs do you think?
Would have been nice to get pricing on RAM and GPU Cores. My guess is that it's an extra $400 to go from 16 to 32 GB. My current plans for this fall are a MacBook Pro (leaning 16 but may want to look at the 14), iPhone 13, M1X mini if it arrives, iPad mini if it arrives. This could total $6K or a bit more. Deciding may be hard - some of it depends on the weight. I would actually prefer an Air 15/16 as I don't need a lot of CPU/GPU in a laptop.
The main difference between the pro and the air is battery size. I don't see the $300 price difference proportional to actual cost of hardware difference (of $30-40). That extra GPU core is a negligible difference in real world use. What they're doing is making a crappy version of a good product and selling that as the base price. Classic post-Jobs Apple move.
Jobs wouldn't make the iPhone 4 with non-retina version and start that as the base price, while making the retina iPhone 4 $200 more. His philosophy was, "Apple does not ship junk".
Also tell me 2 years from now how the 8GB RAM/256GB SSD laptop is holding up.
I don't think they'll go up in price. From doing a rough calculation, the M1 MacBooks are at least $300 cheaper than Intel when you max out the Intel processor which an M1 blows away.
I suspect that there are increased costs in making chips right now; even if you own TSM's production.
My 2008 MacBook Pro 17 was $2,800. MacBook Pros actually went down from there for many years. I would not be surprised if an M1X 16 was around $3,000 with extra RAM. That's what I'm planning for.
Hey, my thought is that if they're as reliable as all other MB Pros have been, if they finally got the hint and are bringing back Magsafe and <gasp> extra ports, and on top of it all, they're integrating the comptetion-obliterating M1(x) chip, I'll gladly fork over the cash. You get what you pay for.
That’s what the 16 starts at, right? So if they’re equalizing the specs between the two that would make sense.
Both the Intel 13.3" 4-port (which the 14" will replace) and the 16" have base configurations of 16GB of RAM and 512GB of storage so that is what the Apple Silicon 14" and 16" will have as base configurations.
If Apple wants more smooth price curve across all product lines, then they might keep current 13” for a little while. But 14” is not so much different from 13” outside of mini-LED screen and obviously more powerful chip, so you could expect people asking questions on which one is which in Apple Store.
To me 14” should have a in-between price that is in the middle of MacBook Air and a bit higher than current 13” M1 MBP so the price gap won’t be too different. But, if Apple believes 14” and 16” is like 11” iPad Pro and 12.9” iPad Pro, then there will be a bigger price gap.
steve jobs actually started this trend by keeping the iphone 3g available for sale when the 3gs came out.
The jacked the price by $300 for that stupid touch bar.
Now they're removing it and increasing the price by another $300???
Cheaper in house made chips.
More expensive screens.
Apple math is f*Ked..
Now they're removing it and increasing the price by another $300???
Cheaper in house made chips.
More expensive screens.
Apple math is f*Ked..
How many are shocked at “price increase” at all, but rather “how much” the price bump would be?