HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I shared nothing at all about “unusable”- still using the ULTRA Mac every day. It seems as fast and as capable as the first day I used it.
And “most people” CAN readily stretch the time they purchase by continuing to use a Mac they already own to “get work done now”- certainly easy to carry on for only up to 6 more months to save a few thousand to get a generally-superior chip.
As an ULTRA owner myself, I learned my lesson. If next gen MAX is only 6 months away, WAIT for generally more power for much less cost. That should be remarkably easy to understand.
And I’m simply sharing an objective consumer opinion- my own- which is free to be whatever I want it to be. As a consumer, I want lasting value… even more so if I pay way up for ULTRA.
If- as offered- Apple flipped the schedule to ULTRA first, MAX & PRO as is and BASE last, an ULTRA buyer probably gets at least double the time of perceiving they own most powerful available MAC… which is THE headline marketing line for ULTRA.
As is, ULTRA dragging in last undermines a prime reason to pay the hefty premium. A consumer can wait up to 6 months for next MAX and then they probably get that SAME psychological benefit until the NEXT MAX is released (since ULTRA doesn’t seem to be on an annual schedule too).
Speaking for myself, I don’t buy ULTRA again under these conditions. However a simple flip of the release schedule- which Apple could do- addresses this issue… so that the “most powerful Mac” gets to be that for towards at least 1 year or longer vs. only up to about 6 months. Such a move can be a win for Apple too by “pulling up” those who now wait for MAX and pay about half the price (and probably less profit to Apple).
Those who wait for “cheapest” would then be the ones up against the hop to the next gen M release… so some of them may rationalize at least PRO if not MAX instead of BASE vs waiting for BASE… thus more revenue and presumably profit for Apple. Apple likes maximum profit.
And “most people” CAN readily stretch the time they purchase by continuing to use a Mac they already own to “get work done now”- certainly easy to carry on for only up to 6 more months to save a few thousand to get a generally-superior chip.
As an ULTRA owner myself, I learned my lesson. If next gen MAX is only 6 months away, WAIT for generally more power for much less cost. That should be remarkably easy to understand.
And I’m simply sharing an objective consumer opinion- my own- which is free to be whatever I want it to be. As a consumer, I want lasting value… even more so if I pay way up for ULTRA.
If- as offered- Apple flipped the schedule to ULTRA first, MAX & PRO as is and BASE last, an ULTRA buyer probably gets at least double the time of perceiving they own most powerful available MAC… which is THE headline marketing line for ULTRA.
As is, ULTRA dragging in last undermines a prime reason to pay the hefty premium. A consumer can wait up to 6 months for next MAX and then they probably get that SAME psychological benefit until the NEXT MAX is released (since ULTRA doesn’t seem to be on an annual schedule too).
Speaking for myself, I don’t buy ULTRA again under these conditions. However a simple flip of the release schedule- which Apple could do- addresses this issue… so that the “most powerful Mac” gets to be that for towards at least 1 year or longer vs. only up to about 6 months. Such a move can be a win for Apple too by “pulling up” those who now wait for MAX and pay about half the price (and probably less profit to Apple).
Those who wait for “cheapest” would then be the ones up against the hop to the next gen M release… so some of them may rationalize at least PRO if not MAX instead of BASE vs waiting for BASE… thus more revenue and presumably profit for Apple. Apple likes maximum profit.
Last edited:
