Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook' started by musika, Mar 9, 2015.
A bit of a strange overlap here:
Agree. They should have dropped the price by $100 and dumped the mid-2012 MBP. Then you’d have:
11-inch MacBook Air: $899
13-inch MacBook Air: $999
13-inch MacBook: $1199
13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display: $1299
Also, the retina MacBook Pro’s standard storage should have been bumped to 256GB seeing as the less-powerful MacBook has 256GB standard.
They should increase the price of the professional laptop and bump specs a bit
You're comparing it in a wrong manner.
This is for people who complained the iPad lacks a keyboard, true multitasking, processing power and what not.
Now top iPad is $829, and you add a $100 keyboard to that, bump the SSD to double, another $200, bump RAM x4 to 8GB, $200 more.
That's around $1329. Now you get it for what it really is? Hence the color options.
Nah. I don't mind the pricing of the new MacBook. It's fine. I just think it clashes with another model that's better in so many ways, minus super thinness and newness.
I agree that the pricing is a little weird in the way that it overlaps like that. They don't overlap exactly like that in the UK, but the prices are around the same.
£1049 gets you a 1.1GHz rMB with 256GB
£1199 gets you a 2.7GHz rMBP with 256GB
£1299 gets you a 1.2GHz rMB with 512GB
£1399 gets you a 2.9GHz rMBP with 512GB
The decision about what Mac to buy is simply not about money anymore. If you want something ultra-portable, small and light, suitable for everyday tasks the New MacBook is perfect. If you want something more powerful, but still portable enough to carry from location to location, the MacBook Pro is perfect.
This is true with £100ish difference, the financial factor doesn't matter.
Depends on what you call everyday tasks, I doubt it'll be able to handle Netflix HD, it can't do FaceTime in HD, it basically looks like all HD media is out of the question.
I'd like to purchase the new MB as I like the portability and size but I'm not sold on whether it can handle HD media.
I guess I'll be waiting for the next MB or MBP, I refuse to upgrade before USB-C becomes available on the MBP.
Thinness comes at a price. Whether it is worth it or not - is for the consumer to decide.
That was never mentioned during the presentation and is not on Apple's website. Sound's made up to me.
That is one of the best statements I have read in a long time.
Thats the first release of the new Macbook. Of course its pricier. It will go down in price and find its place. Just like the retina pros did, the air did etc.
Remember the first price of a Macbook Air? People said they where crazy to sell a macbook with less ports and power at the price of the first Air. And still, its loved now.
I can assure you Core M can handle HD multimedia. If Bay Trail can handle it, Core M will have absolutely no issues whatsoever. And there's plenty of other Core M machines on the market that one can reference.
I agree Apple is positioning the Macbook wrong.
The Macbook should have been the entry level machine, replacing the Air line up. I expect this will happen eventually when the prices of high dpi displays and ssd storage comes down, but for now personally I don't see myself paying almost 1500 for a machine that has performance on par with 2011's Sandy Bridge.
But, in all fairness, it's an incredibly beautiful machine that weighs less than 1 kg. That alone is worth a lot by itself.
It'll handle HD media just fine, so no need to worry about Netflix. Core M isn't that low powered it can't handle streaming high quality media. From what I've read it will handle average daily use just as well as any broadwell chip. Internet browsing, media playback, word processing, and even light photo editing will be fine on this machine.
What it can't do is more demanding tasks. Gaming is pretty much a no for any recent games. Some will be playable on low settings, but this is definitely not a gaming laptop.
Doesn't take a genius to add 2 and 2. If apple did make that claim, people would then expect it to run ipad Apps, which it can't for obvious reasons. Also iPad has a slightly better battery life.
Can you really not see that this macbook picks up exactly where iPad lefts of at?
256GB SSD, 900gms, 12inch screen?
This is the iPad Pro (Atleast for now.)
Those people could've gotten an 11-inch Air for $1199
$1099 for 256GB + $100 more to bump it to 8GB memory.
Isn't this pretty similar to how the air was when it was first released, more expensive and less powerful than the other laptops.
New technology always costs the most at the start. I am sure they will drop the price in the coming years, while increasing performance.
Don't forget they usually price items at launch so that they don't have too many back orders or too many items not sold. With a mature product like a laptop they usually can guess fairly well how many they will sell and how many they can produce. When the manufacturing yield drops next year, so will the price.
It feels like this MacBook is supposed to be the low end version that MacBooks were originally. Realistically, I think the price should come down to $999 with some time. It's basically a glorified iPad Air with keyboard, force touch touchpad, and OS X. I think it's meant for the basic user with some light photo and video processing. The pricing I believe reflects an early adopter tax due to a larger retina display, force touch touchpad, and the new full size keyboard which has less key pitch. Anyone using a MacBook Pro or MacBook Air that need to do more media stuff I think would be hard pressed to purchase one of these new MacBooks.
By keeping the MacBook Air lineup around I think that might be much harder to estimate. Then again Apple has been doing this for a long time and is pretty good at it.
It's a rev 1 device. Just like the original macbook air, retina macbook pro, retina iMac... it makes sense for few people at release but represents the future of the lineup. They all had usability issues and were steeply priced for what they offered.
For most people, the air or pro make much more sense. But for a few early adaptors, the rMB is precisely what they're after. They're ready to pay a premium and Apple is happy to get some beta testers. I expect that in a few years, we'll see the rMB take over the macbook air. The kinks will be taken out. The core m equivalent processor will be much more powerful (or Apple will be able to cool a more capable chip), and just like the original macbook air got more peripheral connections when it took over the MB line, I'd expect the rMB to get a connectivity boost as well.
Sorry but it is 1299$ vs 1499$
The 1299$ MBP is with 128SSD and not 256 like the Macbook 12"
So it still 200$ more for the pro with a better CPU and iGPU
some of they cost is due to slimness
but yes, it does seem a bit expensive comparitively
i think it will replace the air when they release a 14" version in the future
I've been doing some research. And right now all the thin & light core m ultrabooks are about the same price.
Here's an example that is very close to the new MB but is a bit heavier.
Yes it runs Windows but all competitors to the MB do, I think. (I don't count Chromebooks)
So this isn't that pricey and it comes with new tech like the Force Touch track pad and new "butterfly" keyboard with key LEDs.
The biggest concern, in my view, is whether the GPU is sufficiently powerful to keep up with advances in online media.
I previously owned the 2008 Unibody Macbook, and the biggest bottleneck on that machine was the integrated GPU. I recall flash videos literally crippling the machine, which likely accounts for a good majority of the crap we consume on the internet. If it wasn't for that terrible GPU, I probably could have squeezed a few more years out of that machine.
Not only that, but will there be any issues with scaling on the retina screen? Is the Core M powerful enough to drive that screen at high resolution on a dynamic website? What about 2 years from now?
What do others think about this? I confess that I don't know much about the technical specifications, but I just don't trust Apple on the GPU front. They've historically underperformed in this area, and by quite a large margin.