MP vs MBP depreciation

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by sbb155, Apr 24, 2011.

  1. sbb155 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    #1
    When I look at the depreciation of MBP, it is much worse than a MP. For example, 2008 models of MP have depreciated by about ~50%, while MBP have depreciated ~75% for similar price starting price point of the computers.
    This is from a popular auction site.
    In general is this historically the case? Are MP in greater demand? It is interesting that it is a low volume model, but resale values stay high, meaning there is more demand on the secondary market.
     
  2. johnnymg macrumors 65816

    johnnymg

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    #2
    The MAIN reason for the good price on older MP's is that new MP's have gone WAY up in cost and MBP's haven't.

    When I was shopping for a MP I quickly discovered that an epp purchase was a MUCH better "deal" than a used MP.

    JohnG
     
  3. philipma1957, Apr 24, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2011

    philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #3
    Right now all older MBP's are woefully weak when compared to the new model that replaced it. So they have dropped a lot in price. The base 2010 13 inch MBP has geekbench score of 4800 the base 2011 MBP HAS A SCORE OVER 8000.

    This is a huge improvement! So older MBP's are doing as bad as they have ever done for resale due to the huge 2011 upgrade.

    BTW MBP's don't hold value as well as mac mini's either. I suspect that the sandy bridge/ T-Bolt upgrades will be harmful to older iMacs and mac mini values when those machines get done.

    MP's age well better parts and can get a lot of upgrades. A 2008 is still a very good piece of gear. It should get support by Lion so it won't get out of date until 2013 or so. A 2008 MBP is dated as I type.
     
  4. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #4
    While there are some other factors the main one is simple supply and demand. The same reason why MBPs hold their value over non-mac notebooks.
     
  5. Cmd-the-World macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    #5
    Another factor I think that effects the different resale value is the fact that the MBP is portable.

    Since the MBP is carried around there is a high chance that it had a small bump or two. Which lowers the resale value. While the MP is in a single place (for most people) and thus the case is still in "perfect" condition.

    Another thing is that the MBP has a battery that after a few recharge cycles it would start to deteriorate thus reducing it's functionality and resale value. Depending on it's cindition the buyer would need to send the MBP to Apple to have it replaced extra cost on the buyer.

    This is what I think. If I would buyer a second hand MBP I would take these factors into consideration apart from the usual dilemmas about it's CPU and the rest.
     
  6. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    The MBPs get updated far more often than the MP, so they "age" quicker, decreasing their resale value. Almost two MBPs a year, whereas the Mac Pro gets update every what, 18 months?

    The fact that you can't upgrade a notebook has already been said.
    Pop in two 3GHz quad cores, 16GB RAM, a 5870 and some SSDs in a 2006 Mac Pro and you still have a more than decent machine for the vast majority of tasks.
    A 2006MBP, however, is pretty much done these days. A maximum of 2GB RAM and a SATA 1.5Gb/s interface make this machine not impossible to upgrade, by beyond practicality.
     
  7. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #7
    A grease monkey can change almost anything about a Mac Pro whereas MBPs are PITAs to upgrade
     
  8. kevink2 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    #8
    Also, up until a few years ago the portables were limited to 4GB of RAM, so weren't as future proof. But my 3 year old Mac Pro doesn't have that limit, and I'm running 14GB on it. If iMacs or MBPs of the time could have supported more RAM, I would have gone that route instead.
     

Share This Page