NVIDIA Exiting Chipset Business Pending Resolution of Licensing Dispute With Intel

[mosx]

I don't get all of this talk of integrated graphics.

If Dell can fit the 9400M chipset and a dedicated 9500M in the Dell Studio XPS 13 with an overall size very similar to the 13.3" Macs (Dell is a little "deeper", MacBook is a little wider) as well as an 8-in-1 card reader, HDMI, DisplayPort, VGA, Firewire, USB, USB/eSATA, and a full size ExpressCard54 slot, I don't see why Apple can't stick a dedicated GPU along with the chipset in a 13.3" Mac. The MacBook Air I can understand, but it will probably be on Core 2 Duos for some time to come. But with the MacBook and MacBook "Pro" theres no reason dedicated graphics can't be used.

The 12" iBook was about the same size, arguably smaller overall (width, depth), and it had dedicated graphics. No reason it can't be done in a 13.3" Mac.

 

[nanofrog]

I don't get all of this talk of integrated graphics.

If Dell can fit the 9400M chipset and a dedicated 9500M in the Dell Studio XPS 13 with an overall size very similar to the 13.3" Macs (Dell is a little "deeper", MacBook is a little wider) as well as an 8-in-1 card reader, HDMI, DisplayPort, VGA, Firewire, USB, USB/eSATA, and a full size ExpressCard54 slot, I don't see why Apple can't stick a dedicated GPU along with the chipset in a 13.3" Mac. The MacBook Air I can understand, but it will probably be on Core 2 Duos for some time to come. But with the MacBook and MacBook "Pro" theres no reason dedicated graphics can't be used.

It can be fit (layout is tight, but possible), but it will depend on parts availability as well as costs (where the model fits, and what the manufacturing budget is).

Apple's greedy, and would be more willing than some of the competition to skip a dedicated graphics solution in a laptop to increase margins. Assuming such parts are available (i.e. AMD steps in to deliver a solution), and not insanely prohibitive cost wise (which they're actually good at), the explaination to "why not" would be "it consumes too much power <or> it contains hazerdous materials". Something along the "green" aspect of Apple's marketing.

 

[mosx]

It can be fit (layout is tight, but possible), but it will depend on parts availability as well as costs (where the model fits, and what the manufacturing budget is).

Apple's greedy, and would be more willing than some of the competition to skip a dedicated graphics solution in a laptop to increase margins. Assuming such parts are available (i.e. AMD steps in to deliver a solution), and not insanely prohibitive cost wise (which they're actually good at), the explaination to "why not" would be "it consumes too much power <or> it contains hazerdous materials". Something along the "green" aspect of Apple's marketing.

Haha yeah, I think we're all well aware of Apple's greed. It hasn't even been a year yet since DVD writers became standard on their systems. Barely a year since DVD writers became standard on their portable systems too. They were selling a system with a CD-RW/DVD-ROM combo drive and Intel graphics for the same price as others were selling systems with blu-ray and top notch dedicated graphics for awhile there.

Theres no reason they can't use dedicated graphics but, oh no, they'll only make a 45% profit instead of 50%!

 

[nanofrog]

Haha yeah, I think we're all well aware of Apple's greed. It hasn't even been a year yet since DVD writers became standard on their systems. Barely a year since DVD writers became standard on their portable systems too.

Theres no reason they can't use dedicated graphics but, oh no, they'll only make a 45% profit instead of 50%!

Yes, but in this case, the parts availability will out-weigh the margin aspect if they're not available in time to meet manufacturing (at least some sort of window).

Timing of parts availability (from anouncement, if it happens) to coincide with manufacturing of an end product will be critical.

 

[mosx]

Yes, but in this case, the parts availability will out-weigh the margin aspect if they're not available in time to meet manufacturing (at least some sort of window).

Timing of parts availability (from anouncement, if it happens) to coincide with manufacturing of an end product will be critical.

Well, Apple just needs to stop with their "we update our products when we feel like it" cycle and adopt a cycle similar to everyone else in the industry. Which is basically updating the product with new technology as it comes along. For example, the Dell Studio XPS 13 now has an option for an "nvidia GeForce N10M GS".

Everyone else in the industry just updates their products with the new technology as it hits, without the need for a major redesign or launch.

Apple's update cycle means that their products become stale and behind the rest of the pack only a couple of months after launch. Right after Apple put the GeForce 9600M GT in their notebooks, the rest of the industry was moving on to the GT 100 and more powerful lines. The 9600M GT had already run its course by the time Apple started using it.

So yeah.. Apple just needs to get off the high horse and realize that products need to evolve with time. In this industry you can't pick a design and stick with it for 6-8 months like they tend to do. You also can't pick a design and stick with it 8 months and then give it a SLIGHT spec bump like they did with the unibody launch to refresh in June. Your product has to be designed to be able to evolve as the new technology rapidly becomes available.

Look at the 13.3" MacBook "Pro" now. It has barely changed since the unibody MacBook intro almost a year ago now. It ships with a 2.26GHz Core 2 Duo and a Firewire port now, yet thats all that has changed. The Dell Studio XPS 13, for $5 less than that system, comes with 4GB of RAM, a 500GB 7200 RPM HDD, dual GPUs running in hybrid SLI using the new "N10M GS", as well as a host of other features.

Basically, if you stick with a product that can't evolve as time goes on and has to only be updated once or sometimes twice a year, you're going to fall behind the rest of the crowd very rapidly. And thats whats happening now and has been happening since the introduction of the Intel Macs.

Look at the MacBook Pro 15.4" systems now. If Apple doesn't change the "refresh" cycle and sticks to the current 6-8 month cycle, they'll be going into 2010 with dual core processors and low end GPUS (the 9600M GT is already more than a year and a half old and was only mid-range at launch) while everyone else at the same price point has quad core, blu-ray, and modern high end GPUs.

In this industry you can't just design a product and stick with it for that long. If the dedicated GPU won't be ready for a month after your ship date, you can't just say "oh, well, that'll be in the next refresh 8 months from now!" No, you need to design your product to ship as is now and then be refreshed immediately as that technology becomes available. Everyone else does this. There is no reason Apple shouldn't.

 

[Willson]

Well, Apple just needs to stop with their "we update our products when we feel like it" cycle and adopt a cycle similar to everyone else in the industry. Which is basically updating the product with new technology as it comes along. For example, the Dell Studio XPS 13 now has an option for an "nvidia GeForce N10M GS".

...

In this industry you can't just design a product and stick with it for that long. If the dedicated GPU won't be ready for a month after your ship date, you can't just say "oh, well, that'll be in the next refresh 8 months from now!" No, you need to design your product to ship as is now and then be refreshed immediately as that technology becomes available. Everyone else does this. There is no reason Apple shouldn't.

You say "industry" like that includes Apple, HP, Toshiba, Dell etc. yet it's really Apple Vs. The Rest.

What I'm trying to say is that other PC manufacturers are having to compete with the others to differentiate themselves. "This is faster" "This looks better" "More storage on this". The specifications are the only thing that makes you buy a Dell over HP. This is why they have to move when new components come out because everyone else is.

With a Mac the fact it's a Mac is the differentiating factor. Then you just go as powerful as you want/can afford.

Apple don't HAVE to compete in a specifications race. I also guess it helps their profit margins (price of components comes down the further into the lifecycle, streamlined manufacturing process etc.).

Don't forget as well that raw specifications don't really mean anything. On that Dell XPS Vista can't take advantage of those cores and GPU like Snow Leopard could with OpenCL & GCD.

 

[nanofrog]

In this industry you can't pick a design and stick with it for 6-8 months like they tend to do.

Basically, they do. But they tend only to follow Intel's CPU cycle, and not the rest of the hardware improvements (model changes usually center on CPU's, and even less so on the laptops).

Not quite the same for the MP's, and the iMac's aren't much more than a laptop chained to the desk.

That said, some of Apple's ideas of upgrades are dismal, and center around appearance, not improvements in the technology. They're also looking for parts that will maximize their margins, not the competitve edge hardware wise vs. other VARs, such as Dell or HP. Their position is the OS is enough to separate them from the rest of the vendors, and should be enough for Mac users.

You might also want to keep in mind, that their idea of a "performance" system, is different. Mid-grade comparitive to the competition is more like it. Seriously.

Those with any sense (realize it's the same base hardware as the competition), know this is an issue, especially for the cost. It's a bit better for the laptop lines, as they do attempt to compete more so in this market vs. say the MP in terms of cost, but it's not wonderful. And as you point out, it's not on parity for the hardware you can get elsewhere for similar funds, making the cost/performance ratio really suck.

Look at the 13.3" MacBook "Pro" now. It has barely changed since the unibody MacBook intro almost a year ago now. It ships with a 2.26GHz Core 2 Duo and a Firewire port now, yet thats all that has changed. The Dell Studio XPS 13, for $5 less than that system, comes with 4GB of RAM, a 500GB 7200 RPM HDD, dual GPUs running in hybrid SLI using the new "N10M GS", as well as a host of other features.

The Dell is competing against multiple systems, and are fully aware of this, so they want any edge they can afford to use and make a profit. Apple is antiquated in the sense they think their OS is so unique, the hardware isn't as important. All kinds of reasons surface, with imaginitive statements of "Bag of Hurt" for BluRay, or on the lines of "green" issues, such as too much power draw or the parts contain hazardous compounds.

Most users either aren't aware of it, or just don't care. They have needs and wants to fulfill.

Look at the MacBook Pro 15.4" systems now. If Apple doesn't change the "refresh" cycle and sticks to the current 6-8 month cycle, they'll be going into 2010 with dual core processors and low end GPUS (the 9600M GT is already more than a year and a half old and was only mid-range at launch) while everyone else at the same price point has quad core, blu-ray, and modern high end GPUs.

Apple's got a long history with poor graphics offerings. As per the rest of it, it has to do with costs, including the simplification of development (i.e. recycling of the older parts in the "new" models, such as CPU's, with maybe a clock increase).

If the dedicated GPU won't be ready for a month after your ship date, you can't just say "oh, well, that'll be in the next refresh 8 months from now!" No, you need to design your product to ship as is now and then be refreshed immediately as that technology becomes available. Everyone else does this. There is no reason Apple shouldn't.

Actually, they'd be best served by waiting a month to get the necessary parts. Those with 1 month old, out dated systems would be rightly pissed off, and wanting a free upgrade. The remaining unsold stock would have to be discounted to move it as well. This is expensive, so the wait is the better choice for both financial reasons and customer satisfaction.

But hardware does change quickly, and Apple is slow to move in the laptop range (iMac's too). They're far more focused on the iPod & iPhone these days, and are ruining thier computer side.

Maybe they'll learn, but my guess is, they're depending on Steve's Kool Aid to do the trick. Eventually however, I think enough people will sober up, and quit buying if they don't change with the times. Just my opinion though.

 

[nanofrog]

Don't forget as well that raw specifications don't really mean anything. On that Dell XPS Vista can't take advantage of those cores and GPU like Snow Leopard could with OpenCL & GCD.

Actually, neither can SL. The OS itself, perhaps, if it can be broken down (multi-threaded code) or parceled off the the GPU. But there's no mainstream software capable of it, and won't be for awhile. 3rd party developers need time, and may even wait, depending on their development cycles. Apple has absolutely no control over this. Only what they develop themselves. So they can change their own applications to utilize these features. That's it.

Most of the multi-threaded software does it on it's own (developed prior to the creation of SL's API's), and so far, there's nothing out that can utilize OpenCL. We don't even know what the graphics chips/cards can really do, save one utility I'm aware of. Not much to go on just yet.

 

[KnightWRX]

Let's take a look at Dell's offering, they have the new Inspiron 14z that's pretty similar to the MacBook Pro 13" in thickness and weight. Let's see... hum... fastest CPU I can choose is a Core 2 Duo 1.4 GHZ... and no, I can't choose it, it's not compatible to the Intel GMA X4500, yet that's the only video card option What the heck Dell ? Why even offer it as an option if I can't pick it ?

So the only processor option I can choose is the Pentium Dual Core. Whatever that is, 1.3 ghz...

So I guess we can't really compare it to the Apple machine.

So let's see, what can I get at Dell that's about the same... hum... Inspiron 13...

For 1,199$ CDN (vs 1,399$ for the MBP 13"), I get :

2.4ghz core 2 duo, but with 800 mhz FSB.
3 GB RAM but DDR2.
Intel GMA X3100

Oh, but how nice, I can't get rid of a compatibility alert when I add bluetooth... So I guess I can't get that. I do get a bigger hard drive at 250 GB, too bad I don't personally care.

So in the end, yes the Dell might be cheaper, but not by that much. You also don't quite get spec parity, you get some stuff that's better, some that's worse.

However, the Dell is also much thicker and heavier. Too bad about that lightweight 14z that you can't quite get up to spec...

I think you guys are exagerating Apple's position (of course, if you didn't, your trolls wouldn't quite work). Apple's #1 problem and strength is lack of customization. You can't remove Bluetooth, get the crappier battery, cheaper graphics, cheaper processor. You're stuck with 1 configuration. Also, while Dell will keep up mostly with some hardware, they will seriously lack in other or offer it as options which you have to pick to compare to a Apple computer.

In the end, Apple aren't so far out of the market as you put it. Same for the all-in-ones. HP still uses Core 2 Duos in theirs and they are priced similar to what the iMac is. For ordinary joes that don't look at nerd porn specs, but features, Apple machines are quite on par with the rest of the market and that's why they sell.

And you guys do realise that if you're whining on Apple's prices it's because you really want their machines... Otherwise why even bother, you'd be on dellrumors.com instead of in here crying because you can't afford a Mac.

 

[MacDSmith2]

I don't know how the Intel riff with NVIDIA will play out, but I think I am on pretty solid ground when I say there is no way Apple is going to build a mix and match of Intel Processors with AMD / ATI GPU or chip sets, nor are they going to leave Intel for AMD processors. So whatever minimal chip count solution that works with Intel processors, keeps wattage down and price low, is what Apple will pick for it's product line. Does that allow for quad core? I don't know, but one thing I do know, the computers ain't gonna get thicker!

 

[mosx]

Apple don't HAVE to compete in a specifications race.

This kind of mentality is why Apple will never move out of the low single digits when it comes to worldwide market share.

Apple DOES have to compete with specs. In fact, in the past, they DID compete with specs. Go to the web archive and look up some of their pre-Intel product pages. The G4 Mac mini was pushed as a gaming machine!

Now Apple tries to use other selling points that simply aren't true or don't matter to most people. You can try to push "style" all you want Apple, but people prefer functionality over form.

Don't forget as well that raw specifications don't really mean anything. On that Dell XPS Vista can't take advantage of those cores and GPU like Snow Leopard could with OpenCL & GCD.

Things like these untrue statements are what Apple tries to use these days.

Grand Central Dispatch? Don't forget that Windows had SMP support well before Mac OS did, and Windows apps tend to be more efficient to begin with. Just look at Flash for a good case in point. When it comes to multi-threaded apps, software developers have been doing this for years now. Well before GCD came along. They don't need Apple's API to get them to do something they've already done if they felt their app needed it.

When it comes to OpenCL, don't forget a few things. First being that its multi-platform. Second, there are now years more worth of apps on Windows that take advantage of nvidia's CUDA than there are apps taking advantage of OpenCL in Snow Leopard. In fact, what apps in OS X actually take advantage of OpenCL other than built-in Apple apps using it to load up faster? Besides that, what would actually benefit from OpenCL? Video encoding? Sure, CUDA apps in Windows have been doing that for years now. But guess what? Even though that technology has been around for years, the high quality encoders are still CPU based and the makers of those apps are focused more on quality refinements, not going through an entire code rewrite to get it to take advantage of GPUs. I would personally rather wait a few more minutes for high quality video.

What else would OpenCL be good for? Video decoding? Windows supported full bitstream decoding before CUDA was made available through DirectX Video Acceleration. Windows has been taking full advantage of hardware video playback as far as whatever the hardware supports for years now. In fact, on my Mac, it takes less CPU time to play blu-ray video under Windows than it does to play a DVD under Mac OS X Snow Leopard.

Don't forget that Windows had pre-emptive multi-tasking more than half a decade before Mac OS did. So Windows has an extremely nice head start on Mac OS when it comes to SMP and GPGPU stuff, as well as proper multi-tasking.

Basically, they do. But they tend only to follow Intel's CPU cycle, and not the rest of the hardware improvements (model changes usually center on CPU's, and even less so on the laptops).

The rest of the industry tend to do full product updates when they feel like it. Technology updates, however, become available in the product as they become available to everyone. Hence the reason everyone else in the industry has moved well beyond the GeForce 9 series and Apple is still pushing it as the latest and greatest.

That said, some of Apple's ideas of upgrades are dismal, and center around appearance, not improvements in the technology. They're also looking for parts that will maximize their margins, not the competitve edge hardware wise vs. other VARs, such as Dell or HP. Their position is the OS is enough to separate them from the rest of the vendors, and should be enough for Mac users.

I definitely agree with that. Apple always puts form over functionality first. Thats why we have anorexic notebooks that cost more and do less than Windows PCs. Then Apple pushes the fact that it ships with OS X as somehow better. Having spiffy software can't make up for the fact that your hardware sucks, especially when you're trying to convince people your OS is better when it doesn't even have 1/4 of the software titles available to it that Windows does.

If you're trying to convince people your product is better, Apple, then you need to actually MAKE your product better. Not just make it look better, but make it a more capable product. You can't do that when you focus on form and strip away hardware features, and sell an OS that some might argue is "more stable and secure" but doesn't offer nearly as much as the competition in almost every way.

Apple is antiquated in the sense they think their OS is so unique, the hardware isn't as important. All kinds of reasons surface, with imaginitive statements of "Bag of Hurt" for BluRay, or on the lines of "green" issues, such as too much power draw or the parts contain hazardous compounds.

I laughed out loud when Apple claimed blu-ray was a "bag of hurt". Thats definitely one of those "pot and kettle" moments, as Apple is the definition of proprietary and closed systems.

I know a lot of people who have felt that Apple hasn't done enough to make OS X better over the last few years. They mostly switched to Macs because they were tired of using Windows XP for half a decade or longer. But now with Windows 7 coming a long, I know a good amount of people who are running Windows 7 only on their Mac and couldn't care less about Snow Leopard.

Apple can't ride the OS train forever, because their recent success is due in large part to Microsoft's failure to get Vista out on time. But now that Windows 7 has leap frogged over OS X, it's only a matter of time before people start ignoring OS X all together.

Another bad thing for Apple is the fact that the majority of Mac users I have known over the last few years are women, and they bought their Mac because it was "stylish" and were 100% relieved to find out it could run Windows. Their brand loyalty only goes as far as how stylish a computer is. I already know of one person that switched back to a Dell because it was a better looking computer in her eyes. I'm sure it won't be long before the rest go too.

Actually, they'd be best served by waiting a month to get the necessary parts. Those with 1 month old, out dated systems would be rightly pissed off, and wanting a free upgrade. The remaining unsold stock would have to be discounted to move it as well. This is expensive, so the wait is the better choice for both financial reasons and customer satisfaction.

Well, this is what most other companies do. But most others rely on custom built orders to begin with and, unlike Apple, actually offer a return policy on custom builds and in most cases its long enough to cover such upgrades. Plus Apple only keeps a couple of weeks worth of stock on hand anyway, so it wouldn't be too bad.

Certain companies, like Asus, wait for the proper parts to be on hand and build their system according. But Dell and HP will start shipping their built to order systems right away and the build time plus return policy generally covers any one who might not be satisfied and wants an upgrade. I know for a fact that HP did a lot of return/upgrades with the dv6000 series a few years ago when they started shipping the dedicated GPUs in them.

Let's take a look at Dell's offering, they have the new Inspiron 14z that's pretty similar to the MacBook Pro 13" in thickness and weight. Let's see... hum... fastest CPU I can choose is a Core 2 Duo 1.4 GHZ... and no, I can't choose it, it's not compatible to the Intel GMA X4500, yet that's the only video card option

Bzzt wrong. Dell Studio XPS 13 is available in Canada.

Funny how Apple fans mock the Intel GPUs now. Barely a year ago Apple fans defended the Intel GPU as "being good enough for consumers and if you need better, you're a 'Pro' and should buy a 'Pro' machine".

But anyway, this whole "size equivalent" argument has been shot down many times. It simply does not work because Apple does NOT give you other choices in that price range. If you have $1300 to spend you only have ONE choice.

So basically, if you want a Mac and you only have $1,300 to spend, theres only ONE system for you to buy. However, with PCs, if you have $1,300, you have about 1,300 choices too.

For 1,199$ CDN (vs 1,399$ for the MBP 13"), I get :

2.4ghz core 2 duo, but with 800 mhz FSB.
3 GB RAM but DDR2.
Intel GMA X3100

Oh, but how nice, I can't get rid of a compatibility alert when I add bluetooth... So I guess I can't get that. I do get a bigger hard drive at 250 GB, too bad I don't personally care.

So in the end, yes the Dell might be cheaper, but not by that much. You also don't quite get spec parity, you get some stuff that's better, some that's worse.

I'm on the Dell Canada website right now. For $1,299 I get a Core 2 Duo 2.13GHz, 4GB of DDR3 RAM, 320GB 7200 RPM HDD, 512MB GeForce N10M GS and GeForce 9400M.

I can add an LED backlight and Bluetooth if I choose. But in the 4 years I've had Bluetooth on a computer, I have NEVER used it. So I don't see the point at all. Even Apple's own iPhone doesn't take advantage of Bluetooth beyond headset capabilities and corny gaming, essentially proving its useless. Apple uses edge-lit LEDs, so theres no benefit to image quality.

However, the Dell is also much thicker and heavier. Too bad about that lightweight 14z that you can't quite get up to spec…

The Dell Studio XPS is "wedge" shaped, making it thinner at the front and thicker at the back. Makes it easier to hold plus it allows for a proper cooling system. As far as weight goes, its only a few ounces heavier.

I think you guys are exagerating Apple's position (of course, if you didn't, your trolls wouldn't quite work). Apple's #1 problem and strength is lack of customization. You can't remove Bluetooth, get the crappier battery, cheaper graphics, cheaper processor

Aside from theoretical battery life, Apple already offers the bottom of the barrel for their configurations. How many other $2,000 notebooks offer only a 256MB GeForce 9600M GT and a 320GB 5400 RPM HDD?

Even if I go configure Dell's Studio XPS 16 at similar specs, It's still around $700 cheaper. Thats with an LED backlit screen.

The only way I can get it CLOSE to the same price as the MacBook Pro with dedicated graphics is to up the processor to 2.8GHz, upgrade the GPU to a Radeon 4670 1GB, go with the RGBLED backlit screen for an extra $250, a 500GB 7200 RPM HDD (only an extra $75, they don't offer 5400 RPM on any drive), and other extras like TWO nine cell batteries and an extra sound card.

But if I go with a configuration similar to the MacBook Pro, it ends up being around $700 cheaper. With a blu-ray reader, it ends up being only $1379.

In the end, Apple aren't so far out of the market as you put it. Same for the all-in-ones. HP still uses Core 2 Duos in theirs and they are priced similar to what the iMac is. For ordinary joes that don't look at nerd porn specs, but features, Apple machines are quite on par with the rest of the market and that's why they sell.

First off, Apple is the only one that successfully sells all-in-ones proving that people don't want all-in-one computers.

Secondly, Apple is so far off from other companies when it comes to features its not even funny. Look at the MacBook for instance. Two USB, Firewire 400, mini DVI, analog and digital audio in and out, ethernet, DVD writer. Okay, compared to a PC in that same price range, wheres the larger screen? Wheres the 16x9 screen? Wheres eSATA? Wheres HDMI with audio? Wheres blu-ray? Wheres the full size ExpressCard slot?

Same goes for the MacBook Pro. Where's eSATA? Wheres HDMI with audio? Wheres blu-ray? Wheres the full size ExpressCard slot? Wheres the multi-card reader? Wheres the user swappable battery? Wheres the 16x9 screens? Where are the other built to order options like fingerprint readers? Why do matte displays cost more?

Where are the fully upgradeable desktops? Why don't they have standard PCI slots, since the majority of expansion cards are still PCI and many that are PCIe are just PCI cards with a PCIe connector and translator?

And you guys do realise that if you're whining on Apple's prices it's because you really want their machines... Otherwise why even bother, you'd be on dellrumors.com instead of in here crying because you can't afford a Mac.

Another weak and bunk argument. I typed this entire post on the very same MacBook you have listed in your sig $1406 and some change.

It wasn't until after the return window had closed that I had realized I spent far too much money for far too little hardware.

Does that allow for quad core? I don't know, but one thing I do know, the computers ain't gonna get thicker!

I'd rather have a ~1.4" thick notebook that has a quad core CPU with high end dedicated graphics for the same price as the entry MacBook Pro like I can get right now than an anorexic system that can't do half as much but costs just as much.

 

[MorphingDragon]

This kind of mentality is why Apple will never move out of the low single digits when it comes to worldwide market share.

Apple DOES have to compete with specs. In fact, in the past, they DID compete with specs. Go to the web archive and look up some of their pre-Intel product pages. The G4 Mac mini was pushed as a gaming machine!

Now Apple tries to use other selling points that simply aren't true or don't matter to most people. You can try to push "style" all you want Apple, but people prefer functionality over form.



Things like these untrue statements are what Apple tries to use these days.

Grand Central Dispatch? Don't forget that Windows had SMP support well before Mac OS did, and Windows apps tend to be more efficient to begin with. Just look at Flash for a good case in point. When it comes to multi-threaded apps, software developers have been doing this for years now. Well before GCD came along. They don't need Apple's API to get them to do something they've already done if they felt their app needed it.

When it comes to OpenCL, don't forget a few things. First being that its multi-platform. Second, there are now years more worth of apps on Windows that take advantage of nvidia's CUDA than there are apps taking advantage of OpenCL in Snow Leopard. In fact, what apps in OS X actually take advantage of OpenCL other than built-in Apple apps using it to load up faster? Besides that, what would actually benefit from OpenCL? Video encoding? Sure, CUDA apps in Windows have been doing that for years now. But guess what? Even though that technology has been around for years, the high quality encoders are still CPU based and the makers of those apps are focused more on quality refinements, not going through an entire code rewrite to get it to take advantage of GPUs. I would personally rather wait a few more minutes for high quality video.

What else would OpenCL be good for? Video decoding? Windows supported full bitstream decoding before CUDA was made available through DirectX Video Acceleration. Windows has been taking full advantage of hardware video playback as far as whatever the hardware supports for years now. In fact, on my Mac, it takes less CPU time to play blu-ray video under Windows than it does to play a DVD under Mac OS X Snow Leopard.

Don't forget that Windows had pre-emptive multi-tasking more than half a decade before Mac OS did. So Windows has an extremely nice head start on Mac OS when it comes to SMP and GPGPU stuff, as well as proper multi-tasking.



The rest of the industry tend to do full product updates when they feel like it. Technology updates, however, become available in the product as they become available to everyone. Hence the reason everyone else in the industry has moved well beyond the GeForce 9 series and Apple is still pushing it as the latest and greatest.



I definitely agree with that. Apple always puts form over functionality first. Thats why we have anorexic notebooks that cost more and do less than Windows PCs. Then Apple pushes the fact that it ships with OS X as somehow better. Having spiffy software can't make up for the fact that your hardware sucks, especially when you're trying to convince people your OS is better when it doesn't even have 1/4 of the software titles available to it that Windows does.

If you're trying to convince people your product is better, Apple, then you need to actually MAKE your product better. Not just make it look better, but make it a more capable product. You can't do that when you focus on form and strip away hardware features, and sell an OS that some might argue is "more stable and secure" but doesn't offer nearly as much as the competition in almost every way.



I laughed out loud when Apple claimed blu-ray was a "bag of hurt". Thats definitely one of those "pot and kettle" moments, as Apple is the definition of proprietary and closed systems.

I know a lot of people who have felt that Apple hasn't done enough to make OS X better over the last few years. They mostly switched to Macs because they were tired of using Windows XP for half a decade or longer. But now with Windows 7 coming a long, I know a good amount of people who are running Windows 7 only on their Mac and couldn't care less about Snow Leopard.

Apple can't ride the OS train forever, because their recent success is due in large part to Microsoft's failure to get Vista out on time. But now that Windows 7 has leap frogged over OS X, it's only a matter of time before people start ignoring OS X all together.

Another bad thing for Apple is the fact that the majority of Mac users I have known over the last few years are women, and they bought their Mac because it was "stylish" and were 100% relieved to find out it could run Windows. Their brand loyalty only goes as far as how stylish a computer is. I already know of one person that switched back to a Dell because it was a better looking computer in her eyes. I'm sure it won't be long before the rest go too.



Well, this is what most other companies do. But most others rely on custom built orders to begin with and, unlike Apple, actually offer a return policy on custom builds and in most cases its long enough to cover such upgrades. Plus Apple only keeps a couple of weeks worth of stock on hand anyway, so it wouldn't be too bad.

Certain companies, like Asus, wait for the proper parts to be on hand and build their system according. But Dell and HP will start shipping their built to order systems right away and the build time plus return policy generally covers any one who might not be satisfied and wants an upgrade. I know for a fact that HP did a lot of return/upgrades with the dv6000 series a few years ago when they started shipping the dedicated GPUs in them.



Bzzt wrong. Dell Studio XPS 13 is available in Canada.

Funny how Apple fans mock the Intel GPUs now. Barely a year ago Apple fans defended the Intel GPU as "being good enough for consumers and if you need better, you're a 'Pro' and should buy a 'Pro' machine".

But anyway, this whole "size equivalent" argument has been shot down many times. It simply does not work because Apple does NOT give you other choices in that price range. If you have $1300 to spend you only have ONE choice.

So basically, if you want a Mac and you only have $1,300 to spend, theres only ONE system for you to buy. However, with PCs, if you have $1,300, you have about 1,300 choices too.



I'm on the Dell Canada website right now. For $1,299 I get a Core 2 Duo 2.13GHz, 4GB of DDR3 RAM, 320GB 7200 RPM HDD, 512MB GeForce N10M GS and GeForce 9400M.

I can add an LED backlight and Bluetooth if I choose. But in the 4 years I've had Bluetooth on a computer, I have NEVER used it. So I don't see the point at all. Even Apple's own iPhone doesn't take advantage of Bluetooth beyond headset capabilities and corny gaming, essentially proving its useless. Apple uses edge-lit LEDs, so theres no benefit to image quality.



The Dell Studio XPS is "wedge" shaped, making it thinner at the front and thicker at the back. Makes it easier to hold plus it allows for a proper cooling system. As far as weight goes, its only a few ounces heavier.



Aside from theoretical battery life, Apple already offers the bottom of the barrel for their configurations. How many other $2,000 notebooks offer only a 256MB GeForce 9600M GT and a 320GB 5400 RPM HDD?

Even if I go configure Dell's Studio XPS 16 at similar specs, It's still around $700 cheaper. Thats with an LED backlit screen.

The only way I can get it CLOSE to the same price as the MacBook Pro with dedicated graphics is to up the processor to 2.8GHz, upgrade the GPU to a Radeon 4670 1GB, go with the RGBLED backlit screen for an extra $250, a 500GB 7200 RPM HDD (only an extra $75, they don't offer 5400 RPM on any drive), and other extras like TWO nine cell batteries and an extra sound card.

But if I go with a configuration similar to the MacBook Pro, it ends up being around $700 cheaper. With a blu-ray reader, it ends up being only $1379.



First off, Apple is the only one that successfully sells all-in-ones proving that people don't want all-in-one computers.

Secondly, Apple is so far off from other companies when it comes to features its not even funny. Look at the MacBook for instance. Two USB, Firewire 400, mini DVI, analog and digital audio in and out, ethernet, DVD writer. Okay, compared to a PC in that same price range, wheres the larger screen? Wheres the 16x9 screen? Wheres eSATA? Wheres HDMI with audio? Wheres blu-ray? Wheres the full size ExpressCard slot?

Same goes for the MacBook Pro. Where's eSATA? Wheres HDMI with audio? Wheres blu-ray? Wheres the full size ExpressCard slot? Wheres the multi-card reader? Wheres the user swappable battery? Wheres the 16x9 screens? Where are the other built to order options like fingerprint readers? Why do matte displays cost more?

Where are the fully upgradeable desktops? Why don't they have standard PCI slots, since the majority of expansion cards are still PCI and many that are PCIe are just PCI cards with a PCIe connector and translator?



Another weak and bunk argument. I typed this entire post on the very same MacBook you have listed in your sig $1406 and some change.

It wasn't until after the return window had closed that I had realized I spent far too much money for far too little hardware.



I'd rather have a ~1.4" thick notebook that has a quad core CPU with high end dedicated graphics for the same price as the entry MacBook Pro like I can get right now than an anorexic system that can't do half as much but costs just as much.

Yea but then whoever bought a mac doesn't really care about what you said. I still think Windows 7 is incredibly medicore.

You're assuming that the average consumer cares about the specs, when really they don't... at all. They usually blindly follow whatever the store clerk tells them. That Quad Core is so over powered that you'd need to be a HEAVY gamer to take advantage of it.

Oh BTW, GCD is opensource as libdispatch.

 

[mosx]

Yea but then whoever bought a mac doesn't really care about what you said. I still think Windows 7 is incredibly medicore.

You're assuming that the average consumer cares about the specs, when really they don't... at all. They usually blindly follow whatever the store clerk tells them. That Quad Core is so over powered that you'd need to be a HEAVY gamer to take advantage of it.

Oh BTW, GCD is opensource as libdispatch.

Well, its your opinion that Windows 7 is mediocre. I'm using Snow Leopard right now. Other than a couple of annoying Finder changes and a menu color change for Stacks, I wouldn't know the difference between it and Leopard.

Windows 7 is a big step up from Vista and XP. It has some nice UI redesigns, especially Aero Peak when alt-tabbing, it still takes better advantage of the hardware (full bitstream decoding for video, 8 channel LPCM HDMI audio support), and it actually does things consumers want, like the two things I just mentioned, plus blu-ray, plus games, plus built-in support for HDTV tuners, among many many other things.

As I just mentioned, consumers do care about specs. Because higher end specs lead to longer life of the system. Most people will never upgrade their hard drive or RAM so they look for a system that will last as long as possible. Apple keeps these specs low to both A) sell expensive upgrades and B) force new hardware purchases sooner than needed.

Quad Core is certainly not "over powered". Something like that is fantastic for multi-tasking, something Windows is VERY good about. On my PC I can watch live or recorded HDTV and have many other apps open and going at once thanks to Windows multi-tasking. In OS X if I have Safari open with Youtube I'm eating up 75% CPU time.

And again, Grand Central Dispatch is largely useless. Software developers have been using their own SMP code for years now. GCD wouldn't be needed to free up resources if OS X and OS X apps weren't such resource hogs. It's amazing how much higher average CPU use is in OS X compared to Windows 7 on the same hardware. Especially for video playback. Like I said, it takes less CPU time in Windows to play an actual blu-ray disc over USB than it does to play a DVD in OS X using the internal DVD drive.

 

[KnightWRX]

Bzzt wrong. Dell Studio XPS 13 is available in Canada.

Funny how Apple fans mock the Intel GPUs now. Barely a year ago Apple fans defended the Intel GPU as "being good enough for consumers and if you need better, you're a 'Pro' and should buy a 'Pro' machine".

But I didn't compare the Studio XPS 13. I compared the Inspiron 13. You're saying Dell is selling a useless machine ? That no one in their right mind would buy a Inspiron 13 vs a Studio XPS ?

Let's see how well the Studio XPS compares. For 1219$ CDN, I get essentially a Macbook Pro 13" with a bit of a slower processor (2.13 ghz) but more RAM and a bigger HDD. I don't even have an options for the 9-cell battery, I have to get the 6 cells (the 9 cell is only available as an extra battery, not as the only battery). That is without a 9500m, just the 9400m.

Thank god Dell has been continuously updating their hardware as it becomes available because who knows what it would have been back in June.

So we have a Inspiron 13 for 1199$ CDN that has pros and cons vs the Macbook, we have a Studio XPS 13 for 1219$ CDN that has again, pros and cons vs the Macbook.

The Macbook is competitive. It is uncustomizable, it makes your choices for you as far as features go, but for what it is, it is priced appropriately. You can moan and whine all you want, and try to claim that a few dollars less price them out of the market, but that just is seriously ridiculous and shows you know nothing about the said market.

As far as Intel vs nVidia go, I'm not even going there. The only thing that prevented me from buying an Apple laptop in the past was that they had Intel crap graphics hardware in them. I will ridicule the GMA line all I want.

Well, its your opinion that Windows 7 is mediocre. I'm using Snow Leopard right now. Other than a couple of annoying Finder changes and a menu color change for Stacks, I wouldn't know the difference between it and Leopard.

Oh noes, there are no UI changes! The only reason Windows 7 has any UI changes is so they can say "Look, all new OS! Not Vista!".

Seriously, Windows 7 is the same mess Vista was, updated. Less annoying UAC, Vista driver model, same Aero GUI effects layer, etc...

At least Apple did some major under the hood stuff in Snow Leopard. And why fix a good working GUI ?

 

[RazHyena]

Let's take a look at Dell's offering, they have the new Inspiron 14z that's pretty similar to the MacBook Pro 13" in thickness and weight. Let's see... hum... fastest CPU I can choose is a Core 2 Duo 1.4 GHZ... and no, I can't choose it, it's not compatible to the Intel GMA X4500, yet that's the only video card option What the heck Dell ? Why even offer it as an option if I can't pick it ?

So the only processor option I can choose is the Pentium Dual Core. Whatever that is, 1.3 ghz...

So I guess we can't really compare it to the Apple machine.

So let's see, what can I get at Dell that's about the same... hum... Inspiron 13...

For 1,199$ CDN (vs 1,399$ for the MBP 13"), I get :

2.4ghz core 2 duo, but with 800 mhz FSB.
3 GB RAM but DDR2.
Intel GMA X3100

Oh, but how nice, I can't get rid of a compatibility alert when I add bluetooth... So I guess I can't get that. I do get a bigger hard drive at 250 GB, too bad I don't personally care.

So in the end, yes the Dell might be cheaper, but not by that much. You also don't quite get spec parity, you get some stuff that's better, some that's worse.

However, the Dell is also much thicker and heavier. Too bad about that lightweight 14z that you can't quite get up to spec...

I think you guys are exagerating Apple's position (of course, if you didn't, your trolls wouldn't quite work). Apple's #1 problem and strength is lack of customization. You can't remove Bluetooth, get the crappier battery, cheaper graphics, cheaper processor. You're stuck with 1 configuration. Also, while Dell will keep up mostly with some hardware, they will seriously lack in other or offer it as options which you have to pick to compare to a Apple computer.

In the end, Apple aren't so far out of the market as you put it. Same for the all-in-ones. HP still uses Core 2 Duos in theirs and they are priced similar to what the iMac is. For ordinary joes that don't look at nerd porn specs, but features, Apple machines are quite on par with the rest of the market and that's why they sell.

And you guys do realise that if you're whining on Apple's prices it's because you really want their machines... Otherwise why even bother, you'd be on dellrumors.com instead of in here crying because you can't afford a Mac.

Alienware M15x

i7 820QM 3.06GHz, 8MB Cache
4GB DDR3 1066
500GB 7200RPM
1GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M

$2,224.00
<><>

MacBook Pro 15

Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz
4GB DDR3 1066
500GB 5400RPM
9600M GT 512

$2,229.00
<><>

Assuming someone has $2,230.00 to spend on a performance notebook, it really boils down to this:

Do I want an obsolete laptop using hardware and a CPU from years ago that looks pretty? Or do I want a serious gaming machine that's ugly but isn't DOA in terms of technology?

 

[CWallace]

This kind of mentality is why Apple will never move out of the low single digits when it comes to worldwide market share.

And with the margins they're making, they're fine with that. And those monies allow them to develop new products that create new markets like the iPod and iPhone which only look so good at launch because of all the money and time burned behind the scenes to ensure that.

Apple isn't in a "specifications arms race" with Windows or Linux PCs. If Microsoft ever provides the same holistic ownership experience that Apple does, then they have to worry. But right now Windows, ZUNE, XBOX and Windows Mobile all look like they came from different companies that have never seen each other's products.

So I'm not buying a Mac because it has the fastest CPU, the hottest GPU and every interface known to man. I'm buying it because it makes me more efficient and effective which frankly makes it all the more impressive because it's doesn't have the fastest CPU, hottest GPU and every interface known to man.

 

[Willson]

This kind of mentality is why Apple will never move out of the low single digits when it comes to worldwide market share.

Apple DOES have to compete with specs. In fact, in the past, they DID compete with specs. Go to the web archive and look up some of their pre-Intel product pages. The G4 Mac mini was pushed as a gaming machine!

Now Apple tries to use other selling points that simply aren't true or don't matter to most people. You can try to push "style" all you want Apple, but people prefer functionality over form.

If anything what's hurting Apple's market share is that they don't do low-priced computers (read: low priced, not low quality). They should make the Mac mini a true "First Mac" and bump the price down to something that makes a minimal profit. Then fill the big void in their lineup that has iMac power but without the screen. Equally they should bring down the MacBook price slightly, and create a "First Portable Mac" with a netbook (again with minimal profit). Apple just like their profit margins.

Functionality is debatable. For me personally the OS that lets me do what I want in the best way possible is OS X. I can do almost everything I do regardless of OS (FWIW i've used MS-DOS; Windows 3.1, 95, ME, XP, Vista, 7; Mac OS X Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard; Fedora; Slackware; Ubuntu). What I lose is the "fluidity" that I love about OS X.

And yes I know Apple are the king of spin. In the web archive it shows an iBook with a dedicated ATi card saying something along the lines of "The iBook uses a dedicated graphics card with its own RAM. Not like other laptops which suck and use shared graphics". They kinda back peddled on that with MacBooks...

Oh, as for your YouTube comment that's because Adobe can't make Flash well for OS X

 

[jmpage2]

If anything what's hurting Apple's market share is that they don't do low-priced computers (read: low priced, not low quality). They should make the Mac mini a true "First Mac" and bump the price down to something that makes a minimal profit. Then fill the big void in their lineup that has iMac power but without the screen. Equally they should bring down the MacBook price slightly, and create a "First Portable Mac" with a netbook (again with minimal profit). Apple just like their profit margins.

Functionality is debatable. For me personally the OS that lets me do what I want in the best way possible is OS X. I can do almost everything I do regardless of OS (FWIW i've used MS-DOS; Windows 3.1, 95, ME, XP, Vista, 7; Mac OS X Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard; Fedora; Slackware; Ubuntu). What I lose is the "fluidity" that I love about OS X.

And yes I know Apple are the king of spin. In the web archive it shows an iBook with a dedicated ATi card saying something along the lines of "The iBook uses a dedicated graphics card with its own RAM. Not like other laptops which suck and use shared graphics". They kinda back peddled on that with MacBooks...

Oh, as for your YouTube comment that's because Adobe can't make Flash well for OS X

It has previously been reported that Apple makes something like a 17% profit on the Mini and it is already their lowest profit computer.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43029/135/

There's simply no room to further discount the Mini unless Apple wants to go negative on profit just in order to convert people to OS X, which doesn't seem likely to me.

 

[MacDSmith2]

I would just add two comments that probably have been reported before to the mix of this discussion. First, Apple is probably the only profitable computer maker right now, because they are the only ones that control their own destiny, making both hardware and software to their OWN design ideas, not playing "catch up with the Jones" to someone elses design.

And two, because of one, they are not hurting financially trying to make a profit in the Netbook world, for as Steve Jobs said " why make a computer you can only use in the bathroom to surf the net" or words to that effect, and "Apple can't make a computer under $500 that isn't junk; its not in our DNA". The fact that Apple is making money in a recession while everyone else is losing money on cheap netbooks shows Jobs so far has been right on spot. And how can you argue with someone who bought Pixar for 10 miil and sold it to Disney for how much megabucks?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No, its freakish to even say that in the first place, sarcastic or not.

I don't think you even understand what sarcasm is or what zealots are and the near religious fervor around here for unbridled support of Apple no matter what they do, which is exactly what some were suggesting by saying Apple could make the best chips in the world and destroy all these graphic companies if Steve just waved his hand and used something akin to the force. Your inability to recognize obvious sarcasm combined with your apparent attraction to Sponge Bob suggests your age is quite young. Some day when you grow up, you might learn that calling people names just because you don't comprehend WHAT they're saying or simply don't appreciate humor isn't very wise, particularly when it's against forum rules to call people names in the first place.

 

[OllyW]

And two, because of one, they are not hurting financially trying to make a profit in the Netbook world, for as Steve Jobs said " why make a computer you can only use in the bathroom to surf the net" or words to that effect....

Those words you have quoted were allegedly describing tablet computers.

Steve Jobs is rumoured to be announcing Apple's new tablet computer sometime in the new year.

 

[MacDSmith2]

Those words you have quoted were allegedly describing tablet computers.

Steve Jobs is rumoured to be announcing Apple's new tablet computer sometime in the new year.

You are right, but they apply equally well to his general distain of Netbook uselessness.

 

[Eidorian]

You are right, but they apply equally well to his general distain of Netbook uselessness.

People seem to be using netbooks as a secondary computer for the most part.

My MacBook fills that role since I have my Core i5 tower to handle anything heavy. I like having Core 2 power and DVD burner on the road and not just Atom.

ION and flash hardware acceleration appear to be the next big things.

 

[nanofrog]

I say there is no way Apple is going to build a mix and match of Intel Processors with AMD / ATI GPU or chip sets, nor are they going to leave Intel for AMD processors. So whatever minimal chip count solution that works with Intel processors, keeps wattage down and price low, is what Apple will pick for it's product line. Does that allow for quad core? I don't know, but one thing I do know, the computers ain't gonna get thicker!

Apple will use whatever parts get the job done that meets their manufacturing costs for the target MSRP. Just like any other company. The difference, is Apple wants higher margins, so the manufacturing costs are lower. So lesser hardware will be used out of necessity, hence the less than stellar GPU's in their systems for example (not the only sacrifices that may be made however). It's really that simple.

If that means an Intel CPU, and a mix of AMD for a chipset or graphics chip, then so be it. They'll mix up a new batch of Kool Aid, and spin it in a manner Apple fans will think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The rest of the industry tend to do full product updates when they feel like it.

No they don't. It's on a plan, as random is too unpredictable, which translates to "too expensive". But they do plan for shorter cycles, as they watch what new tech is coming out and when. It's not a coincedence that the timings are similar, as VAR's can't update without something to use.

In simple terms, any design is a result of a balance of manufacturing costs, and performance (set for a specific market point). So a budget system is going to aim squarely at lowest manufacturing costs that will compete. Conversely, the high end, is about cramming in as much performance that makes the competition seem lesser (perceptive or real), for a target manufacturing cost (which they will vary if a couple of bucks will allow them to have an advantage). So the margins here are a little more flexible, though not the lowest margin of the system line (actually the highest, which is why they can do this).

Since Apple's margins are set where they are, the target manufacturing cost is lower than the competition. This results in compromises on GPU chips, hence the reason they ended up with the nVidia chip. It ends up producing a mid-grade system for a premium price.

If you're trying to convince people your product is better, Apple, then you need to actually MAKE your product better. Not just make it look better, but make it a more capable product. You can't do that when you focus on form and strip away hardware features, and sell an OS that some might argue is "more stable and secure" but doesn't offer nearly as much as the competition in almost every way.

Perception can be more important than actual fact. It's called marketing, and for better or worse, Apple's good at this.

It's up to the user to decide if it's the right system for thier use. If they screw up, it's on them. Harsh, but true. But keep in mind, it's not just the cost of the system. Switching has to include the software costs, and it can out price the system by a significant margin. It's not so bad for an individual home user, but more so for professionals (pro apps that can hit $1k+USD per), and especially so for larger entities (SMB and certainly large corporations). Mac use is abysmal in the enterprise market, but they do have a strong share in the creative professional market (audio & graphic/video market). These users may have an MP in the office, and a laptop for on-location work. So these people have a much more significant investment in Apple products and the software to run on them (Apple or 3rd party).

Another bad thing for Apple is the fact that the majority of Mac users I have known over the last few years are women, and they bought their Mac because it was "stylish" and were 100% relieved to find out it could run Windows. Their brand loyalty only goes as far as how stylish a computer is. I already know of one person that switched back to a Dell because it was a better looking computer in her eyes. I'm sure it won't be long before the rest go too.

I look at this as an uniformed user then, and bought for the wrong reasons. They didn't do their research very well.

For me, brand loyalty has to be earned, and that's different from person to person. Not everyone's going to have the exact same idea of needs and standards that they judge by.

Certain companies, like Asus, wait for the proper parts to be on hand and build their system according.

They all do this, and keep an eye on what new parts are becoming available and when.

But the different design strategies will result in different target priorities. A particular part may be of interest to a specific area of a market. If they don't offer a system in that market (even if you think it should), they'll ignore it.

And in some cases, it can involve more than just parts. Licensing fees for example, such as those associated with BluRay. By far the more likely reason Apple's stalled on BluRay, as they don't want to pay for licensing, and they can't controll it (since they don't own the IP).

But Dell and HP will start shipping their built to order systems right away and the build time plus return policy generally covers any one who might not be satisfied and wants an upgrade. I know for a fact that HP did a lot of return/upgrades with the dv6000 series a few years ago when they started shipping the dedicated GPUs in them.

Custom builds are a way of preventing issues with parts releasing late (they can be added as an option later when they finally show up in the supply chain. If it's to be part of the base system and a vendor proceeds with manufacture prior to parts (quick switch to another part), they'll be caught with their pants down as it were, if they add the planned part to later systems.

Unfortunately, they can add language to the effect "we have the right to upgrade/make changes at our discretion"... to the website/documentation to prevent such issues/claims. But they can choose to go ahead and accept the returns in order to maintain customer satisfaction levels. It's a business choice, and it depends on whether the exectutive board prioritizes customer service over higher margins. The total machine count will matter though, as it can be too expensive to do, and is why it's discretionary. Such wording allows them to cover their proverbial butts in such a situtation.

Funny how Apple fans mock the Intel GPUs now. Barely a year ago Apple fans defended the Intel GPU as "being good enough for consumers and if you need better, you're a 'Pro' and should buy a 'Pro' machine".

See beginning.

But anyway, this whole "size equivalent" argument has been shot down many times. It simply does not work because Apple does NOT give you other choices in that price range. If you have $1300 to spend you only have ONE choice.

As consumers, the only power we have, is to vote with our wallets. If a user has a fixed budget, then they have to buy accordingly. People are waking up to the fact they have to be careful with finances these days.

In the end, the choice is thiers, as is any consequences of making the wrong choice (the system itself or financial).

 

[KnightWRX]

Assuming someone has $2,230.00 to spend on a performance notebook, it really boils down to this:

Do I want an obsolete laptop using hardware and a CPU from years ago that looks pretty? Or do I want a serious gaming machine that's ugly but isn't DOA in terms of technology?

That's the problem, you're assuming someone wants a performance notebook. Maybe someone wants a 15" notebook that is still light, portable and with good battery life, something the Alienware doesn't offer.

Different strokes for different folks. You can find plenty of laptops that are priced lower than Macs. They have their cons too. Nothing in life is free.