I'm on the same boat: the new MBP hits basically all wishes I had for a new purchase except WiFi 6. For a machine which I plan to keep for years to come it makes little sense to purchase now a model with WiFi 5 where the transition to WiFi 6 has already started.
I think we’re probably going to have to agree to disagree at this point. Maybe
I’ll take another shot, addressing your two points:
I think we’re probably going to have to agree to disagree at this point. Maybe
1) There’s profitable niche and unprofitable niche. When analyzing the economics of selling a box like Mac Pro, where buyers are adding maybe $5k on average in high-profit upgrades, there’s more in play besides just the profit on the box:
None of these factors would be present to near the same degree in the $1k to $3-4k product you propose, imo.
- Those buyers are also more likely to buy a $5,000 monitor, for instance
- They are also a part of a key market segment, so-called creatives, which increases aspirational sales to their like-minded market/demographic cohorts.
- These customers are also buying software like FCP X and Logic Pro X
2) Your statement that “they make more money from a model like that than from people building their own machines or buying elsewhere” isn’t necessarily true at all. There’s a cost to carrying an additional model in the product line, beyond the initial development, verification, test, etc. Even if the model only sells for a few years, Apple’s looking at an additional 5-7 years of ongoing costs, including QA for new OS and applications software releases as well as support and service, including things like spare parts inventory.
Like all products, there’s a break-even point. If, at the relatively low ASP this product would sell at, it would need to sell a couple million units—and that doesn’t happen—it’s a loser plain and simple. That some customers were saved from switching to PCs doesn’t much cushion the blow; it’s effectively paying people not to switch.
Anyway, in summary there are reasons Apple hasn’t built this machine over the past 20+ years. I’ve suggested a few, maybe none of them are actually applicable; no one outside of Apple can really say. It’s just my opinion based on my experience ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think we’re probably going to have to agree to disagree at this point. Maybe
1) There’s profitable niche and unprofitable niche. When analyzing the economics of selling a box like Mac Pro, where buyers are adding maybe $5k on average in high-profit upgrades, there’s more in play besides just the profit on the box:
None of these factors would be present to near the same degree in the $1k to $3-4k product you propose, imo.
- Those buyers are also more likely to buy a $5,000 monitor, for instance
- They are also a part of a key market segment, so-called creatives, which increases aspirational sales to their like-minded market/demographic cohorts.
- These customers are also buying software like FCP X and Logic Pro X
2) Your statement that “they make more money from a model like that than from people building their own machines or buying elsewhere” isn’t necessarily true at all. There’s a cost to carrying an additional model in the product line, beyond the initial development, verification, test, etc. Even if the model only sells for a few years, Apple’s looking at an additional 5-7 years of ongoing costs, including QA for new OS and applications software releases as well as support and service, including things like spare parts inventory.
Like all products, there’s a break-even point. If, at the relatively low ASP this product would sell at, it would need to sell a couple million units—and that doesn’t happen—it’s a loser plain and simple. That some customers were saved from switching to PCs doesn’t much cushion the blow; it’s effectively paying people not to switch.
Anyway, in summary there are reasons Apple hasn’t built this machine over the past 20+ years. I’ve suggested a few, maybe none of them are actually applicable; no one outside of Apple can really say. It’s just my opinion based on my experience ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
what about simply bringing more life to a computer? I have a 2010 MBP. in 2017 i changed the hdd to a SSD, cost me $50. I upgraded the ram from 4gb stock to 16gb. cost me $70.. so for $120 i made a 7 year old computer like new again. before the upgrades it had slowed considerably just due to the ever more bloated macos.
in what way did i pull random numbers out of the air? those were the prices i paid for those upgrades. the only estimation i made was the selling price of the 2010, which was your planned best option, sell it and upgrade. i was generous in your favour in that respect.
but apple do have different options for different price points.
That's interesting. In Australia the 15" 16/512 was AUD$3,820, and the 16" 16/512 is AUD$3,800.
Foreign exchange no doubt. The last couple years the Australian dollar has trended down against the USD, and Apple is hedging against further weakness over the next year.
Both base and upgrade pricing is what it takes to support a huge company that has 500+ retail stores, 130,000+ employees and spends $1.5 billion a month in R&D.
Fair enough, maybe that's it. I definitely can't see our economy picking up anytime soon while we have this pro-austerity government in charge. Our companies are actually making record profits, but our economy is dead, as the percentage of those profits going into the hands of the workers is falling, and thus none is being spent, and thus shops are laying people off, and so on, vicious circle.
The last thing your economy needs if consumers aren’t spending is for the government to tighten the purse strings. They should be doing the opposite, taking up the slack and spending to support aggregate demand. If consumers aren’t spending the government damn well better. I’m sure there are infrastructure projects that could be funded that would benefit future productivity.
Exactly, this has been well known since the great depression. The government should always be doing the opposite of the private sector. When the economy is booming, the government should slow it's spending and save for a rainy day. When the economy slows, the government has to start spending, either by spending that previous surplus, or by going into debt. It's so simple. But every government does the opposite, driven by short term views. In a boom, they are flush with cash, and spend it on vote buying. In a downturn, there is worry about debt, so they tighten the purses. Infuriating. Our current government is tightening the purses in this downturn, and crow about their economic success while the economy goes down the gurgler.
