The new MBPs are overpriced

[bollweevil]

The new 2.4 GHz Penryn MBP chips cost Apple $75 less per chip than the old 2.2 GHz chips did, and they have a smaller L2 cache. 2.5 GHz Penryn chips with 6 MB of cache would have been the same price as the old chips. The remote is no longer included. These two cost-cutting measures are disappointingly stingy. Plus, consider the fact that Apple didn't put any R&D money into the new MBPs, because the design hasn't changed much.

Apple products are becoming even more overpriced. When I adjust for "technological inflation" due to Moore's law, the value of the MBP has declined significantly over the years. Right after the introduction of Intel chips, accounting for "technological inflation," the MBP was a much better value for the money. Now, it is laughable how much cheaper a Dell would be. Please let me know if you disagree with my estimate of the rate of technological inflation, there is no CPI for technology.

Update: Everybody hates me now, how interesting. I would like to point out that I really like the new MacBook Pros, and I am always amazed by the fact that Apple is the only computer company that makes non-ugly laptops. Go Apple. The point of my thread was not to say that MBPs are overpriced in absolute terms (read my next post, and my thread about how MBPs are priced competitively with other thin and light notebooks). The point of my thread is that Apple has made some downgrades in the MBP. The on-chip cache is smaller! I just can't get over that. But no, it doesn't make me cry.

In fact, I am probably about to buy an MBP. I hesitate, because the new MB is so awesome as well, I almost can't justify the expense of the MBP. I am not complaining about the computer in and of itself, or the price in and of itself. In fact, I am not trying to complain. I am trying to point out the choices Apple is making: They seem to think hard disc space is important, and processor speed isn't. Okay, maybe they are more in tune with the desires of the consumer than I am.

 

[Pressure]

Excuse me? How do you know what price Apple pays Intel for Penryn chips?

I can tell you that a MacBook Pro has never been cheaper here in Denmark than it is now.

Several things were changed on the motherboard, like caps, resistors and traces because Penryn required an adjustment to the VRM and the Geforce 8600M GT also required more traces around it for the added memory.

 

[edesignuk]

I can see this thread going well

Honestly, do we have to go through this again? Yes they're fairly expensive, but I wouldn't say overly so, they are a "premium" laptop after all. The MB exists for the more budget conscious. Apple products should never be compared to Dell (on the whole), they're more of a Sony.

 

[HLdan]

It's amazing how the OP thinks he knows more about Apple's business than Apple. You don't know if Apple has not put any R&D money into the latest line and you don't know how much they actually pay for the chips and you don't know if they have been giving the Apple remote for free all along and it may have been costing them for something people hardly use with a laptop especially since it's line of sight remote and not bluetooth.
I don't agree or disagree with your opinions about Apple's MBP's being overpriced, but remember you have options, buy something else if Apple's too rich for your blood, you mentioned Dell, go for Dell.
Apple's been complained about for pricing for years, they are not going to change because of your opinion.

 

[chaosbunny]

Pssssst, here in europe they are actually cheaper than the previous model. 100 € less for the low end 15", and 200 € less for the high end 15" and the 17".

 

[bollweevil]

Don't jump down my throat yet...

Excuse me? How do you know what price Apple pays Intel for Penryn chips?

It is my understanding that Intel has vowed not to give any company special deals, and they publish the prices that they charge for wholesale processors. I direct your attention to this price list, about a third of the way down the page. Here is another source, in case you like verification.

I can tell you that a MacBook Pro has never been cheaper here in Denmark than it is now.

I am not saying that it is more expensive in absolute terms - on the contrary, it is cheaper in absolute terms because the U.S. rate of inflation is about 4% (even ING accounts are losing value in this country). The MBP price has stayed constant in the U.S. What *has* changed is the value of the computer, relative to the available technology and the market.

Honestly, do we have to go through this again? Yes they're fairly expensive, but I wouldn't say overly so, they are a "premium" laptop after all.

I am not saying that the MBP is overpriced in general terms, I am saying that the new MBP is overpriced compared to the last MBP update, which was overpriced when compared to the one before that. In fact, I wrote a thread pointing out that the MBP is not overpriced at all when you consider how thin it is, and how much it would cost to buy a PC laptop that was only 1" thick (if you could even find one).

 

[Michael CM1]

This may be quite possibly the dumbest post I have ever read about a MacBook Pro (you still have some work to do before you catch some of the iPhoners).

First of all, you totally neglect the addition of a multi-touch trackpad. I could care less about this feature (if the Mighty Mouse doesn't do it, I really don't need the trackpad to do it), but it is an added feature.

The video adapter was updated. The hard drives are bigger. Any of that go into your Mac Bash? Nope. Yet another "wah, wah. Apple didn't do it perfectly my way" post.

Go buy a Dell? ROFLMFAO. I ditched a high-end Dell laptop to buy a MacBook Pro a year ago. If you really desire pain and suffering, you can always just put Windows Vista on your Mac and delete Leopard.

 

[bollweevil]

Pssssst, here in europe they are actually cheaper than the previous model. 100 € less for the low end 15", and 200 € less for the high end 15" and the 17".

See? I would be happy if the American store did that. I like economics, and I like justice. If you downgrade any aspect of your product, either balance it with upgrades, or implement a nominal price decrease, or change so many aspects of the product that it becomes impossible to make direct comparisons to older models. Or, alternatively, have a good reason for the downgrade, such as "It turns out consumers don't care about processors," or "The price of silicon is skyrocketing because of a mining accident."

It's amazing how the OP thinks he knows more about Apple's business than Apple.

Well, I am an amazing person. But seriously, my point was that Apple didn't spend a lot of extra money on these MBPs. They did some R&D to make them compatible with Penryn processors, granted, but that R&D was absolutely required to remain competitive in the laptop market. They didn't really change anything else. They already had invented the MultiTouch chip, they didn't change the keyboard or latch, and they didn't add some awesome new feature. I don't profess to know anything special about Apple's business, maybe there is some reason that they couldn't use the 2.5 GHz processor in the base model. But if such a reason exists, the fact remains that Dell, Lenovo, Sony, and HP have overcome this obstacle, and if Apple cannot overcome it as well then their stock might plummet even further.

 

[kashik]

OP is right. However, in the end, which laptops are the most highly rated? MBPs are some of the highest rated laptops. So long as they are kept fairly up to date, how much does it matter that you're paying a premium?

 

[teleromeo]

This is one of the typical threads that appear when apple introduces a new/updated product. I guess that the guys that calculate the final consumer price know very well how they set their price. If you find it to high just don't buy, enough others will be happy with their new laptop.

 

[FelonyRuckus]

If the MBP is overpriced...i would suggest lookin in the other forum...it's for the MacBook...

Ofcourse there are Dell's, but...

 

[bollweevil]

I am slightly less offended now that I see that Pressure didn't add his "Never argue with an idiot" signature just for me.

I would also like to point out that this is not a standard, run-of-the-mill "complain about the update" post. At least, it is not intended as such. I wanted to point out to people that the processor is better, but also much cheaper (this is counterintuitive, and interesting, in my opinion). I am not simply saying "oh noes!!!1! It doesn't have Bloo-ray!" I am pointing out something that is not obvious.

 

[gothamm]

I agree with the poster.

The Broadcom BCM5974 Multitouch controller chip, the hardware component for multitouch in the iPhone and Macbook Air, and now the beloved macbook pro costs only $2.95.

that, plus no updated GPU will cause me to wait.

 

[bollweevil]

Is it possible to change the name of a thread? "The new MBPs are overpriced" really doesn't reflect my thesis. How about we change the name to this:
"Fight!"

 

[squaros]

...When I adjust for "technological inflation" due to Moore's law, the value of the MBP has declined significantly over the years. ...

Good point... PC

 

[ipo]

Pssssst, here in europe they are actually cheaper

Are you kidding .. what like ,, where are you comming from .. Germany or what !?? their prices are RIDICULOUS all the time ! Do you EVER pay attention how low the $ can go !

This may be quite possibly the dumbest post I have ever read about a MacBook Pro.
...multitouch trackpad....
The video adapter was updated. The hard drives are bigger.

I don't want to say who and what is dumb .. but :
as it has been noticed , the trackpad hardware costs less than 10 $ .
i don't care about the hard drive .. WHY THE HELL should we buy a downgraded processor ???? 4 MB cache to 3 MB WHAT WAS THAT ?!!??
What the hell do you read , dude ???!? You call this stupid vram graphics card UPDATE !??!?!?

They didn't really change anything else. They already had invented the MultiTouch chip, they didn't change the keyboard or latch, and they didn't add some awesome new feature. I don't profess to know anything special about Apple's business, maybe there is some reason that they couldn't use the 2.5 GHz processor in the base model.

yep TOTALLY ., the reason is they only WANT MONEEEEY MONEY MONEY .. did i mention MONEY.

I agree with the poster.

The Broadcom BCM5974 Multitouch controller chip, the hardware component for multitouch in the iPhone and Macbook Air, and now the beloved macbook pro costs only $2.95.

that, plus no updated GPU will cause me to wait.

I'm so angry about it..I wouldn't care so much if they didn't downgrade the Processor .... this is ridiculous !

 

[Pressure]

Update: Everybody hates me now, how interesting. I would like to point out that I really like the new MacBook Pros, and I am always amazed by the fact that Apple is the only computer company that makes non-ugly laptops. Go Apple. The point of my thread was not to say that MBPs are overpriced in absolute terms (read my next post, and my thread about how MBPs are priced competitively with other thin and light notebooks). The point of my thread is that Apple has made some downgrades in the MBP. The on-chip cache is smaller! I just can't get over that. But no, it doesn't make me cry.

In fact, I am probably about to buy an MBP. I hesitate, because the new MB is so awesome as well, I almost can't justify the expense of the MBP. I am not complaining about the computer in and of itself, or the price in and of itself. In fact, I am not trying to complain. I am trying to point out the choices Apple is making: They seem to think hard disc space is important, and processor speed isn't. Okay, maybe they are more in tune with the desires of the consumer than I am.

I wouldn't worry about it. I don't hate you

And my signature is not directed at you but just a good pun.

I was merely questioning the information you presented.

I can understand the reasoning behind the prices in the US but both the relatively value and price has gone down in the rest of the world.

The deciding factor in regards to the reduction in cache all point at Intel.

Apple had no choice under 2.40Ghz and the two other options (2.5Ghz and 2.6Ghz) were probably too close for Apples liking.

 

[ripplet]

Singapore online stores also feature a price drop.

The entry Macbook Pro sold for S$3452 before update. Now it sells for S$3088.

With educational discounts, it'll be S$2788. Much cheaper than before. Prolly thanks to the U.S. currency strength.

 

[netdog]

The new 2.4 GHz Penryn MBP chips cost Apple $75 less per chip than the old 2.2 GHz chips did, and they have a smaller L2 cache. 2.5 GHz Penryn chips with 6 GB of cache would have been the same price as the old chips. The remote is no longer included. These two cost-cutting measures are disappointingly stingy. Plus, consider the fact that Apple didn't put any R&D money into the new MBPs, because the design hasn't changed much.

Apple products are becoming even more overpriced. When I adjust for "technological inflation" due to Moore's law, the value of the MBP has declined significantly over the years. Right after the introduction of Intel chips, accounting for "technological inflation," the MBP was a much better value for the money. Now, it is laughable how much cheaper a Dell would be. Please let me know if you disagree with my estimate of the rate of technological inflation, there is no CPI for technology.

Update: Everybody hates me now, how interesting. I would like to point out that I really like the new MacBook Pros, and I am always amazed by the fact that Apple is the only computer company that makes non-ugly laptops. Go Apple. The point of my thread was not to say that MBPs are overpriced in absolute terms (read my next post, and my thread about how MBPs are priced competitively with other thin and light notebooks). The point of my thread is that Apple has made some downgrades in the MBP. The on-chip cache is smaller! I just can't get over that. But no, it doesn't make me cry.

In fact, I am probably about to buy an MBP. I hesitate, because the new MB is so awesome as well, I almost can't justify the expense of the MBP. I am not complaining about the computer in and of itself, or the price in and of itself. In fact, I am not trying to complain. I am trying to point out the choices Apple is making: They seem to think hard disc space is important, and processor speed isn't. Okay, maybe they are more in tune with the desires of the consumer than I am.

These aren't value-priced products. Apple charges large premiums for their hardware, and this is the price that they feel the market will bear. They are probably right.

 

[bollweevil]

Apple's stock did alright the first day after this announcement, especially compared to how it did after the announcement of the Air. Apple stock dropped $18 in the few days after the Air, as the various analyst opinions came out. After the MBs and MBPs, the stock actually rose. Of course, it was also announced that iTunes is now the number 2 music retailer, and that is a decent revenue source for Apple, and a good sign.

 

[MACDRIVE]

I wouldn't consider them over priced if they were made in USA.

 

[bollweevil]

I wouldn't consider them over priced if they were made in USA.

That's an interesting thought, maybe the foreign worker's have started demanding higher wages? Or maybe Apple has reduced the cache size from 4 to 3 GB because they have simultaneously increased the minimum age for Apple factory workers from 3 to 4. It sort of balances out.

That brings up another question, does anyone know if Apple has particularly ethical practices in its foreign factories? If they do (and I imagine they might), could that be a reason to buy Apple products? You know, like the people who refuse to buy Coca-Cola and Nestle products? Although, it is also possible that Apple only has three foreign factory laborers, if the production is simple, I just don't know.

 

[BlackSmp]

Could be due to the exchange rate dollar vs euro...

--jalle

Pssssst, here in europe they are actually cheaper than the previous model. 100 € less for the low end 15", and 200 € less for the high end 15" and the 17".

 

[Pressure]

That's an interesting thought, maybe the foreign worker's have started demanding higher wages? Or maybe Apple has reduced the cache size from 4 to 3 GB because they have simultaneously increased the minimum age for Apple factory workers from 3 to 4. It sort of balances out.

That brings up another question, does anyone know if Apple has particularly ethical practices in its foreign factories? If they do (and I imagine they might), could that be a reason to buy Apple products? You know, like the people who refuse to buy Coca-Cola and Nestle products? Although, it is also possible that Apple only has three foreign factory laborers, if the production is simple, I just don't know.

I know it was a joke but Apple did not make a decision on the cache size, Intel did. And the cache size is in megabytes and not gigabytes.

They do have ethical practices in place in foreign countries. You can look back at what happened when Apple found out that some iPods were made by underaged in China.