Did someone mention something about a Sky Lake? 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Waiting for Skylake MBP thread
- Thread starter adildacoolset
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
On a per unit basis, the Mac Pro has a far higher upside in profitability than the 17" MacBook Pro ever did.
Are you claiming that Apple's margins are higher on the Mac Pro than they were on the 17" MacBook Pro? Why would one think that?
They were charging thousands of dollars more for CPU options that only cost Apple a few hundred bucks more.
Um, can I ask where you are getting this information?
Here are some numbers to think about:
We recently purchased a cluster of high-end workstations. I mean high-end workstations, the same market that Apple is going for with the MP. We looked at a number of companies and went with Dell (the PT 7900 series). When you start comparing prices and features, Apple wasn't any higher than the others.
In fact, none of the companies we looked at were significantly higher than each other. The profit margin is pretty thin on hardware and it is no different with these workstations. They make their money on the services like on-site support, warranty extensions, accidental damage, blah, blah, blah, blah...
To think that Apple is "charging thousands of dollars more for CPU options that only cost Apple a few hundred bucks more" is just ridicuous. So, you think Apple is charging $3000 for a $300 Xenon chip?
Why would you think that Apple is getting better CPU prices from Intel than say Dell or HP? Apple doesn't move anywhere near the volume that these two companies do, especially, the Xenon line we are talking about in the MP.
Personally, I've always felt that Apple made a modest margin on the MP but kept it around because it rounded out their product line.
Conversely, the 17" MBP seemed to really gouge the buyers compared to similar speed notebooks. You could easily get a 17" Precision based Dell $1000 cheaper than comparable MBP. I would argue that Apple made a larger margin on the 17" MBP compared to the MP.
-P
Here are some numbers to think about:
We recently purchased a cluster of high-end workstations. I mean high-end workstations, the same market that Apple is going for with the MP. We looked at a number of companies and went with Dell (the PT 7900 series). When you start comparing prices and features, Apple wasn't any higher than the others.
In fact, none of the companies we looked at were significantly higher than each other. The profit margin is pretty thin on hardware and it is no different with these workstations. They make their money on the services like on-site support, warranty extensions, accidental damage, blah, blah, blah, blah...
To think that Apple is "charging thousands of dollars more for CPU options that only cost Apple a few hundred bucks more" is just ridicuous. So, you think Apple is charging $3000 for a $300 Xenon chip?
Why would you think that Apple is getting better CPU prices from Intel than say Dell or HP? Apple doesn't move anywhere near the volume that these two companies do, especially, the Xenon line we are talking about in the MP.
Personally, I've always felt that Apple made a modest margin on the MP but kept it around because it rounded out their product line.
Conversely, the 17" MBP seemed to really gouge the buyers compared to similar speed notebooks. You could easily get a 17" Precision based Dell $1000 cheaper than comparable MBP. I would argue that Apple made a larger margin on the 17" MBP compared to the MP.
-P
Yeap, unlike other Apple products, I'll say the new MacPro is actually priced favorable to other workstation from dell or hp.
For the price one pays for an apple notebook, he or she can find a windows equivalent at a cheaper price or a better specced at the same price. The only real reason to get one these days is cause of OSX.
They'll likely update the 13 and 15 when skylake is made available.
For the price one pays for an apple notebook, he or she can find a windows equivalent at a cheaper price or a better specced at the same price. The only real reason to get one these days is cause of OSX.
They'll likely update the 13 and 15 when skylake is made available.
When the MP came out I remember people were unable to build a comparable system for less than what Apple charged.
Um, can I ask where you are getting this information?
Here are some numbers to think about:
We recently purchased a cluster of high-end workstations. I mean high-end workstations, the same market that Apple is going for with the MP. We looked at a number of companies and went with Dell (the PT 7900 series). When you start comparing prices and features, Apple wasn't any higher than the others.
In fact, none of the companies we looked at were significantly higher than each other. The profit margin is pretty thin on hardware and it is no different with these workstations. They make their money on the services like on-site support, warranty extensions, accidental damage, blah, blah, blah, blah...
To think that Apple is "charging thousands of dollars more for CPU options that only cost Apple a few hundred bucks more" is just ridicuous. So, you think Apple is charging $3000 for a $300 Xenon chip?
Why would you think that Apple is getting better CPU prices from Intel than say Dell or HP? Apple doesn't move anywhere near the volume that these two companies do, especially, the Xenon line we are talking about in the MP.
Personally, I've always felt that Apple made a modest margin on the MP but kept it around because it rounded out their product line.
Conversely, the 17" MBP seemed to really gouge the buyers compared to similar speed notebooks. You could easily get a 17" Precision based Dell $1000 cheaper than comparable MBP. I would argue that Apple made a larger margin on the 17" MBP compared to the MP.
-P
Intel Xeon E5 2.7Ghz 12 Core Tray price: $2614.00
Intel Xeon E5 3.5Ghz 6 Core Tray price: $583
Tray price difference: $2031
Apple charge for upgrade: $3000
Minimum profit from upgrade alone: $969
Maybe I shouldn't have said the phrase "hundreds of dollars vs thousands of dollars", but more expensive upgrades drive significantly more profits, which is not news to anyone.
I'm still not sure you understand what I was pointing out. You are listing incorrect tray prices and missing information here. However, I just don't care enough about this to correct your post.
People. Skylake MBP thread here. Thanks! 
Unfortunatly it doesn't look like back to school is happening this year. Thy usually launch it in the first week of July.
Just the historical trends, the fact that the processors won't be out until October/November, the fact the announcement would be month(s) in advance (which isn't happening), and just the simple fact it makes the most sense to release it in Q1 2016 as opposed to Q4 2015 amidst the record breaking iPhone sales.
Apple isn't going to wait until March if they can release them as early as November.
Most of these reasons are categorically incorrect.
1. The fact that the processors won't be released until October/November does not necessarily prevent Apple from releasing an update, provided sufficient volume could still be produced by early November.
2. No announcement will be coming month(s) in advance. Apple does not typically announce an update that early to a product they are already producing, as it would thereby negatively affect current sales. See the Osborne effect for details. An announcement to a new product category (e.g., Apple Watch) is a different story.
3. Saying it makes the most sense to release the MBP in Q1 2016 as opposed to Q4 2015 amidst record breaking iPhone sales is just speculation. iPhone sales have had a steadily increasing trend for years now, and that did not prevent Apple from releasing updated MBPs on October 22, 2013.
4. As for historical trends, see #3. Apple's release schedule for MBPs has never precluded the 4th quarter. It typically depends on Intel processor availability.
Once Skylake CPU compatible with the MBP ship, the MBP will soon after ship. Doesn't seem too bad a theory.
AIO, desktop, notebook the first markets?
The details inc. shipping date of the mobile Skylake CPUs still seem unknown. The Skylake Core i5 6500 (successor to the 2015 retina iMac's Core i5 4590) seems to be known about more. (Lowered TDP - iMac becomes slimmer or a higher TDP discrete GPU becomes possible?)
AIO, desktop, notebook the first markets?
The details inc. shipping date of the mobile Skylake CPUs still seem unknown. The Skylake Core i5 6500 (successor to the 2015 retina iMac's Core i5 4590) seems to be known about more. (Lowered TDP - iMac becomes slimmer or a higher TDP discrete GPU becomes possible?)
A chassis change feels like is in order in order to support Thunderbolt 3, and we should start to hear some rumors pertaining to that soon. I definitely can't see them continuing to use the same LCD panel as the current MacBook Pros, there are much better out there.
My guess is also March 2016, but that's purely a guess. I feel like we'd already know about suitable mobile chips being on the way if they were coming as early as Oct. And if the chips don't arrive in Oct./Nov., they won't be coming until 1Q 2016, which makes March a reasonable bet.
Where did you see that? I've seen reports of Cannonlake slipping a year and an interim 14nm Kirbylake being introduced next year, as the 10nm process is causing problems.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/16/intel_10nm_14nm_plans/
Making the iMac slimmer and without a dGPU would be rather ridiculous and not good value for money. However, I wouldn't put it passed Apple to do this because they seem to be moving in this direction.
- Status