Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don’t think that’s what he was saying at all. I’m not certain about the specific upgrades to the chips used in the ntb, but there’s options Apple could have used, none of which would necessarily have cost them more to implement. There’s definitely 15W chips with UHD graphics available (8350U) pushing only 4m pixels on screen that should still offer adequate performance. Considering they offered the previous gen (2015) MacBook Pro at $1,299 with a 28W CPU I don’t see why this one should be different anyway, the touch bar certainly didn’t cost them $500 per machine to implement :rolleyes:
Like I said, sounds like you want the performance of the $1,799 machine for $1,299.

Yes, Macs are expensive. MBP got more expensive in 2016. Nothing wrong with wishing they weren’t so expensive, but this “overpriced” complaint is decades old.

Expensive is not the same as overpriced.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, sounds like you want the performance of the $1,799 machine for $1,299.

Yes, Macs are expensive. They got more expensive in 2016. Nothing wrong with wishing they weren’t so expensive, but this complaint is decades old.
I didn’t say that at all though did I? I pointed out there were other (less performant, even) chips available and went on to give an example of Apple having used a 28W chip in a $1,299 machine previously. As it happens, to go back to the original argument, I think they haven’t updated it because they will discontinue it a few months hence to be replaced by a 13” MacBook using Y series fanless CPUs.

(Ps I wouldn’t personally buy a 13” MBP anyway as I don’t like the screen size, and I don’t want anything to be more powerful as I’m not someone who requires a huge amount of computing power)
 
I didn’t say that at all though did I? I pointed out there were other (less performant, even) chips available and went on to give an example of Apple having used a 28W chip in a $1,299 machine previously. As it happens, to go back to the original argument, I think they haven’t updated it because they will discontinue it a few months hence to be replaced by a 13” MacBook using Y series fanless CPUs.

(Ps I wouldn’t personally buy a 13” MBP anyway as I don’t like the screen size, and I don’t want anything to be more powerful as I’m not someone who requires a huge amount of computing power)
Yes you did say that. You said, “Considering they offered the previous gen (2015) MacBook Pro at $1,299 with a 28W CPU I don’t see why this one should be different anyway...”. That’s you saying the current $1,799 machine could (or should) be $1,299.

Agree that the nTB might be discontinued, though I’d rather see a 14” or 15” MacBook than a 13”. I don’t see why there’s a need for both 12” and 13” machines, there not a lot of difference. Maybe they’ll discontinue the 12” if they bring out a 13”.

The nTB might become the basis for a new $999 13” model, losing retina/P3 and maybe TB3 too. Dual core for the $999 entry level, quad upgrade available.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t say that at all though did I? I pointed out there were other (less performant, even) chips available and went on to give an example of Apple having used a 28W chip in a $1,299 machine previously. As it happens, to go back to the original argument, I think they haven’t updated it because they will discontinue it a few months hence to be replaced by a 13” MacBook using Y series fanless CPUs.

(Ps I wouldn’t personally buy a 13” MBP anyway as I don’t like the screen size, and I don’t want anything to be more powerful as I’m not someone who requires a huge amount of computing power)

So you don't like the 13" size, but you don't want a more powerful 15"...Hmmmm. So where are we?
 
Yes you did say that. You said, “Considering they offered the previous gen (2015) MacBook Pro at $1,299 with a 28W CPU I don’t see why this one should be different anyway...”. That’s you saying the current $1,799 machine could (or should) be $1,299.

Agree that the nTB might be discontinued, though I’d rather see a 14” or 15” MacBook than a 13”. I don’t see why there’s a need for both 12” and 13” machines, there not a lot of difference. Maybe they’ll discontinue the 12” if they bring out a 13”.

The nTB might become the basis for a new $999 13” model, losing retina/P3 and maybe TB3 too. Dual core for the $999 entry level, quad upgrade available.
There’s a big difference between could and should. The point was that Apple didn’t update the nTB, you say there aren’t equivalent 15W chips available, I listed a variety of options - only one of which was to go back to using 28W CPUs as they have done before. That isn’t the same as complaining the ntb doesn’t offer the same specs as the Tb model, is it?

I’d absolutely relish a 15” MacBook, particularly if it started around the £1,599 price point they used to offer the base 15” pro at. My main concern with the current model is that while 256GB was a not unreasonable storage size even in 2015, by now 512 is pretty bare minimum for a laptop of this price, so the ‘real’ entry price is the higher end stock model at £2,699. I’d look into a 14” as well, maybe if it was about 14.4”+ rather than 14.0” I’d be happier, to drop down form 15.

So you don't like the 13" size, but you don't want a more powerful 15"...Hmmmm. So where are we?
Wasting barrowloads of cash on dGPUs and hexa-core processors and unnecessarily fast SSDs so I can have a comfortable screen size, apparently ;)
 
There’s a big difference between could and should. The point was that Apple didn’t update the nTB, you say there aren’t equivalent 15W chips available, I listed a variety of options - only one of which was to go back to using 28W CPUs as they have done before. That isn’t the same as complaining the ntb doesn’t offer the same specs as the Tb model, is it?

I’d absolutely relish a 15” MacBook, particularly if it started around the £1,599 price point they used to offer the base 15” pro at. My main concern with the current model is that while 256GB was a not unreasonable storage size even in 2015, by now 512 is pretty bare minimum for a laptop of this price, so the ‘real’ entry price is the higher end stock model at £2,699. I’d look into a 14” as well, maybe if it was about 14.4”+ rather than 14.0” I’d be happier, to drop down form 15.


Wasting barrowloads of cash on dGPUs and hexa-core processors and unnecessarily fast SSDs so I can have a comfortable screen size, apparently ;)

On the contrary I would say we are getting a much more powerful computer and value for our money with the added bonus of having a more comfortable screen size.
 
There’s a big difference between could and should. The point was that Apple didn’t update the nTB, you say there aren’t equivalent 15W chips available, I listed a variety of options - only one of which was to go back to using 28W CPUs as they have done before. That isn’t the same as complaining the ntb doesn’t offer the same specs as the Tb model, is it?

I’d absolutely relish a 15” MacBook, particularly if it started around the £1,599 price point they used to offer the base 15” pro at. My main concern with the current model is that while 256GB was a not unreasonable storage size even in 2015, by now 512 is pretty bare minimum for a laptop of this price, so the ‘real’ entry price is the higher end stock model at £2,699. I’d look into a 14” as well, maybe if it was about 14.4”+ rather than 14.0” I’d be happier, to drop down form 15.
Fair point re what you want in a nTB update. But the 15W quads you mention, while being ok for a rumored $999 MacBook Air replacement, are not a great fit for an updated nTB. They’re not the 3 month old Coffee Lake processors that the 13” and 15” models were updated with, which gave legitimate core increases of dual- to quad-core, and quad- to hexa-core, respectively.

Instead, those are year-old Kaby Lake R parts, with Intel trading half of the iGPU (going from 48 to 24 compute units) for a doubling of the CPU cores from 2 to 4. Base clocks are also reduced from 2.3/2.5GHz to 1.6/1.9GHz.

Rather than an upgrade, they represent more of a side-grade. Everyone’s video performance would be degraded (vs. the previous generation), but CPU gains are enjoyed most by core-hungry workloads—not exactly the typical use case for a 15W CPU laptop.

So unless the 28W quad cores are used, there currently isn’t really a good CPU upgrade option for the nTB. Apple already sells the 28W quad in the $1,799 TB, so the chances it’s going to show up in a $1,299 nTB are slim to none.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dannyar
There’s a big difference between could and should. The point was that Apple didn’t update the nTB, you say there aren’t equivalent 15W chips available, I listed a variety of options - only one of which was to go back to using 28W CPUs as they have done before. That isn’t the same as complaining the ntb doesn’t offer the same specs as the Tb model, is it?

I’d absolutely relish a 15” MacBook, particularly if it started around the £1,599 price point they used to offer the base 15” pro at. My main concern with the current model is that while 256GB was a not unreasonable storage size even in 2015, by now 512 is pretty bare minimum for a laptop of this price, so the ‘real’ entry price is the higher end stock model at £2,699. I’d look into a 14” as well, maybe if it was about 14.4”+ rather than 14.0” I’d be happier, to drop down form 15.


Wasting barrowloads of cash on dGPUs and hexa-core processors and unnecessarily fast SSDs so I can have a comfortable screen size, apparently ;)
That is where I am. I have had a 13" Air since 2012 and almost always go to my desktop (Mac Mini with screen and previously 27" iMac) but would like to move to a laptop as my main machine and relegate the Mini to a media server. The 13" is a tad small, and the 15" is pricey and overkill at 6-Core but I actually like the idea of the Touch Bar and the T2. Ultimately a Dual Core 14" or 14.x" MacBook with Touch Bar would be my sweet spot. Let me put 16GB RAM and a 512GB or 1TB drive in there with 2 USB-C ports (not just the 1 on the current 12" MacBook) and bring it in at around 3.2-3.5 lbs and I would buy that over a 15" MacBook Pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falhófnir
That is where I am. I have had a 13" Air since 2012 and almost always go to my desktop (Mac Mini with screen and previously 27" iMac) but would like to move to a laptop as my main machine and relegate the Mini to a media server. The 13" is a tad small, and the 15" is pricey and overkill at 6-Core but I actually like the idea of the Touch Bar and the T2. Ultimately a Dual Core 14" or 14.x" MacBook with Touch Bar would be my sweet spot. Let me put 16GB RAM and a 512GB or 1TB drive in there with 2 USB-C ports (not just the 1 on the current 12" MacBook) and bring it in at around 3.2-3.5 lbs and I would buy that over a 15" MacBook Pro.
That’s a reasonable and legit config, though I’m not sure about Touch Bar on the rMB.

I’d think a rMB (w/o Touch Bar) in either a $1,499 14” or $1,599 15” 8GB/256GB base model would be doable. But is there a big enough market for Apple to bring it? 14” might be more probable than 15” but that’s just a gut feeling.

Personally I’d prefer 15”; $1,999 16GB/512GB—sold... bring it Apple :cool:
 
Last edited:
That is where I am. I have had a 13" Air since 2012 and almost always go to my desktop (Mac Mini with screen and previously 27" iMac) but would like to move to a laptop as my main machine and relegate the Mini to a media server. The 13" is a tad small, and the 15" is pricey and overkill at 6-Core but I actually like the idea of the Touch Bar and the T2. Ultimately a Dual Core 14" or 14.x" MacBook with Touch Bar would be my sweet spot. Let me put 16GB RAM and a 512GB or 1TB drive in there with 2 USB-C ports (not just the 1 on the current 12" MacBook) and bring it in at around 3.2-3.5 lbs and I would buy that over a 15" MacBook Pro.
I do think 14.0” would still be a little small for me, 14.3” would be exactly 1” diagonal bigger than the 13” and 14.4” would be exactly 1” diagonal smaller from the 15” and I think that’s the point at which I’d become seriously interested. Of course the 16:10 aspect also helps as it gives more vertical space which is what I find the most wanting on 13” screens - at 14.4” the vertical dimension is almost exactly equal to the height of a 15.6” 16:9 display as featured on most windows laptops, so I’d certainly be able to work with that

That’s a reasonable and legit config, though I’m not sure about Touch Bar on the rMB.

I’d think a rMB (w/o Touch Bar) in either a $1,499 14” or $1,599 15” 8GB/256GB base model would be doable. But is there a big enough market for Apple to bring it? 14” might be more probable than 15” but that’s just a gut feeling.

Personally I’d prefer 15”; $1,999 16GB/512GB—sold... bring it Apple :cool:
I could deal with a £1,999 MacBook thusly configured. Actually I was hoping they’d update the 2015 pro at that price point with a ‘nTB’ model - maybe using the 28W CPUs with iris plus graphics so they could jettison the dGPU to help reduce the price. I of course wasn’t expecting that to come with 512GB storage, but if it was a £180 upgrade, £2,179 for a machine that meets my needs is better than a £2,699 machine that exceeds them excessively, or a £2,349 machine that falls short on storage.
 
Yes, Macs are expensive. MBP got more expensive in 2016. Nothing wrong with wishing they weren’t so expensive, but this “overpriced” complaint is decades old.
That's because Apple has been selling overpriced Macs for decades.

They're not the only ones who embrace "premium pricing" the Razer 15" is at a price point that rivals the MBP. There are exceptions of course, the iMac Pro is one of them, but most of the other Macs, we consumers are incurring the apple tax, i.e., more expensive then what Apple's competitor's are selling.
 
I do think 14.0” would still be a little small for me, 14.3” would be exactly 1” diagonal bigger than the 13” and 14.4” would be exactly 1” diagonal smaller from the 15” and I think that’s the point at which I’d become seriously interested. Of course the 16:10 aspect also helps as it gives more vertical space which is what I find the most wanting on 13” screens - at 14.4” the vertical dimension is almost exactly equal to the height of a 15.6” 16:9 display as featured on most windows laptops, so I’d certainly be able to work with that.
Yes I realize that. I was talking more in terms of the generalizations of what they call the screen sizes and not the exact dimensions. A 13.3 -> 14.0 is not truly a beneficial jump.
[doublepost=1533650733][/doublepost]
That’s a reasonable and legit config, though I’m not sure about Touch Bar on the rMB.

I’d think a rMB (w/o Touch Bar) in either a $1,499 14” or $1,599 15” 8GB/256GB base model would be doable. But is there a big enough market for Apple to bring it? 14” might be more probable than 15” but that’s just a gut feeling.

Personally I’d prefer 15”; $1,999 16GB/512GB—sold... bring it Apple :cool:
I think ultimately it makes sense for them to stagger especially with their existence of the 12 inch screen now. I also see Apple pushing the Touch Bar to the whole lineup though I could see them waiting until 2019 add it to the MacBooks. And they may choose to leave True Tone and/or the T2 off the MacBooks, at least for an extra year or two.

What really struck me when I looked at all this was how close in price a stock dual core i5 12” MacBook was to a 13” Quad Core MacBook Pro.
 
That's because Apple has been selling overpriced Macs for decades.

They're not the only ones who embrace "premium pricing" the Razer 15" is at a price point that rivals the MBP. There are exceptions of course, the iMac Pro is one of them, but most of the other Macs, we consumers are incurring the apple tax, i.e., more expensive then what Apple's competitor's are selling.
Expensive =/= overpriced. Apple sells 225 million iPhones a year at prices that are much higher than OnePlus, Xiaomi and Huawei as well.

Are iPhones overpriced? Apparently not to the 225 million who buy them. They are, however, expensive.
 
Without a doubt

Considering that it costs around 350USD for Apple to produce the entry capacity iPhone X and customers 999 bucks for it is indeed, like you said, overpriced but of course maybe we need to take into consideration the RD and other factors an over 60% profit margin is a little steep.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: afir93
While Macs are expensive compared to other PCs and laptops, most people buy it because of MacOS, and Apple can charge more because that's the only legitimate way to get MacOS.

That's because Apple has been selling overpriced Macs for decades.

They're not the only ones who embrace "premium pricing" the Razer 15" is at a price point that rivals the MBP. There are exceptions of course, the iMac Pro is one of them, but most of the other Macs, we consumers are incurring the apple tax, i.e., more expensive then what Apple's competitor's are selling.
 
While Macs are expensive compared to other PCs and laptops, most people buy it because of MacOS, and Apple can charge more because that's the only legitimate way to get MacOS.
I'm not disagreeing with that, in fact that's why I bought my latest MBP
 
Without a doubt
Without a doubt, your opinion is that iPhones are overpriced. But opinion stated as fact is still merely opinion, and opinions can be wrong. Someone may say the earth is flat; that may be their opinion, but they are wrong.

The fact is that 225 million customers found iPhones to be either underpriced or correctly priced for the value they received. Things are “worth” what people are willing to pay for them. The iPhones were worth the price asked, and they sold.

When Rolex charges $20,000 for a watch, is it merely expensive, or is it overpriced? Just because you can’t afford it—or can but still don’t choose to buy it because you don’t think it’s “worth it”—doesn’t mean it’s overpriced.

Sometimes complicated concepts are best illustrated through example.

Peaches cost a store $0.10/pound. Of course the shop has expenses, but they can cover all their costs if they sell them at $0.49/pound.

If the shopkeeper prices the peaches at $.50/pound and sells out the weekly delivery of 1,000 pounds in one day, the peaches are objectively underpriced. The shopkeeper only made $10.00, and will not be retiring anytime soon.

If the shop prices the peaches at $1.49/pound and sells out the weekly 1,000 pound order a few hours before the next delivery, objectively the peaches are not overpriced. They might be underpriced, but they certainly aren’t overpriced, as the entire inventory sold out. The shopkeeper is very happy this week with the $1,000 in peaches profit.

So this week, the shopkeeper decides to increase prices again, and prices the peaches at $5.49/pound. This week only 500 pounds are sold before the next weekly delivery arrives. Some customers didn’t buy any peaches at all, or bought fewer than normal. When asked why, these customers told the shopkeeper the peaches weren’t worth it; they were too expensive. Some even used the word “overpriced”.

Were the peaches too expensive? Yes, for some customers they definitely were. Those customers might have bought nectarines at $2.49 since they couldn’t afford $5.49 for peaches. But many customers did buy peaches, even at $5.49. When asked why they still bought peaches this week even when the price more than doubled, customers told the shopkeeper that peaches are delicious and they like them much better than nectarines. The peaches, even at $5.49, were still “worth it” and not too expensive in the least.

Were the peaches overpriced? Not at all. The shopkeeper pocketed $2,500—record profits, even though only half the weekly delivery was sold. Yes, they were expensive; even many who bought them told the shopkeeper they thought they were indeed expensive. But not so expensive that they didn’t buy them. Because peaches are delicious, and people love them.
 
Without a doubt, your opinion is that iPhones are overpriced. But opinion stated as fact is still merely opinion, and opinions can be wrong. Someone may say the earth is flat; that may be their opinion, but they are wrong.

The fact is that 225 million customers found iPhones to be either underpriced or correctly priced for the value they received. Things are “worth” what people are willing to pay for them. The iPhones were worth the price asked, and they sold.

When Rolex charges $20,000 for a watch, is it merely expensive, or is it overpriced? Just because you can’t afford it—or can but still don’t choose to buy it because you don’t think it’s “worth it”—doesn’t mean it’s overpriced.

Sometimes complicated concepts are best illustrated through example.

Peaches cost a store $0.10/pound. Of course the shop has expenses, but they can cover all their costs if they sell them at $0.49/pound.

If the shopkeeper prices the peaches at $.50/pound and sells out the weekly delivery of 1,000 pounds in one day, the peaches are objectively underpriced. The shopkeeper only made $10.00, and will not be retiring anytime soon.

If the shop prices the peaches at $1.49/pound and sells out the weekly 1,000 pound order a few hours before the next delivery, objectively the peaches are not overpriced. They might be underpriced, but they certainly aren’t overpriced, as the entire inventory sold out. The shopkeeper is very happy this week with the $1,000 in peaches profit.

So this week, the shopkeeper decides to increase prices again, and prices the peaches at $5.49/pound. This week only 500 pounds are sold before the next weekly delivery arrives. Some customers didn’t buy any peaches at all, or bought fewer than normal. When asked why, these customers told the shopkeeper the peaches weren’t worth it; they were too expensive. Some even used the word “overpriced”.

Were the peaches too expensive? Yes, for some customers they definitely were. Those customers might have bought nectarines at $2.49 since they couldn’t afford $5.49 for peaches. But many customers did buy peaches, even at $5.49. When asked why they still bought peaches this week even when the price more than doubled, customers told the shopkeeper that peaches are delicious and they like them much better than nectarines. The peaches, even at $5.49, were still “worth it” and not too expensive in the least.

Were the peaches overpriced? Not at all. The shopkeeper pocketed $2,500—record profits, even though only half the weekly delivery was sold. Yes, they were expensive; even many who bought them told the shopkeeper they thought they were indeed expensive. But not so expensive that they didn’t buy them. Because peaches are delicious, and people love them.
Good points.

I think a lot of confusion comes from the vagueness of the word "overpriced", which is why I don't really like it so much as an adjective, similarly to "overrated". Both of these are quick ways to condescendingly judge something while not really saying anything at all, while making it difficult for someone disagreeing with you to make a good counterargument because you were so vague.

For example Google defines "overpriced" as "charge too high a price for" which isn't really saying much at all, and many people have different metrics for when he perceives something as "priced too high" and how they arrive at the value of an object. For example, someone might make the counterargument that whether or not a person buys something isn't necessarily tied to what they perceive its value as – you can buy something for all kinds of reasons while still thinking it's worth much less than the asking price.
 
speaking of Iphones and MBPs. Why does a Iphone X come standard with 64GB of ram and a new 2018 MacBook pro only come with 16 or 32GB of ram. If it is possible why not go all in with 256GB of ram like the Ipad and Iphone... It’s only $. It’s only overpriced if you are not getting what you realy want.
 
Sure, why let facts get in the way of a good, strong opinion? After all, it could be the 225 million iPhone buyers who are wrong.
You can have a lot of people buying something and still have them over priced and so far I've not seen facts :rolleyes:
 
speaking of Iphones and MBPs. Why does a Iphone X come standard with 64GB of ram and a new 2018 MacBook pro only come with 16 or 32GB of ram. If it is possible why not go all in with 256GB of ram like the Ipad and Iphone... It’s only $. It’s only overpriced if you are not getting what you realy want.
I think you are confusing the storage with the RAM there. The iPhone X comes with 64GB or 256GB of storage, it has only 3GB of RAM. The 2018 MacBook Pro comes with 8GB, 16GB or 32GB of RAM and starts at 256GB of SSD storage.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.