Indeed. And as a former shareholder myself and possibly again in future, I would prefer they focussed less on short term profiteering, and more on sustainable growth through increased market share and frankly a better product than they've done with the 2016 MBP.
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.
Why are MBPs so over-priced?
- Thread starter groove-agent
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Indeed. And as a former shareholder myself and possibly again in future, I would prefer they focussed less on short term profiteering, and more on sustainable growth through increased market share and frankly a better product than they've done with the 2016 MBP.
But sales figures show the new MBP has been a very successful product for them. And increased market share in the PC market is a very difficult thing to do these days, let alone track, because the PC market has been decimated and changed beyond all recognition over the last 5-10 years.
I thought Apple's macOS sales were quite healthy and consistent over the last 5 years compared to traditional competitors?
I also don't understand how you can say the new MBP is an example of "short term profiteering" when they've clearly invested a shed load of money in to developing the new product and the touchbar?
Uh yeah because I care about VR when I am doing work.
When will people get this. NVIDIA Gaming video cards are not the holy grail! Apple programs do not use CUDA, AMD cards perform much better this this case. And workstation cards are always bad at video games. Take a look at the Quadro series. Where is Apple marketing this as a VR or a massive gaming machine?
That was my point, the other guy compared it to that machine, not me. Okay, let's drop the gaming card and just go with all the other components. It still kills the macbook in specs and benchmarking alone.
So, in components it gets slammed. Now let's look at it from the angle you poised above by looking at usage. If we are only looking at a machine that can e-mail, surf, and write letters (power point, photos etc...) then we have to compare it to something similar. I found this Asus Zenbook which is roughly the same setup:
https://www.asus.com/uk/Laptops/ASUS-ZenBook-UX330UA/specifications/
You can still get it with a few components that are a little better to do exactly what you are doing on your Mac and I can buy that for less that 1K.
So, what do you get when you buy a Mac?
1. Customer Service - I still believe they have some of the best service around.
2. Product Longevity - Generally speaking my wife used a 2008 Macbook for most of her college career, however, I am seeing this start to slip and with Win10 being more of a long term OS, we may see that even out very soon.
Sorry, but you can't convince me that the Mac is something special when on the inside it is the same a a sub 1K laptop. If you like it, that is great, but that still doesn't mean you didn't pay premium for past tech.
The memory field is conveniently left empty, had to go to the US store to see "Up to 8GB of memory".
Comes with Windows 10 Home to start.
Intel HD Graphics 520 vs the 540/550 on the Macs.
"When on the inside it is the same as a sub 1K laptop" This is where everyone is incorrect. How is a 6200U the same as a 6267U? How is Intel HD 520 the same as Intel HD 540? How is Windows 10 Home the same as OS X/Professional class OS? Can it join an active directory domain? No, but macOS can. So you need to get Windows 10 Pro on there.
The memory of that system is "Up to 8GB" where the cheapest Macbook Pro comes with 8GB standard.
Apple computers are priced as they are partly because despite the complains. Many still buy them. So long as that's the case, why would Apple ever change the pricing structure.
They really aren't overpriced. Just like a Porche is not overpriced compared to a Ford Focus. All I need is to get from Point A to Point B, therefore the Porche is overpriced!
If you do not care about the touch bar (yes that influences the price unless people seriously think it costs apple $0 for R&D), or do not care about Final Cut ($300 and it does a much better job with my workflow than the rent software Premiere Pro CC 2017 - $300 is incredible), or you do not care about macOS, or if you need X/Y/Z that these systems do not have then they are not for you! Seriously. Would everyone here tell me I need to go out and get a GTX 1080 TI if all I plan to do is web browse? That product would not be for me. In this scenario, the GTX 1080 TI would be considered overpriced.
I DO use the touch bar
I DO use Final Cut Pro X (and I DO have the entire Adobe CC membership and I know for a fact that I am much faster with FCPX than Premiere Pro CC)
I DO prefer macOS. I would gladly pay the premium just for macOS, and that is how a lot of us feel. I DID purchase Windows 10 licenses at launch, totaling around $900 worth I liked it THAT much. However, each update Windows 10 gets worse and worse to where I do not like it anymore. I keep running into serious bugs that I would gladly pay $500 just for macOS at this point.
I DO NOT need more than 16GB on my LAPTOP. On my desktop, I have 64GB.
I DO NOT need 4K on my LAPTOP. The Macbook Pro is already almost too high resolution for me. 4K belongs on 32 inch screens.
I DO NOT need a NVIDIA graphics card since I do not game on it and Apple products perform better with AMD cards.
Why are you randomly grabbing weird things to add in to this discussion? I found a "similar" laptop with "similar" hardware specs. You brought up usage and I covered that, now you are going back to specs? Okay, for the cost of your Mac I can buy the alienware and destroy your Mac specs. done...
Apple is a home use computer, they got out of business years ago (much to my dismay), so stop trying to bring domains and other crap of the OS, Windows comes in a various flavors which can easily accomodate the above on that same laptop. Oh, and just so you know, you can get Win10 Pro for about $199 (probably cheaper if you looked) which allows domain usage so it is STILL cheaper.
Oh, and that laptop comes with 8GB ram and is still under 1K on Newegg
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...4C6726&cm_re=UX330-_-9SIA8X554C6726-_-Product
[doublepost=1496163241][/doublepost]
That though process is your problem. There is a huge difference in what is under the hood in quality and components between those cars unlike your Macbook. You mac has Ford Fusion components and they are charging you Porsche prices.
YOU are the one that brought the specs into the argument.
What does that quote say? INSIDE is the SAME as a sub 1K laptop. INSIDE!! What is the INSIDE of a laptop? SPECS!!!!!!
LOL, no need to get all mad.
This thread is about why the MBP is overpriced and we are simply pointing out that there is nothing technical in the MBP that should facilitate the cost being that high.Sorry if that hurt your feelings, but you (and me as my wife still has one) are paying premium for a machine that is techically behind the power curve. If you are okay with that then who am I to question it but the facts are the facts here.
The price is the reason that I won't buy one for myself. I can't justify buying one knowing that I am getting Ford Fusion parts in my Porsche.
LOL, no need to get all mad.
Sorry if that hurt your feelings, but you (and me as my wife still has one) are paying premium for a machine that is techically behind the power curve. If you are okay with that then who am I to question it but the facts are the facts here.
The price is the reason that I won't buy one for myself. I can't justify buying one knowing that I am getting Ford Fusion parts in my Porsche.
Then don't say I am the one bringing specs into the argument when you did.
Yes they are expensive but just a few days over at my parents (they have a win 7 Sony laptop) reminded me how how much nicer a mac is, and in particular my 2010 MBP. When time comes no matter how much more my MBP will cost but there is zero chance I am getting a windows.
I didn't... I said, you "brought up usage" as your main argument point initially. You then shifted back to specs (which has been the core of discussion here) when I posted the Asus box by comaring the specs to me even though you were wrong about them.
I get it that you typed a lot but I still disagree. You also have to realize that you started most of your sentences with "I." That means you are expressing your opinion as am I and anyone else who has an opinion about the price of Macs.
You also can't compare a Porsche to a Mac and the competition or other computer to a Ford Focus, that's just a lie, in no way accurate and doesn't even make sense.
If you discard the body of the Focus and Porsche the internals are completely different. With computers, body aside in your comparison it's actually likely that the Focus would have the same or even better engine than the Porsche at a fraction of the price. The comparison just doesn't work.
I'm sure it's been mentioned but the cost of the hardware vs the cost of the product just isn't a comparison you can make.
Pretty much everything in the MBP is custom made, which means custom tooling and custom construction training. If it were made from off the shelf components and thrown together in a factory then sure, it'll be cheaper (As are cheaper devices with replaceable components). However designing a product such as this can cost several million dollars, then tooling the factory can run significantly more. Then there's obvious economic factors such as logistics, store, management and staff costs.
In short you're trying to compare base per unit costs against retail value. When you need to examine net and gross profit across the entire product. If this cost 100 million dollars to bring to market, and as far as I'm aware Apple like to make around 30% profit on their products (For further investment), then they need to make 130 million in total. So they will calculate how many units they expect to sell, and price accordingly so they are making a profit.
This is true of any product, Apple spend a lot more money into R&D than others and have the finances to spend on unique parts that others wouldn't dare. Other companies might be able to still turn a profit by selling a pre-assembled piece at a lower price. But regardless if they make $50 or $500 profit per unit, the decision the company asks is if this is enough to keep their company afloat and if their customers will pay for it.
Pretty much everything in the MBP is custom made, which means custom tooling and custom construction training. If it were made from off the shelf components and thrown together in a factory then sure, it'll be cheaper (As are cheaper devices with replaceable components). However designing a product such as this can cost several million dollars, then tooling the factory can run significantly more. Then there's obvious economic factors such as logistics, store, management and staff costs.
In short you're trying to compare base per unit costs against retail value. When you need to examine net and gross profit across the entire product. If this cost 100 million dollars to bring to market, and as far as I'm aware Apple like to make around 30% profit on their products (For further investment), then they need to make 130 million in total. So they will calculate how many units they expect to sell, and price accordingly so they are making a profit.
This is true of any product, Apple spend a lot more money into R&D than others and have the finances to spend on unique parts that others wouldn't dare. Other companies might be able to still turn a profit by selling a pre-assembled piece at a lower price. But regardless if they make $50 or $500 profit per unit, the decision the company asks is if this is enough to keep their company afloat and if their customers will pay for it.
Wait, so only macs are custom made? You do realize that this is not correct right? Asus doesn't use the same shells as IBM or the same parts as Dell or... I can go on.
Every vendor does what Apple does when it comes to designing and making a computer. Apple probably does do more in R&D, but let's face it, they haven't been too great in that area as of late either.
Also, what "unique" parts are you talking about?
If you believe Tim Cook, Apple is spending billions on AI/ML, and VR and AR display technology. It is coming soon to Apple devices.
Last edited:
You've misunderstood me. I wasn't saying Apple are the only company to make a 'unique' computer, obviously.
What I mean is Apple are very particular, and don't like to compromise. Most factories will be more than capable of making the vast majority of shells, however if the design calls for really specific angle or having the case machined out of a single piece, this will result in higher production costs. A lot of companies will design products that fit into existing machinery capabilities, Apple tend to just build new machines (At a higher cost that it passes onto customers).
In terms of unique parts, I appreciate that was a vague statement. But something like user replaceable RAM is by default cheaper to source. Even if the HDD is made by Hitachi, is likely that they make it only for Apple, so will have had custom controllers or other specs to make and tool the factory.
Anyway the real question is whether Apple's obsession with perceived 'perfection' is resulting in value isolation for its customer base. Given the increasingly vocal opposition to their costing I would suggest it is. Apple rarely take the easy route in their designs, which can often lead to significant costs. I'm sure a lot of customers would be just as happy if say all the ports were on one side, when putting ports on each side resulted in higher costs (Speculation). But that's just the way Apple are. Good or bad but Jobs was a known nutcase if the angle was 14.9 degrees and not 14.87 degrees (Note NEXT cube). And I'd imagine that attitude has carried on.
Oh, I agree with your comments, but that still doesn't justify the end cost of the product to be honest. The reason that they continue to cost that much is because people are willing ot blindly lay down their money for it. Once that ends, that price will come down as Apple starts to struggle with sales and goals.
I wouldn't say blindly. It is a strategy that is still working for them, I think today the current lineup has resulted in a lot of people unable to justify the cost. Whereas before the 'Pro' model started at an apparently reasonable price. A lot of people want these products, more for their experiential value rather then their professional use. And I think the cost just jumped above that being a possibility for a wide audience.
Apple do make other machines, and the thing I didn't like was the price hike in the MacBook. That ideally needs to be around $1000, with better marketing to fill that void. With the current marketing I think a lot of people feel frustrated that they 'need' a pro but cannot afford it. In reality a lot of us could do the same work with a much cheaper machine, for me I value the longevity and quality but for no second appreciated the huge hole in my wallet.
Anyway I think Apple are just in a period of transition, I think they're wanting to make their pro machines as high end as they can, but they need to make better value machines to maintain their audience. It's a basic sales tactic but a lot of people who brought cheaper models in the past will ultimately spend more later in life through brand loyalty, that's the real goal that they need to ensure.
So yeah, Apple make expensive computers, always have done and always will. They aren't necessarily overpriced but are the price points their targeting today too high? I'm afraid the sales data would tell them it isn't...
Apple do make other machines, and the thing I didn't like was the price hike in the MacBook. That ideally needs to be around $1000, with better marketing to fill that void. With the current marketing I think a lot of people feel frustrated that they 'need' a pro but cannot afford it. In reality a lot of us could do the same work with a much cheaper machine, for me I value the longevity and quality but for no second appreciated the huge hole in my wallet.
Anyway I think Apple are just in a period of transition, I think they're wanting to make their pro machines as high end as they can, but they need to make better value machines to maintain their audience. It's a basic sales tactic but a lot of people who brought cheaper models in the past will ultimately spend more later in life through brand loyalty, that's the real goal that they need to ensure.
So yeah, Apple make expensive computers, always have done and always will. They aren't necessarily overpriced but are the price points their targeting today too high? I'm afraid the sales data would tell them it isn't...
Until folks can stop wanting the MacBook to be something it is not and accept it for what it is we will continue to have people (for whatever reason) hate it, think it's overpriced, think it's dumb, think it is what it isn't.
Just stop expecting something that isn't there.
Just stop expecting something that isn't there.
Again, I mostly agree, but ever since the transistion to Intel processors, they have been behind in tech, so this isn't a new phenomena.
At least when they were using the PowerPC proc, they were a little harder to compare. The problem is that Intel caught them in compute and had better performance. They never readjusted their model after that transition and kept charging PowerPC prices.
Imagine if they cut the price by even $500 how many units they would sell... They would also be potentially pulling more people into their eco system which, to be honest, has me locked in on certain things like movies and music.
That being said, pound for pound, the Mac is overpriced for the components that you get inside.
[doublepost=1496169637][/doublepost]
I don't hate it, heck, we own one. I just don't think that it was/is worth the cost but as long as the wife is happy.
So if you put the OS to one side and even the internal components, show me a much cheaper laptop which has the same build quality as Apple's laptops? I've yet to see and use one which feels as well-built, solid, quality from the main body of the laptop, to the trackpad (which Apple still seem to be the best at), even down to things like the hinge on the screen. Personally, when I use one of their MBPs, I can see and feel the difference compared to those from other manufacturers.
Again I suggest you look at the product development costs vs the profit. Things cost money to make, not just raw components. For a more accessible comparison of the old car vs. car... When Microsoft released the Xbox One, they made a big thing about the new controller costing "100 million dollars..." to design. Personally I think that cost includes marketing (Which is a huge cost), but look at that controller which I'm sure many people have, that apparently cost that much to make and they sell it for what $50? Apple are just really unique in that they can demand that 30% profit and use it to carry on developing, a lot of other companies have to diminish that margin in order to sell their product. But it's something that works for Apple and a lot of other companies try to emulate.
Anyway, my thoughts are it is not overpriced, to say that is slightly naive of the real costs. However I do think they've targeted a price point a bit too high. I was hoping that it would be £2000 when it launched, so with it costing £2600 I was a bit taken aback. My own personal experience has lead me to always choose quality over value though, many times I have compared apples and oranges and brought a lemon as it had better 'specs' or features, only to have it fall apart in 6 months and end up costing me a lot more than if I just brought the better thing to begin with.
So the question is, is Apple targeting the wrong price point, or should they make a bigger point of justifying the value?
Anyway, my thoughts are it is not overpriced, to say that is slightly naive of the real costs. However I do think they've targeted a price point a bit too high. I was hoping that it would be £2000 when it launched, so with it costing £2600 I was a bit taken aback. My own personal experience has lead me to always choose quality over value though, many times I have compared apples and oranges and brought a lemon as it had better 'specs' or features, only to have it fall apart in 6 months and end up costing me a lot more than if I just brought the better thing to begin with.
So the question is, is Apple targeting the wrong price point, or should they make a bigger point of justifying the value?
There's a difference between expensive and overpriced. That's the mistake you're making.
You clearly do not value your money then which explains why you continue to defend overpriced things. That's more than the cost of both operating systems combined.