Why are MBPs so over-priced?

[Alphonsus]

Why does it bother you?! There are people out there that do not need more than 128 GB of storage. They won't be required to pay the $200 extra for the 256 version. Seriously, the 2016 MacBook Pros are not a year old yet. To expect a price drop is just wishful thinking at best.

LOL, everyone expects a price drop since they started off way too high. It really isn't a "price drop" rather putting the rightful price to it...but again as this is the debate about why MBP are expensive, I guess it really isn't "high"

Yeah, I guess it is good for people who don't need more than 128 gb. LOL I thought about this but forgot to mention that part. However the machine for the $1299 is not really a Pro, but rather an "Air" compared to other machines out there. Or it is more like a more powerful version of a Macbook/Air

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

But we're "special" on here and not representative of the vast majority of the Mac-buying public.
[doublepost=1495722156][/doublepost]

But as I said above, we're not a normal bunch

I'd be happy to replace a HDD, but I'd wager that no matter how simple you made the replacement process, the vast majority of consumers who buy laptops and desktops of any sort would simply take it in to a store to be dealt with - be it Apple or their local repair shop.

I don't think its a grab for cash, its just that their vision for laptops (in terms of design, battery life and then the available space left) dictates how much space is available for components which in turn means they've moved to soldered SSDs and the like. Even with all the user guides on the web, explaining to non-techy relatives what they need to buy to fix a fault or do a simple upgrade can be absolutely torturous. And that's before you even get to fitting said part.

I still think part of the Mac's appeal is that there's a small range of products with limited upgrades at time of sale.

Maybe Apple's repair statistics also showed that it was such a small percentage of users who would do their own repairs and upgrades that there really was just a marginal market for them?

Right, so let's dictate what pros do based on the 'vast majority' and bring things down to the lowest common denominator for pros. We've seen just how well that's worked out for the cube and the trashcan Mac Pro.

This kind of 'works for me' dementia and apologist evangelism has got to die. Apple already acknowledged their mistakes in that embarrassing press conference regarding their mistakes with the mac pro, and that the "pro" umbrella is much wider than the tyranny of the 'average/vast majority', and that it needs to stop repeating this same idiot mistake over and over.

There are a good number of pros that will continue to bleed away for as long as apple abides by this "tyranny of the masses" engineering style, and maybe they should start 'walking the walk' of their own diversity rhetoric and building machines for the wide diversity of needs of real pros. Until then, the bleeding will continue.

 

[addictzz]

Why does it bother you?! There are people out there that do not need more than 128 GB of storage. They won't be required to pay the $200 extra for the 256 version. Seriously, the 2016 MacBook Pros are not a year old yet. To expect a price drop is just wishful thinking at best.

What kind of people buys Macbook Pro and being OK eith 128gb ssd?
Even though they are going to carry portable ext hdd all the time (and we know how many people actually love carry additional portables on top of their 'portable notebook', right?), 128GB is just not enough for normal usage. OS already takes about 20-30GB, I dunno the how big the installation for current macOS but surely it wont take <10gb. 90GB left for apps. Pro user normally use this for content creation apps which takes a lot of space (2-6GB) not including the libraries. Also document and media files. Cant expect not to have any files in internal SSD for quick and easy access. Finally, storage degenerate in performance as they get filled up. When ur storage is filled up to abt 90% capacity, you'll experience noticeable performance handicap.

 

[ascender]

Right, so let's dictate what pros do based on the 'vast majority' and bring things down to the lowest common denominator for pros. We've seen just how well that's worked out for the cube and the trashcan Mac Pro.

But that's clearly what Apple's business model is - they build machines in line with their targets/beliefs aimed at the vast majority of users.

I don't understand your comments about the Cube or Mac Pro. Both were mis-steps and they've pretty much admitted the screwed up with the Mac Pro - it wasn't a case of pitching at the lowest common denominator - they thought with the Mac Pro that the market would go a certain way (in terms of the multiple gpus and external additions) and it didn't. Not to mention they engineered a new revolutionary design which failed.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

But that's clearly what Apple's business model is - they build machines in line with their targets/beliefs aimed at the vast majority of users.

I don't understand your comments about the Cube or Mac Pro. Both were mis-steps and they've pretty much admitted the screwed up with the Mac Pro - it wasn't a case of pitching at the lowest common denominator - they thought with the Mac Pro that the market would go a certain way (in terms of the multiple gpus and external additions) and it didn't. Not to mention they engineered a new revolutionary design which failed.

OK, since you don't get it let me explain. Many people on this forum and many other Mac apologists said "you don't need slots, most people never use slots, most people never use all the storage bay's, etc." in explaining why the new trashcan Mac pro was just fine for pros. But the problem is that is not a good adaptable design, something that pros need, even if the lowest common denominator that buys those machines never does need those things. And something that Apple has now realized in admitted it was their mistake. They went so far as to say that you can't look at just the small sliver of pros and try to make everyone else fit that sliver, instead you have to make the process more adaptable to a wider swath of professionals.

It applies directly here. This is a "pro" machine, and it needs to be adoptable. The fact that most people never upgrade their hard drives or the ram or things like that is a relevant, because the Pro market needs to be more adaptable and cover a wider array of use cases, not just what's good for the lowest common denominator . Ignoring that is repeating the exact same mistakes of the cube and the Mac Pro. If you don't see that, sorry there's no helping beyond this.

 

[ascender]

OK, since you don't get it let me explain. Many people on this forum and many other Mac apologists said "you don't need slots, most people never use slots, most people never use all the storage bay's, etc." in explaining why the new trashcan Mac pro was just fine for pros. But the problem is that is not a good adaptable design, something that pros need, even if the lowest common denominator that buys those machines never does need those things. And something that Apple has now realized in admitted it was their mistake. They went so far as to say that you can't look at just the small sliver of pros and try to make everyone else fit that sliver, instead you have to make the process more adaptable to a wider swath of professionals.

It applies directly here. This is a "pro" machine, and it needs to be adoptable. The fact that most people never upgrade their hard drives or the ram or things like that is a relevant, because the Pro market needs to be more adaptable and cover a wider array of use cases, not just what's good for the lowest common denominator . Ignoring that is repeating the exact same mistakes of the cube and the Mac Pro. If you don't see that, sorry there's no helping beyond this.

But I do "get it". Apple screwed up with the Mac Pro design and they got as close to apologising about it as you'll get from Apple. They engineered themselves in to a corner which is different from what you're saying. They thought that the trashcan design would be in-line with the direction the computing market was going and it was upgradable, but as things turned out, it was neither. Its not that they decided nobody needed lots of slots, they thought they had an alternative solution using external peripherals over very fast connections and the three boards which presumably they thought could have fallen in to a tick-tock refresh with the latest cpus and gpus.

Apple have already said they define a pro user as someone who uses certain apps and tasks. So they'll know how many of their MBP customers fall in to this category as well as the types and specs of hardware they use to run them. Which in turn will define what the majority of their customers need - presumably the people you're calling the "lowest common denominator".

The new Mac Pro sounds like its a good thing for these users who need to upgrade their desktops and they're doing that despite the tiny percentage of their user-base those people make-up.

I can't see Apple ever releasing a truly upgradable laptop again, but that's not really a surprise is it? Their laptops have been going in that direction for years now.

 

[niploteksi]

I just ordered the entry level 15" with 1 TB of drive... I don't know, I have mixed feelings about this. I'm basically fully migrated to Windows and it's just "fine", but I've been missing MacOs.

 

[pmau]

The new Mac Pro sounds like its a good thing for these users who need to upgrade their desktops and they're doing that despite the tiny percentage of their user-base those people make-up.

This is why they introduced the iMac Pro.
People complaint that they had to use 5k iMacs as high-end devices, so Apple said "OK, we make a Mac Pro".
But here is the kicker: They introduced the iMacPro which is basically a beefed-up iMac to fill the pricepoints where they DO NOT want to sell the MacPro.

Meaning: The iMac Pro will be $5000 and up
The Mac Pro will be even more expensive because you pay for the abaility to exchange parts.

The pricing will be outrageous. Like the Trashcan itself.

PS: I know my writing sucks today, but the iMac Pro is just an excuse to drive prices even higher.

 

[Ethosik]

This is why they introduced the iMac Pro.
People complaint that they had to use 5k iMacs as high-end devices, so Apple said "OK, we make a Mac Pro".
But here is the kicker: They introduced the iMacPro which is basically a beefed-up iMac to fill the pricepoints where they DO NOT want to sell the MacPro.

Meaning: The iMac Pro will be $5000 and up
The Mac Pro will be even more expensive because you pay for the abaility to exchange parts.

The pricing will be outrageous. Like the Trashcan itself.

PS: I know my writing sucks today, but the iMac Pro is just an excuse to drive prices even higher.

Uh no. Take $1,300 or so off the price of the iMac Pro due to the 5K monitor. It is VERY WELL priced.

 

[SteveJUAE]

Uh no. Take $1,300 or so off the price of the iMac Pro due to the 5K monitor. It is VERY WELL priced.

Lets not even start this sort of comparison discounting we have enough issues with this thread subject matter as is

 

[Ethosik]

Lets not even start this sort of comparison discounting we have enough issues with this thread subject matter as is

Dell is no longer offering a 5K display, their 4K displays with Premiere Color are $1,300 around there. The LG 5K monitor is $1,300. This needs to be factored in when discussing all in ones because it comes with the screen. Sure I can get a standard windows PC cheaper, but then I need to add that $1,300 BACK on for a 4K/5K monitor.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

But I do "get it". Apple screwed up with the Mac Pro design and they got as close to apologising about it as you'll get from Apple. They engineered themselves in to a corner which is different from what you're saying. They thought that the trashcan design would be in-line with the direction the computing market was going and it was upgradable, but as things turned out, it was neither. Its not that they decided nobody needed lots of slots, they thought they had an alternative solution using external peripherals over very fast connections and the three boards which presumably they thought could have fallen in to a tick-tock refresh with the latest cpus and gpus.

Apple have already said they define a pro user as someone who uses certain apps and tasks. So they'll know how many of their MBP customers fall in to this category as well as the types and specs of hardware they use to run them. Which in turn will define what the majority of their customers need - presumably the people you're calling the "lowest common denominator".

The new Mac Pro sounds like its a good thing for these users who need to upgrade their desktops and they're doing that despite the tiny percentage of their user-base those people make-up.

I can't see Apple ever releasing a truly upgradable laptop again, but that's not really a surprise is it? Their laptops have been going in that direction for years now.

You certainly do not get it. Let's hope apple now does.

 

[SteveJUAE]

Dell is no longer offering a 5K display, their 4K displays with Premiere Color are $1,300 around there. The LG 5K monitor is $1,300. This needs to be factored in when discussing all in ones because it comes with the screen. Sure I can get a standard windows PC cheaper, but then I need to add that $1,300 BACK on for a 4K/5K monitor.

I tell you how daft this logic is

Every Mac does not have touch screen so if I compare it to a premium windows laptop or 2 in 1 I have to factor in I would need to buy an Ipad also so the Mac is even another $500 over priced etc etc blah blah or lets add $3000 to the Imac Pro for a digitiser so we can comapre it to a surface studio etc etc blah blah

So lets not go there, I understand your point but it's not relevant to this topic

 

[Melrose]

OP here's an astoundingly easy formula to keep in mind when you go computer shopping: If you think they're expensive, don't buy one. You may optionally bonk your head on the counter because you thought it would include arguing on the internet over which one is better.

Who would've thought it could be so simple?

Meanwhile, there are users who have been convinced by personal experience and innumerable opinions of real users that the alternative is not worth the headaches, OS instability, OS insecurity, low build quality, necessary user micro-management, abysmal upgrade life, and despicable support in exchange for a few dollars less.

Arguing over money is the least concern when it comes to exactly why using a Macintosh is the better option. But that's my opinion, and it's needless to argue because ultimately no one's going to change their mind. This is the internet, after all.

 

[niploteksi]

I just ordered the entry level 15" with 1 TB of drive... I don't know, I have mixed feelings about this. I'm basically fully migrated to Windows and it's just "fine", but I've been missing MacOs.

I cancelled my order. It just feels way too over priced.

 

[Merkava_4]

The reason they price them so high is because people continue to buy them. How much does it really cost Apple to manufacture an MBP in China? They don't say because it would infuriate their customers. And please don't tell me about the cost of research and development.

 

[Melrose]

The reason they price them so high is because people continue to buy them. How much does it really cost Apple to manufacture an MBP in China? They don't say because it would infuriate their customers. And please don't tell me about the cost of research and development.

Given the higher grade casing, superior support system, more stable & more secure operating system, longer life, unmatched integration between software and hardware, higher resale value, and lack of infuriating bloatware, it's surprising they are not higher priced.

The only people who complain about the price of a Mac are the people who put more value on money than they do on quality, simple.

 

[whodean]

When you compare "apples to apples" with similar features and you keep TCO in mind, the equation becomes much more even, Apple probably comes ahead most times. Most PC laptops won't last you as long as a brand new MBP either.

edit: What Melrose (above) said.

 

[Melrose]

When you compare "apples to apples" with similar features and you keep TCO in mind, the equation becomes much more even, Apple probably comes ahead most times. Most PC laptops won't last you as long as a brand new MBP either.

edit: What Melrose (above) said.

The irony is that when Microsoft did those 'I'm shopping for a PC" commercials some years ago, Engadget or some geek blog did a direct price comparison based on internal specs, and the Mac laptops came out square in the middle of the price range. Sony, Toshiba, and I think IBM all cost more. That wasn't factoring in the cost of AV, the necessity to defragment, the plastic instead of aluminum case, and the bad support. The price difference between the Mac and the high and low entrants was comfortably within the range of an "impulse purchase."

People spout off about Macs being "sooooo expensive blah blah Apple tax blah stupid fanboy Kool-Aid Drinker blah blah" but in so spouting show how ignorant they really are on the issue...and then you get called a fanboy for pointing it out to them. You have idiots spoon feeding idiots because they believe each other without bothering to actually find the facts.

Don't get me wrong, I've had my issues with Apple. But at the end of the day, when it comes to where I'll spend my money for a computer, there's no option but.

 

[SteveJUAE]

Given the higher grade casing, superior support system, more stable & more secure operating system, longer life, unmatched integration between software and hardware, higher resale value, and lack of infuriating bloatware, it's surprising they are not higher priced.

The only people who complain about the price of a Mac are the people who put more value on money than they do on quality, simple.

I'm not sure why you think this is all true especially as we are comparing similar premimum devices

• It's likely that the Mac casing is the cheapest of the upper tier casing where carbon/ali and magnesium alloy probaly cost more
• Supior support system is somewhat country specific but yes generally Apple is second to none
• OS very subjective
• There is no evidence Macs last any longer than any other premium device, hence Applecare
• Integration for a few apps that less than 15% of Mac users use on a regualar basis verse the most popular productivity software that simply runs better in windows is no real bragging brights and thats ignoring most CPU's have specific support for Windws features
• Higher re-sale is very country specific and some countries you almost can't give away Mac's let alone get a good price, US is a notable exception
• MacOS is not imune to bloatware it just depends on your perspective and use

So IMO it still remains why they are higher priced other than overheads for maintaining MacOS and all those stores.

You could equally say people who buy Apple and don't complain are those more concerned about branding than value LOL but that would be a gross exageration IMO

 

[therealseebs]

OP here's an astoundingly easy formula to keep in mind when you go computer shopping: If you think they're expensive, don't buy one. You may optionally bonk your head on the counter because you thought it would include arguing on the internet over which one is better.

Who would've thought it could be so simple?

This is useless if, say, I have a significant investment in the ecosystem, but Apple isn't willing to sell a computer that can do what I want, which is the case now. So I'm out $hundreds on software that I can't keep using, because I can't get the functionality I need out of the stuff Apple's willing to produce.

Which admittedly exaggerates slightly; honestly, after they killed Aperture and replaced it with Photos, which lacked key features that were absolutely essential to my workflow, that certainly made things easier for me for switching. There's a handful of apps I haven't got good replacements for, but there's also a lot of apps where I'm honestly better off now.
[doublepost=1496972011][/doublepost]

Given the higher grade casing, superior support system, more stable & more secure operating system, longer life, unmatched integration between software and hardware, higher resale value, and lack of infuriating bloatware, it's surprising they are not higher priced.

The only people who complain about the price of a Mac are the people who put more value on money than they do on quality, simple.

This is... basically entirely false. I would be totally willing to spend $4k to get a Mac that did what I want, but Apple won't make one at any price. But from my point of view, the Apple hardware is pretty solidly inferior. They have glossy displays (strictly inferior to antiglare, for my purposes), they have that awful keyboard, the keyboard lacks a function key bar, they have touchpad that doesn't have multiple distinct hardware buttons (I'm using a machine with a three-button trackpad now), low memory capacity, poor storage options and not enough of them... So basically, for every measure of quality of actual hardware I care about, my $2.2k laptop that I'm using now is significantly superior to the $3.5k Mac I returned. I can't even give the Mac integration; my 2015 Mac would sporadically crash if I put it to sleep and connected or disconnected an external monitor, my Dell running Linux handles it just fine. (And obviously, I have way less bloatware now.)

Longer life? The machine where you can't put in more RAM two years down the road doesn't have "longer life" from my perspective. Higher-grade casing? I'd rather have something serviceable and which can keep cool without making quite so much noise, etcetera.

Seriously, I get the thing about MacOS. If I could pay $1,500 and get MacOS for this hardware, I'd do it. (Well, I would have. Not so sure now that Apple's killed the last dedicated MacOS dev teams.) But in terms of the actual hardware, I would not consider it to be superior, or even as good.

 

[Altis]

I've been shopping around for something to replace my 2010 17" MBP as I have a completely different use case for the laptop now. I absolutely love it's glorious 17" display, but I'm on the go all the time now and often don't have much space to deploy it (or it leaves me with no room left to work).

One that I've been eyeing is the new 15.6" Yoga 720. For CAD $1750 it comes with i7 7700HQ (quad-core), 16 GB DDR4 2133 MHz RAM, 512 GB PCIe SSD, and a 4k touch+pen IPS display that opens to 360 degrees.

By comparison, the cheapest MBP (13" base, non-TB) is CAD $1900 -- which is more comparable with the 13" Yoga 720 at CAD $1100. The 15" MBP starts at CAD $3000.

I know the MBP is a very refined machine and all, but that's a pretty massive jump in cost. I'm also not too fond of the clamshell design anymore as the 360 degree hinges allow for very space-efficient "tent-mode", or I can use the laptop vertically by tucking the keyboard behind (which is the best way to dock it next to a large monitor).

 

[Queen6]

I sw

I've been shopping around for something to replace my 2010 17" MBP as I have a completely different use case for the laptop now. I absolutely love it's glorious 17" display, but I'm on the go all the time now and often don't have much space to deploy it (or it leaves me with no room left to work).

One that I've been eyeing is the new 15.6" Yoga 720. For CAD $1750 it comes with i7 7700HQ (quad-core), 16 GB DDR4 2133 MHz RAM, 512 GB PCIe SSD, and a 4k touch+pen IPS display that opens to 360 degrees.

By comparison, the cheapest MBP (13" base, non-TB) is CAD $1900 -- which is more comparable with the 13" Yoga 720 at CAD $1100. The 15" MBP starts at CAD $3000.

I know the MBP is a very refined machine and all, but that's a pretty massive jump in cost. I'm also not too fond of the clamshell design anymore as the 360 degree hinges allow for very space-efficient "tent-mode", or I can use the laptop vertically by tucking the keyboard behind (which is the best way to dock it next to a large monitor).

I switched my 13" primary notebook from a Retina MacBook to Microsoft's Surface Book and have never looked back. As much as Apple delivers a cohesive package, it simply does not compare to the usability and jump in productivity a good 2 in 1 can offer.

IMHO Apple should have been far less defensive of it's IOS devices. The Mac & iPad may mutually complement one another, however very different realms. Had Apple done so they would be leading the charge, not years behind as they now are.

Personally I would now find it difficult to return to a basic clamshell notebook as once you take the time to learn and develop the skills, take full advantage of the features a good 2 in 1 offers, returning to a basic clamshell paradigm would simply be a significant retrograde step.

Although at times I do miss OS X, I am now more productive, and ultimately profiting from it. Looking amazing and delivering the same can and are very different animals, especially when the defining factor is form over function. For me the buy in price is irrelevant, what I can deliver with the hardware is what really counts...

Q-6

 

[8692574]

I have the same concern with Google, because today everything has to offer a "Free Tier".
Running all of this datacenters without a real earning perspective.
I would loose sleep.

I hope you do not think that Google runs its datacenters for free

 

[Merkava_4]

If the laptop computer followed the same historic price pattern as the Texas Instruments electronic calculator; starting out at $400 in 1976 to about $30 today; the new 2017 MBP would be a fraction of the cost it is now. Electronic calculators dropped so drastically in price because of the easier ways developed to mass produce them, plus the shift to cheap Asian labor. Somehow Apple manages to keep the prices sky high. Reminds me of the monopoly that the DeBeers family has on the African diamond trade. If it wasn't for their stiff regulation of how many diamonds are allowed to leave the ground, diamonds would be as cheap as glass Coke bottles.