Apple updates MacBook with faster processors
#58
Posted 15 May 2007 - 07:11 PM
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're problem with calling it a tax is. It's a monetary burden associated with a color.
I'm not sure what you're problem with calling it a tax is. It's a monetary burden associated with a color.
A tax is something you pay because you're threatened with adverse consequences.
Black MacBooks are completely voluntary. It's really a "black premium" rather than a tax.
#59
Posted 15 May 2007 - 09:24 PM
Quote:
Why complain about Mac Mini? If they haven't upgraded much it means your old sytem has better value. Nothing is more irritating than spending a bundle on a machine and then finding out that some newer better computer has just come out.
I agree with this sentiment. Not to be regressive, but it's comforting that our $800+ Mac Mini purchase thirteen months ago still feels fresh and current. It's a great little media player for under our plasma screen. AppleTV is surely no threat to its relevance in our family room.
Why complain about Mac Mini? If they haven't upgraded much it means your old sytem has better value. Nothing is more irritating than spending a bundle on a machine and then finding out that some newer better computer has just come out.
#60
Posted 15 May 2007 - 10:40 PM
Your sarcasm is off base. Apple normally does one or two minor updates before doing a major update. The Macbook has only had one very minor update before this. As such, Apple is acting like it always does. Moreover, it makes little sense that Apple would do a complete makeover on the MacBook before it updated the Macbook Pros.
Quote:
But consumer gadgets aren't taking focus away from the Mac at all...
But consumer gadgets aren't taking focus away from the Mac at all...
#63
Posted 15 May 2007 - 10:51 PM
This is nonsense. Most true gamers are going to cough up for a machine that would cost much more then a MacBook to begin with. As far as not being competive is concerned, you should post links comparing prices to make your point.
Quote:
More than anything else, the integrated graphics reflect Apple's indifference to gaming, and therefore their indifference to a large part of the consumer market. The "Pro" part of the MacBook Pro name is totally meaningless to a consumer that's not a digital imaging/animation/whatever professional, but still wants to play games with the 3D settings at decent levels - and make no mistake, a lot of people fall into this category. If you want to play games at reasonable performance on an Apple laptop, your minimum expenditure is two thousand dollars, and that's simply absurd. It's not competitive at all with PC laptops.
More than anything else, the integrated graphics reflect Apple's indifference to gaming, and therefore their indifference to a large part of the consumer market. The "Pro" part of the MacBook Pro name is totally meaningless to a consumer that's not a digital imaging/animation/whatever professional, but still wants to play games with the 3D settings at decent levels - and make no mistake, a lot of people fall into this category. If you want to play games at reasonable performance on an Apple laptop, your minimum expenditure is two thousand dollars, and that's simply absurd. It's not competitive at all with PC laptops.
#64
Posted 15 May 2007 - 11:06 PM
You are correct, the price increase is largely because of aesthetics. You like many people are unwilling to pay extra for aesthetics even though you obviously prefer the aesthetics of the more expensive machine.
That is cool. However, many people are willing to pay extra for that because they like the aesthetics of the more expensive machine and want a more exclusive product. The price increase keeps the machine more exclusive. It also allows Apple to better control its inventory because Apple knows that if it offered both colors at the same price it may face a glut of White Macbooks.
Moreover, charging for aesthetics is hardly a new concept to Apple. To its own expense it did so with the Cube. It also did so with the Special Edition U2 iPods, and the Red Nanos.
That is cool. However, many people are willing to pay extra for that because they like the aesthetics of the more expensive machine and want a more exclusive product. The price increase keeps the machine more exclusive. It also allows Apple to better control its inventory because Apple knows that if it offered both colors at the same price it may face a glut of White Macbooks.
Moreover, charging for aesthetics is hardly a new concept to Apple. To its own expense it did so with the Cube. It also did so with the Special Edition U2 iPods, and the Red Nanos.
Quote:
Here's the bottom line. The black color has an extra cost associated with it that's based solely in aesthetics (that, oh noes, I like to call a tax). I think that's a poor policy (I'm not alone by any stretch of the imagination). I'm not going to support it monetarily. I really wish more people would treat it this way. If they did, color would be a free option like the matte/glossy screens on the MBP.
Here's the bottom line. The black color has an extra cost associated with it that's based solely in aesthetics (that, oh noes, I like to call a tax). I think that's a poor policy (I'm not alone by any stretch of the imagination). I'm not going to support it monetarily. I really wish more people would treat it this way. If they did, color would be a free option like the matte/glossy screens on the MBP.
#65
Posted 16 May 2007 - 12:52 AM
Quote:
It also allows Apple to better control its inventory because Apple knows that if it offered both colors at the same price it may face a glut of White Macbooks.
Or they could just make more black MacBooks than white to match demand. There's nothing saying it has to be a fixed ratio. It also allows Apple to better control its inventory because Apple knows that if it offered both colors at the same price it may face a glut of White Macbooks.
Quote:
To its own expense it did so with the Cube.
Different machine entirely. That's not just a paint job. To its own expense it did so with the Cube.
Quote:
It also did so with the Special Edition U2 iPods
The price difference was made up for with a $50 coupon off the U2 music collection that appeared on the iTunes store. It also did so with the Special Edition U2 iPods
Quote:
Red Nanos
Actually, they were and are the same price.
Red Nanos
#66
Posted 16 May 2007 - 12:52 AM
A typical speed bump upgrade. This is nothing new. People are reacting like the world is going to end. Get over it, it is a computer!
The whining and complaining over integrated graphics. Boo hoo! If you don't like it, don't buy it. The 950 graphics are far superior to the ATI Radeon 9000 graphics in my PowerBook G4 Titanium! The integrated graphics can play HD QuickTime movies, and they support Core Image. My PowerBook G4 with dedicated graphics does not.
However, my PowerBook G4 is almost 5 years old, still looks brand-new, and it does everything I need it to do, including editing movies in iMovie, iDVD, and burning DVD's. You don't need top of the line stuff to do most things on a computer.
Games. Are you kidding me? If you want to play games, do what everyone else does. Get a console. Computer games have been on the decline since the consoles took off with the superior graphics and now HD resolution.
The MacBook is a fine update. Nothing different from when they would speed bump the G3 and G4 models.
The whining and complaining over integrated graphics. Boo hoo! If you don't like it, don't buy it. The 950 graphics are far superior to the ATI Radeon 9000 graphics in my PowerBook G4 Titanium! The integrated graphics can play HD QuickTime movies, and they support Core Image. My PowerBook G4 with dedicated graphics does not.
However, my PowerBook G4 is almost 5 years old, still looks brand-new, and it does everything I need it to do, including editing movies in iMovie, iDVD, and burning DVD's. You don't need top of the line stuff to do most things on a computer.
Games. Are you kidding me? If you want to play games, do what everyone else does. Get a console. Computer games have been on the decline since the consoles took off with the superior graphics and now HD resolution.
The MacBook is a fine update. Nothing different from when they would speed bump the G3 and G4 models.
#67
Posted 16 May 2007 - 03:31 AM
One thing I applaud about this update is that it made the lowest price MacBook worthwhile for me, as I don't need DVD burning capability, I can get by with an 80 gig hard drive, and now I won't have to buy more RAM, assuming 1 gig will be enough for my needs (writing, surfing, iLife). So it winds up saving me $200, because I'd previously had my eye on the mid-range model. Also, this third generation MacBook may be more reliable than its predecessors; I've had good luck buying last-revision Macs in that regard (and they're also often part of good bundles or sales).
Still, I think I'll probably hold off till the next generation, which will include Leopard, iLife 07, maybe solid state storage rather than hard drives, probably LED screens. And, alas, maybe more flaws, as often seem to accompany major revisions.
Oh, and as for the suggestion of a 14" screen for a black MacBook -- apple said that they considered it a replacement for the 12" PB (aimed at business types who want a handsome, small notebook), so a larger model seems unlikely. Maybe when the rumored new subnotebook comes out, that will change. Potential switchers who don't appreciate the value differences between Macs and PCs see that they can get a (admittedly greatly inferior) Windows laptop with a 15" screen for $400, and have to pay five times that for an Apple in that size. But then a 14" or 15" MacBook would likely cannibalize MBP sales, so who knows? Well, plenty of people at Apple do, but they're not talking.
Still, I think I'll probably hold off till the next generation, which will include Leopard, iLife 07, maybe solid state storage rather than hard drives, probably LED screens. And, alas, maybe more flaws, as often seem to accompany major revisions.
Oh, and as for the suggestion of a 14" screen for a black MacBook -- apple said that they considered it a replacement for the 12" PB (aimed at business types who want a handsome, small notebook), so a larger model seems unlikely. Maybe when the rumored new subnotebook comes out, that will change. Potential switchers who don't appreciate the value differences between Macs and PCs see that they can get a (admittedly greatly inferior) Windows laptop with a 15" screen for $400, and have to pay five times that for an Apple in that size. But then a 14" or 15" MacBook would likely cannibalize MBP sales, so who knows? Well, plenty of people at Apple do, but they're not talking.
#69
Posted 16 May 2007 - 07:50 AM
Quote:
Moreover, charging for aesthetics is hardly a new concept to Apple. To its own expense it did so with the Cube. It also did so with the Special Edition U2 iPods, and the Red Nanos.
Moreover, charging for aesthetics is hardly a new concept to Apple. To its own expense it did so with the Cube. It also did so with the Special Edition U2 iPods, and the Red Nanos.
You made some good points.
While the Cube is not a paint issue it was offered at a higher price than comparably equipped Macs.
The U2 iPods had a certificate and I quote from Apple, "Video is available for download only in countries with the iTunes Store. Redemption card ships in box with iPod. Video not available for purchase separately." The not available for purchase statement means it has no established monetary value plus it is only available to those with an iTunes store. The certificate means that Apple wants some extra money now and will give back something of indeterminate value - maybe.
The Red costs Apple a donation to fight AIDS in Africa so makes your point in reverse. It has a nice sentiment and I quote, "That’s because $10 from every iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED sold goes directly to the Global Fund to fight AIDS in Africa. Which means your iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED sounds good and does good at the same time."
I like that line about "sounds good and does good" so would hope that all Apple marketing might meet that standard. Doing good is worthwhile. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
#70
Posted 16 May 2007 - 08:30 AM
Quote:
Quote:
It also allows Apple to better control its inventory because Apple knows that if it offered both colors at the same price it may face a glut of White Macbooks.
Or they could just make more black MacBooks than white to match demand. There's nothing saying it has to be a fixed ratio. It also allows Apple to better control its inventory because Apple knows that if it offered both colors at the same price it may face a glut of White Macbooks.
Quote:
To its own expense it did so with the Cube.
Different machine entirely. That's not just a paint job. To its own expense it did so with the Cube.
Quote:
It also did so with the Special Edition U2 iPods
The price difference was made up for with a $50 coupon off the U2 music collection that appeared on the iTunes store. It also did so with the Special Edition U2 iPods
Quote:
Red Nanos
Actually, they were and are the same price. Red Nanos
1) Yes, Apple could increase its inventory on the Black ones, but it is not easy to judge what the ratio will be. Apple historically has had a problem getting rid of certain colors of its products, especially the iMacs. It is possible Apple is partially using this as a way to control inventory.
2) Yes, the Cube was a different machine, but by all accounts you paid a very hefty price for the look. You could have bought a much more capable tower for less.
3) The $50 price coupon towards the U2 collection doesn't count as added value because it is only worth something if you actually bought the U2 collection, which I doubt most people did. Moreover, it probably cost Apple very little to offer the coupon, just like the harddrive with the Black Macbook.
4)My bad, you are correct about the current red nanos, but Apple in the past has charged a premium for certain color iPods and Minis.



Sign In
Register
Help

MultiQuote