[Arcadia]

Quote:

---

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

---

That's all well and good, but we are Apple's customers. It is our role to state when those products do not meet our requirements. If those requirements are reasonable - as I think asking for a sub-$2000 laptop with less-than-top-tier, but more-than-bare-bones gaming performance, as is readily available in the PC world, clearly is - then no one, not fellow consumers, not Apple itself, has any business shutting us up. It's our right to ask, to demand, and it takes an incredible loss of perspective to assert otherwise. There were two comments made in the Macrumors.com thread about this story that just blew my mind:
"Apple is under no obligation to satisfy you."
and
"It is your fault if you can't find a Mac that meets your needs."
That's verbatim. So much of what has been posted here, and elsewhere, is nothing more than a diluted version of those twisted declarations. Take for example this:

Quote:

---

Games. Are you kidding me? If you want to play games, do what everyone else does. Get a console.

---

Firstly, you might want to look at the multi-billion dollar computer gaming market before saying "everyone else." Secondly, WTF? I want to play games on a Mac, so I should get a console? The implied premise here is that economical Mac gaming is an unreasonable proposition. It isn't. Just because Apple chooses to not facilitate it doesn't mean it's unreasonable for us to want it. Apple's precedent doesn't mean jack here - the precedent set by the gigantic PC gaming world does. That's what drives the expectations of many, and folding one's arms and declaring "Well, that's just how it is!" solves absolutely nothing.

[nelson92]

Quote:

---

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

---

And I'm one who didn't but nor did I buy the U2 iPod but you make a good point none the less.

[Peter Cohen]

Quote:

---

Firstly, you might want to look at the multi-billion dollar computer gaming market before saying "everyone else."

---

You won't find a bigger advocate of Mac gaming than me -- I've staked a big part of my professional career on the premise that it's an important business -- but let's not overstate the case. PC gaming, of which Mac gaming is a subset, is less than a billion dollar a year business, and has steadily been shrinking for the past several years.
That's not to say that that gaming is still not an important business. And I fundamentally believe Apple is at a strategic disadvantage by not offering a coordinated, cogent marketing strategy for games. But I also just wanted to set the record straight on the numbers lest anyone cast it aside as hyperbole.
It's clear that gaming is still an important market niche for mainstream PC makers to reach out to. That's the whole point of Dell's "XPS" product line, which runs from desktops to laptops, all of which represent the high end of their hardware offerings, and a premium price to match. I'm not sure the same economics would really work that well in the Mac market.
I know a lot of people want to see the MacBook, specifically get a better 3D graphics system than what it has, and I'm among those. But I think we need to understand how this market is differentiated in the PC space to understand what options Apple has with the MacBook and MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac mini and Mac Pro. So to bring this around full circle to the topic at hand, I think that expecting a $1200 MacBook to be an excellent gaming machine is just probably not within the realm of reason.

[Arcadia]

Quote:

---

You won't find a bigger advocate of Mac gaming than me -- I've staked a big part of my professional career on the premise that it's an important business -- but let's not overstate the case. PC gaming, of which Mac gaming is a subset, is less than a billion dollar a year business, and has steadily been shrinking for the past several years.

---

Should've said multi-million, my bad.

Quote:

---

It's clear that gaming is still an important market niche for mainstream PC makers to reach out to. That's the whole point of Dell's "XPS" product line, which runs from desktops to laptops, all of which represent the high end of their hardware offerings, and a premium price to match. I'm not sure the same economics would really work that well in the Mac market.
I know a lot of people want to see the MacBook, specifically get a better 3D graphics system than what it has, and I'm among those. But I think we need to understand how this market is differentiated in the PC space to understand what options Apple has with the MacBook and MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac mini and Mac Pro. So to bring this around full circle to the topic at hand, I think that expecting a $1200 MacBook to be an excellent gaming machine is just probably not within the realm of reason.

---

Dell's XPS line is only one facet, though, as are the hardcore gamers. The computer gaming market is a broad spectrum that runs from ultra-serious system builders to casual players, and IMO the middle ground is much, much larger and more significant than is usually acknowledged: the group that doesn't find absolutely top-tier gaming performance worth the required premium (from any manufacturer), but still wants something that's better than garbage. On the PC side of things, there's a wide selection of laptops that literally fit their bill. I'm not suggesting that Apple match them product for product, since simplicity is the hallmark of its product line, but to at least have one thing available in that range - there's clearly a demand for it. As the lineup currently stands, a Mac buyer's minimum expense for portable non-crippled graphics is $2000, the cheapest MacBook Pro available. Going down, there's no middle ground; one jumps to the MacBook and subpar gaming performance. I'm not saying the bar has to be hugely raised, to "excellent" performance - just raised a little, to something demonstrably better than what we're currently getting. I firmly believe it's within Apple's capability to do this without altering pricing, and that they would pick up a lot of satisfied customers in the process.

[bigpics]

Quote:

---

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! ......[text removed].....
The MacBook is a fine update. Nothing different from when they would speed bump the G3 and G4 models.

---

Actually there is a major difference, or two in fact....
1. No one has refuted the assertion that the Santa Rosa chip set is NOT more expensive than the previous cost of the previous set -- or if it is, somewhat, the speed bumps and larger HD's could have been BTO options. Santa Rosa is not an option on the new MB's.
2. Apple is NOT competing solely against its own higher profit MBP's in these transformed times, but against the whole Intel using world these days. Rather than worry about "cannabalizing" some of those sales, a more profitable long-term focus should be on market share in the broader world.
People, whether they understand them fully or not, read specs. They will see the difference in the FSB number, etc.
However, I'm going to cut Cupertino a little possible slack based on another historical fact about Apple: its policy of fully supporting only a highly limited number of configs to keep everything working smoothly.
Therefore, I'll theorize that Apple had a Santa-Rosa MB ready to go until Leopard had to be delayed -- and that with so many interlocking efforts focusing on the upcoming "Leopard Ecology," Apple may have decided that parsimony lies in not doing any heavy lifting on the Tiger code base to get it to support the new Intel HW platform. Ergo, given a five or six month minimum upgrade cycle, Apple could easily roll out an SR equipped MB with a fully supportive Leopard in the fall, just in time for the holiday sales blitz. And after the first round of Intel price cuts on the new chipset, we'll get the new improvements plus those just announced with no price increase.
Not to mention Leopard-primed iMacs, MBP's, Minis and more.
We all live in hope, if not in Arkansas.
*
PS: The blackbook would be much more tolerable with 2GB of standard ram for say $50 more than priced as is... ...that should keep margins at least where the whitebooks are and give a greater reason to buy.....

[robco]

Quote:

---

It's clear that gaming is still an important market niche for mainstream PC makers to reach out to. That's the whole point of Dell's "XPS" product line, which runs from desktops to laptops, all of which represent the high end of their hardware offerings, and a premium price to match. I'm not sure the same economics would really work that well in the Mac market.

---

The problem is that Apple's portables are more comparable to the XPS and Latitude line. The Inspirons are cheap pieces of crap. Apple does charge a premium price, but does deliver with higher quality stuff. They use 667MHz RAM instead of putting in cheaper 533 for example. The build quality is much better than cheap Windows laptops and offer features like DVI and digital audio out, which aren't as common (but becoming more so) on other low-end laptops.

Quote:

---

I know a lot of people want to see the MacBook, specifically get a better 3D graphics system than what it has, and I'm among those. But I think we need to understand how this market is differentiated in the PC space to understand what options Apple has with the MacBook and MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac mini and Mac Pro. So to bring this around full circle to the topic at hand, I think that expecting a $1200 MacBook to be an excellent gaming machine is just probably not within the realm of reason.

---

I don't expect the MacBook to be excellent, but decent isn't outside the realm of reason. Even a low-end card like the 8400M or 2400 would be a nice option.
I think the larger issue is Apple's rather limited Mac product line. I know the grid is nice and simple, but if one of the few options doesn't meet your needs, you're SOL and stuck with Windows. I'm also annoyed that Apple equates a larger size with more features. Just because I want a compact notebook doesn't mean I don't want good features. Likewise, I may want something with a larger display, but that doesn't mean I want every other feature under the sun. And of course, there are quite a few folks clamoring for an expandable desktop that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

[Moof_in_Charge]

Kindly order me a black iPod Nano in the 2 GB range. I will pay you a $20 service fee :-)

[d00d]

Quote:

---

Kindly order me a black iPod Nano in the 2 GB range. I will pay you a $20 service fee :-)

---

I'll assume you were actually responding to me. Here's the thing about that. The price difference between the 2 GB and 4 GB iPods is $50. As is the price difference between the 4 GB and 8GB models. In that case, the stats justify the price difference (and in fact, exceed it when taking the 2 to 4 GB difference into account). Further, the price difference of the 4GB and 8GB Red Nanos is $50, the same as the price difference between the black and any 4 GB model. Therefore, the price difference is justified solely by the hardware. That's not true in the MacBook situation.
But I'm sure you thought about all that and conveniently decided to ignore it. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[d00d]

Quote:

---

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.

---

When it comes to two colors, it really isn't that hard and using price as a control measure is no more precise than manufacturing control (worse I suspect).

Quote:

---

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.

---

But the tower took up a lot more space and wasn't fanless. There was more going on than aesthetics, let alone just a color.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Doesn't really matter. The coupon had a $50 monetary value to the consumer whether they exercised it or not. Where's the $125 coupon that comes with the MacBook?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Not without a corresponding hardware difference that justified the price difference.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

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.

---

For the record, Apple has never charged a premium for an iPod color alone. Certain-colored models often had different features that other colors -- for example, more capacity -- but I can't recall an example of an iPod costing more solely because of its color. (The U2 Special Edition models are the closest things, but they cost more mainly because of the engraved signatures on the back and, arguably, the $50 coupon included.)

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

I remember that when Apple released the first (G4) Mac Minis, they said how much better the Mac Mini was than low end PCs that had integrated graphics.

---

It's fair to point out that integrated graphics have come a long way over the past few years. The 950 chipset in the current MacBooks and Mac minis is much, much better than the integrated graphics cards found in PCs from January 2005, and is comparable in many ways -- other than 3D gaming performance -- to the type of low-end dedicated graphic card that might be used instead. In other words, Apple's argument was valid in January 2005, but that doesn't make the company hypocritical nowadays.

[MCJ]

Derik, I'm with you in that I agree that the premium for the black model is just not worth it. (In fact I personally prefer the white; the black finish is a fingerprint fiend.)
Saying that I would not challenge Apple's prerogative to choose its own pricing strategy, the success of which is measured in sales and not in the court of public opinion.

[memyselfni]

I've never owned a Mac, just PCs. I've been wanting a notebook and started looking at the Macbook b/c (for one thing) I sit in front of MS Windows all day at my job and I don't want to come home at night & look at it. My parents just got a new desktop with Vista installed. On a brand new PC, Vista manages to load the thing down to where it feels not much better than their old Win98 machine. It looks pretty, but they would have been better off going with XP (I tried to suggest Apple but to no avail).
I was set to buy a used MB off ebay until I saw the new specs just released. Now it's worth it to me to spring for the new one (& I just found out I can get about 6% percent off thru my employer). The new MB seems perfect for my needs, the smaller footprint is appealing to me. I need it mostly for Internet access, tracking finances, & playing music (I'll be getting a Line6 GuitarPort for it). So thanks Apple, you just made my decision that much easier!

[alexjohnson]

Quote:

---

I think what gets under people's skin and makes them gripe about this so much (and give others the false impression that their video is somehow going to look bad) is that the MacBook is perfect for them EXCEPT for the ability to play 3D games. And they don't want to pay an extra $1000 just to be able to play a game. So, they get angry. It's like Apple is holding some prize just out of reach for them.
Long story short, if you don't play 3D games, the MacBook should be awesome.

---

For me, it comes down to two issues. One is Civ 4. I have a 12" AlBook and it is - as they told me, in fairness - so slow as to be unplayable. I don't think of myself as a "gamer" and even if I did, I think there is a middle-ground between being able to play a FPS at a basic level, and running around with unbelievable detail and refresh rates. I remember my original bondi iMac dod a great job on the early Tomb Raiders for example - that's all I want. And I think this is unexceptional. Not everyone wants an uber games machine, but that doesn't mean we want nothing at all.
Second, happily I can afford a MBP. I just don't really want one. The original 12" PowerBook was the best PowerBook ever. I remember when it was released in 2003 thinking that it was like Apple took my wishlist and made a computer. I know I'm not alone. It was able to run all the Tomb Raiders, Sim Cities, and Civilizations. Maybe not like a desktop, but well enough for me. I'm on my second now and it's getting a little old, though it still works. Apple tells me I have to get a plastic MacBook. I wish to God they'd make an aluminium one, put in a graphics card, charge $500 more, and keep it that small.