I agree with all of that. But that was the case already in 2013. Already back then we bought great software and great support on top of the “bare” hardware. In fact, not few would claim we were buying better software/support back then while there was still more focus on Mac. But the actual question here is why they now think they can charge an extra ~$200 when the rest of the market is going the other route. Maybe indeed you’re right, they do so because they can do so. But conversely that means, if they can’t sell em, they’ll reconsider. And that would mean we just have to delay our purchases to get that message across. We’ll see what happens. For the record, I wouldn’t be surprised to see these sell well, for sure. But personally, I won’t be upgrading my 2013 to a new one if it’s to the tune of $2500. I’d need a really compelling new feature (not gimmick) to convince me to buy a new MBP for $2500 instead of say spending Thanksgiving on Kauai. ;)
That’s really the question. But I guess this premise is what really doesn’t make sense. The incentive it creates is for people to downsize. Getting an entry-level 13" is better value than specing it out. Or if you’re going 15" then stick to the low-end model.
It’s really the opposite of what you’d think they would be doing. Apple used to encourage upsell considerably. On the iPhone they still do that, but with this pricing on the new MBP they’re really missing out on the opportunity.
But the actual question here is why they now think they can charge an extra ~$200 when the rest of the market is going the other route.
Because Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acer, Samsung, etc., etc., etc. all crank out a bunch of laptops and desktop models and they all compete with each other. Some of them crank out so many at once I suspect they even compete with themselves. I took a quick look at the Dell website, and not only is it loaded with laptops and two-in-ones, they are having a “Black Friday in July” 40% off sale, with laptops starting at $179.99
https://deals.dell.com/?dgc=IR&cid=seg-bfijME&lid=sw&ref=bnn
Maybe indeed you’re right, they do so because they can do so. But conversely that means, if they can’t sell em, they’ll reconsider.
But Apple is selling well, and they are the most profitable hardware seller. And once again, Fortune named them the most profitable and valuable company in the world, a title they’ve held for years:
http://fortune.com/2018/05/21/fortune-500-companies-2018/
Apple has also had the largest market capitalization in the world for years, and the other hardware companies don’t even come close to App,e, even though they each sell many millions more laptops and desktops than Apple does. And they are expected to become the first trillion dollar company this year:
And that would mean we just have to delay our purchases to get that message across.
Macs and MacBook pros are known for their longevity, which is attributed to Apple’s comparatively not cutting corners in materials and manufacturing. My MacBook Pro is so elderly that my elderly brain doesn’t recall the exact year I bought it, it was either 2007 or 2009. I’m only replacing it because the touchpad recently became unusable and is ready to explode.
Not on the Mac they aren’t. Mac sales have stagnated. Just look at the latest Q2 estimates just in today. While HP, Dell, and Lenovo increased their unit shipments in the US by 6-11%, Apple increased theirs by 3%. Now that wouldn’t mean much if Apple for example had stellar previous quarters and the others’ all sucked, but that’s not the case.
Apple’s lack of interest for the Mac is showing in their lackluster sales. Apple was growing its US market share by about 1% per year until about 4 years ago. Now they’re essentially flat globally, and in the US growing at less than 0.3% per year.
Now you could argue that none of that matters as long as Apple is making more money on the Mac than they used to. So let’s assume for a moment that’s true. For a prospective buyer what does it mean if Apple is making more off of fewer sales? Either Macs have become cheaper to make, they’re selling for more, or both. And that combination essentially means the buyer is losing and Apple is winning. My conclusion, I’m not joining that game.
Not on the Mac they aren’t. Mac sales have stagnated. Just look at the latest Q2 estimates just in today. While HP, Dell, and Lenovo increased their unit shipments in the US by 6-11%, Apple increased theirs by 3%. Now that wouldn’t mean much if Apple for example had stellar previous quarters and the others’ all sucked, but that’s not the case.
Revenues are a stronger measurement of company and brand health, and HP, Dell and Lenovo’s PCs don’t generate nearly the kind of profits that Macs yield. Mac’s annual revenues are close Lenovo, HP and Dell’s, though they sell far fewer Macs:
Based on the Gartner data and my rough annual revenue estimates listed in the previous paragraph, Lenovo’s average selling price (ASP) is about $479. HP’s is $640. Dell’s ASP calculates out to roughly a thousand dollars per PC. That said, it probably comes as no surprise that the Macintosh has a higher average selling price, coming in at just about $1,350 per machine sold.
Apple’s lack of interest for the Mac is showing in their lackluster sales. Apple was growing its US market share by about 1% per year until about 4 years ago. Now they’re essentially flat globally, and in the US growing at less than 0.3% per year.
Apple has been significantly raising the prices of Macs with every new release while the other PC makers have not been raising them much, if at all. From the article quoted above (and I suggest reading the whole thing)
While overall PC desktop sales have been moribund for years. Apple has shown an astonishing 25 percent quarter-over-quarter growth in Mac sales from the previous quarter, and 10 percent year over year.
Now you could argue that none of that matters as long as Apple is making more money on the Mac than they used to. So let’s assume for a moment that’s true. For a prospective buyer what does it mean if Apple is making more off of fewer sales?
It means that Apple is selling diamonds and the PC manufacturers are selling cubic zirconia. And the owners of Macs think different.
iFixit has found a silicone membrane under the keys of the new MBP. I suppose this is what makes the KB quieter. iFixit is insinuating that this is a cover-up for fixing reliability issues with the previous KB and that Apple can’t admit to it because of the class-action lawsuit they face for the older MBP KB failures. Not sure what to make of that.
https://ifixit.org/blog/10279/apple-macbook-keyboard-cover-up/
If it fixes the problem, I’m OK with I wonder how many other laptops, if any, use a silicone membrane in their keyboards; If I remember correctly, Surface keyboards had a number of problems since they were introduced.
Stagnated at Apple’s highest market share of the 21st century. Or so your (in the other thread) chart indicates. I’ll take that kind of stagnation.
Apple filed for a patent on this very “key condom” design earlier this year and described it as a way to prevent dust and debris from hindering the keys and preventing them from working properly (getting stuck).
It’s pretty obvious that this 3rd Generation keyboard design is ENTIRELY a fix for the stuck keyboard problem, and has nothing to do with making it a “quieter” keyboard—though I’m sure they’re happy to have it as a side-effect" they can use as a marketing tool.
I personally loved the feel and sound of the 2nd Gen keyboard, but I’m happy to have the new design if it prevents potential dust issues.
Here’s something for the “Apple should switch from Intel to their own” crowd. CPU-wise this apparently has been the most significant improvement on the MBP since 2011.
The A10X in the iPad Pro scores a 9309 (multi-core). Even the base 13" MBP gets almost twice that. And of course the 15" is far beyond. It doesn’t look better if you take single-core scores either. I’m definitely happy we still have Intel in the new MBPs.
Two points about the idea of Apple making their own CPUs instead of using Intel’s in Macs:
- My expectation has been they would start with lower-end products like the 12-inch MacBook or a Mac mini. The A10X in the iPad Pro scores a 9309 (multi-core) while the best processor choice in the Mid-2017 MacBook scores a 7584 (multi-core). The A10X’s single core score is 3957, the Mid-2017 MacBook’s is 3926, and some of these 2018 MacBook Pros are only ten percent faster.
- The fact that this is the best speed-bump since 2011 is an argument against being dependent upon Intel; it’s not like Apple was choosing to not use faster Intel mobile processors all this time. My understanding is the rate of improvement for ARM-based processors like Apple’s has been much better than for Intel processors for a long time. Improving performance further simply by adding more cores is relatively easy, especially when you don’t have as tight space, heat, or power constraints as you do in an iPad or iPhone.
To be clear, I’m not gung-ho for Apple making such a change, simply on the grounds that it will make the Mac ecosystem more complex and bloat applications that are “universal” again. I’m happy that these new MacBook Pro models have a significant performance boost, it will be good for some video production folks at work who are getting replacements this year.
Thanks to Dell who leaked Intel Amber Lake specs, we get a first idea what a revamped MacBook could look like.
4 posts were merged into an existing topic: Heat-related Performance Problems with Intel Core i9 MacBook Pros
Great news for 13" MBP buyers. All TB3 ports now offer full bandwidth courtesy of 8th gen Intel Core CPUs.
After reading the article, I cannot make sense of any of what you are saying. This is not a design error, it involves a chip limitation in all sixth and seventh generation Intel i5 and i7 chips, so all Macs so equipped have this limitation on right-side ports.
-Al-
The new 15" has DP 1.4, the 13" doesn’t. Neither will be driving a 8K display anytime soon though. And it’s not the fault of the new TB3 controller.