Why???

Why does $1500 for an Asus laptop seem like a lot of money, but $2500 for a Macbook Pro seem reasonable?

Curse you Apple for your magical marketing abilities!!

 

i don't think both of those statements are true.

 

You just answered your own question...marketing.

 

i don't think $2500 for a MBP is reasonable for my needs which is why i am not getting one, as much as i love the computer. same thing with ipod/iphone...

it's kind of like shopping at walmart and bana republic for a shirt. A $50 shirt at Walmart is outrageously expensive, but $50 shirt at banana republic is a bargain--even though they're both made in "fill-in-your-favorite-developing-nation"

the fact that they can throw a LED backlighting into the MBP and charge the same as the older MBPs shows you how much they were marking up before the upgrade... unless all the talk about LED backlighting being more expensive than CCFL is a big lie.

 

Seriously, the price margine between the MBP and a comparable PC system has been cut alot.

Look at the kickass specs in a new MBP:
2.4ghz C2D processor
Nvidia 256mb 8600m GT
LED Screen: Best i have ever seen, and im in graphics work
N wireless
Santa Rosa Platform
Webcam
5.4 Pounds and 1" thick!!!! The thing is Solid as a Rock
The possibilites to Run OS X and Windows and Linux on the same computer...you get the best of all worlds depending on what you need

Curently, this is one of only 2 notebooks to offer the new 8600m GT graphics card....this is according to the benchmarks ive seen...the best dx10 gaming notebook to date, and the bestlooking, oh and i can actually take this away from my desk to tear up some noobs.

 

It's because there's no direct competition for Apple Computers. That's why they can charge higher and you people will keep buying.

 

^^^^(birdguy) they do not sell any computer for what it is actually worth may friend.

i'm sure apple could be taking a hit for every laptop sold, or maybe they are making something, who knows, but the fact of the matter is, they are offering a computer the IN FACT, no other computer out their can compare with, do you want to know why? they are a software company and hardware company, simple as that, they are completely unique in that sense, and can afford to sell their computers at a little bit of a premium.

and like the original poster said, it doesn't hurt to have advertising geniuses.

i agree with the original poster on this one

the new iPhone commercials are genius, skip all of the bull**** and just show everyone exactly what it does and how it works.

 

agreed, which is why Steve Jobs killed the mac cloning business as one of the first item on his agenda when he went back to Apple--thus left my PowerComputing clone unsupported and worthless...

in the end though, Apple probably won't have flourished like now since they have to make money in software AND hardware. Competition with other hardware clones would have eroded their hardware business. smart move by jobs.

 

Well, it's really just that screen that's unique. None of the other specs are particularly special. Take away the screen and it's just a generic laptop w/ the same specs as every other SR 15.4" that's out or about to be released, albeit a cool-looking one. Put that screen into the equation and nothing can really compare

 

i dunno ... the selling points on the MacBook Pro for me are size and weight, in addition to hot specs for a 15.4" notebook. Where else can you get a sub-6lb, 1 inch notebook with good battery life, and the best video card for that size? OS X, iLife, etc. are nice additions, but not the selling points for me. It's all about Apple styling!

 

It just means that component prices have dropped.......... Apple updates the hardware and maintains the same basic price points. So what you get for $2000 now is more than what you got for $2000 a year ago.

This isn't unique to Apple. What you get for a $2000 ThinkPad now is better than what you got with a $2000 ThinkPad before.

By your logic, Asus was overcharging for the $1899 of the original Asus G1S because the Santa Rosa G1S only costs $100 more yet has a much better GPU, ExpressCard, HDMI, etc.

 

Again, I'd say the pricing is very comparable. Looking at the $2499 MBP, it compares very favorably I think with the $1999 Asus G1S; when you factor in the LED screen, 2.4GHz CPU instead of 2.2 GHz, and the fact that the MBP is only 1" thick and 5.4 pounds, I think the $500 price difference is really quite reasonable.

If someone can point to a PC laptop with the following specs that is significantly cheaper, that would be something to discuss:

2.4 GHz CPU
8600M GT 256MB GPU
1" thick
5.4 pounds
2GB RAM
160GB HD
15.4" LED-backlit screen

Right now there isn't anything on the market directly comparable to this in terms of physical dimensions or the LED-backlit screen. It will be interesting to see how things pan out when more of these types of machines start coming out.

But right now I'd say, just comparing to the Asus G1S (differences aside), the pricing is not that unreasonable.

-Zadillo

 

Hrm, well the Thinkpad is only 0.13" thicker and weighs 0.3-0.5 lbs (5.7"-6.0" total) more, so it's not horribly off.

The HP nc8430 is only 0.1" thicker, at 5.9 lbs. The HP 8510p will also only be 0.1" thicker, but will miss the 6lb mark by 0.1 lb.

The Asus V1JP weighs less than 0.2 lb more than the MBP at 5.6 lb, and there's no real reason to believe that the SR refresh will be any heavier. It's still a good 0.4 inches thicker than the MBP though at 1.4" thick.

So you're right, the MBP is undeniably the most compact (weight and thickness and sleekness) for its power. Along with that LED screen, it's definitely unique.

I know I'd much rather pay the extra $500 for the MBP's uniqueness than say, the VX2's. Still, it IS still an extra $500 though, which hurts (more counting the upcoming OS upgrade, and Vista).

 

Well, a max-configured G1S is $2605.21. A max configured MBP is $3399, not including the warranty. If you get academic discount, you drop around ~$200 or so. Actually, a lot of that difference is due to the $750 cost for RAM upgrades. xoticpc and most retailers only charge a little over the price of the part for an upgrade to 4GB, so that's around $300-400 difference right there. Looking just at the base specs, the difference in price isn't bad at all for a machine with obvious unique advantages to it over the G1S.

A 2.4GHz MBP w/ 2GB RAM on academic discount is $2434. A 2.4 GHz G1S with similar specs (2GB RAM) is ~$2193. That's not bad at all.

BTW, how is the standard 2 GB RAM arranged in the MBP? 1 DIMM or 2? I'd rather just buy my own and upgrade instead of pay $750.

I also hate how the ship date jumped from 2-4 days to 4-6 weeks over the span of this afternoon

 

well, yes, and not at all.

you missed my point.

Apple is a hardware and SOFTWARE company, what other computer maker is? what other computer maker is releasing their own OS, and Pro software??

that is why, plain and simple.

Apple hasn't necessarily been major innovators in this industry, they didn't invent the MP3 player, but with the iPod they made a hell of a lot better and easy to use.

with their pro software, like final cut studio, etc. they didn't invent the non-linear editing system, they just made it more accessible an inexpensive for a huge new amount of users.

this is their main focus on all the products they make. accessibility.

they are not trying to compete with MS as an OS company, they have a completely different outlook at this point, compared to MS, and basically all other companies.

 

Well, yes as you described here, Apple is a good example of vertical integration. That's more the reason why they can set their own market prices to an extent than their image of "accessibility". I don't necessary feel that's a good thing for the computer market as a whole though--for either Apple users, or the rest of us who are stuck with the sole unchallenged OS maker-Microsoft. (sorry, Linux just doesn't count )

 

it is perfectly fine as long as the company that is doing it, is actually passionate about what they are releasing unlike so many companies out their.

the people that are making and in charge of Apple are using Apple products, not out of requirement, out of choice.

they cannot be the sole computer/os maker, and I don't think they are striving for that.

because Apple has been in the game long enough, and have stuck to a specific model long enough, is why it works.

a company like Dell, or whoever, could not compete if they released an OS. 1 - because Apple easily has 30 years on them in that particular market. 2 - because most computer makers, seem to have no passion at all for adding something to the industry, a few yes, but too many see it as, simply, an industry. where I think Apple definitely sees it differently, and so does Microsoft, although most people wouldn't believe it.

 

Not really, Apple almost never changes its prices for products until shortly before a replacement comes out, and usually only $150-$200 rebates in the last two month of the product's life cycle (barring occasional sales of same small amount). PC prices constantly move in competition with other PC makers, and the prices are re-eastablished by many many minor upgrades for the same major model number (not platform upgrades). Apple products change at a much much slower pace, therefore allow more room for profit as the component prices drop.

theoretically, one should buy Apple products when right when it's released since you're almost guaranteed that the price will not drop anytime soon, and have a longer period to enjoy your new technology--in other words, get more for your $2000.

 

Yes, although Apple has changed a bit in that regard; that is, they've been doing more incremental updates to the existing products in between major upgrades - things where they boost the RAM, hard drive size, CPU, etc. as component prices drop.

But yes, your point is well taken - that is part of how Apple is able to be profitable, as they are able to make more money as new products "age" in their product line. But I'd say that they are staying pretty competitive in terms of product updates; as new tech like C2D, Santa Rosa, etc. have come out I think Apple has been very good about getting them out on the market quickly and not letting products languish with old tech.

-Zadillo

 

^^^it is too bad it took them so many years to make the switch to Intel however

if you were trying to make this point a few years back with powerbooks, the point would be very well taken (at least in terms of the hardware for the dollar)

 

Well, yes...... in the PowerBook G3 and G4 days, there wasn't that much that could radically be done........ the PowerBook G4 though was a pretty radical change from any previous PowerBook though, in terms of thickness, power for the time, materials, etc.

But yeah, especially on the mobile side, it got to the point where there was nowhere to move, because the prospect of a mobile PowerPC G5 was impossible.

That is really why the Intel switch became necessary; not so much because Apple wanted things like dual-boot capabilities, etc........ but because Apple knew how important the mobile platform was becoming (which has been born out, as laptops are representing a greater percentage of overall computer purchases), and that the only solution was to switch to Intel, who was doing great things (with the Pentium M showing a lot of promise at the time the switch was first announced).

 

on a completely different subject, can anyone find me a laptop that includes that following:

2.2 GHz CPU
8600M GT 256MB GPU
under 6.8lbs
2gb Ram
160gb hd
15.4 1680 x 1050 screen
2 year warranty
cardreader
light scribe drive
carrying case and mouse
more than 2 usb ports
estata
HDMI which of course support hdcp
and atleast $500 less then the mid level mbp?

differences aside? don't get me wrong, the mbp is one of my top choices right now but it's those differences that make the price unreasonable. or atleast one could reasonably argue just as you have.



edit:

I wonder if a year from now when all apple has changed is perhaps the cpu while most manufacturers have upgraded their gpus and maybe led screen, would u still be recommending a mbp

 

That implies that a year from now Apple wouldn't upgrade to those newer GPU's either, if they came out.

The only thing Apple didn't do really is offer a minor GPU update (i.e. MBP with maybe an X1700 or GeForce 7700 or something as an interim upgrade); but given the slight performance increases, I don't think it changed the equation much.

Apple did a major update when there was something like the 8600M GT that offered a real difference from the X1600.

So as for that question, yes, I'd still recommend the MBP a year from now, but of course it would depend on the needs of the user, what else was available, etc.

Anyway, as to your question; was that rhetorical? Because of course you did describe the Asus G1S exactly. I'm not sure if that's your point or what?

I'm not disputing that the Asus G1S offers a very nice package itself.

I think the Asus G1S and the new MBP's both offer a lot to recommend themselves depending on what your needs are.

I still disagree though that the MBP price is unreasonable though. There are significant differences when comparing the G1S and MBP; you outlined some things that the G1S has in its favor, and if those were the most important elements, the G1S is the way to go.

But I can say at least personally, I don't really want an almost 7 pound laptop, so the 5.4 pound weight and 1" thickness of the MBP appeals to me. I especially feel this after getting a chance to try out a G1 at a local Best Buy. I love the specs of the G1, but the chassis is very large and heavy for what I want.

-Zadillo

 

well it doesnt.
In my mind macs are still unreasonable, especially the 17" macpro
I shopped the Sony AR, Asus G2p and macpro 17 at the time i bought the G2. Screen res is not a huge concern for me and im not a fps wienie but the stats of the macpro just wasnt up to the G2. Besides that the mac screen was the worst compared to the Sony and Asus.
On top of that the macpro definately wasnt worth $1200 more

 

I was only basing that statement on apple's track record. I guess they could update it, kinda like... i don't know, george bush could fix the war in iraq.

Not sure how valid that statement is, going from x1600 to 7700 is a minor update. I think there are benchmarks that would argue differently. either way apple could have updated the 17" to atleast a 7800, which wouldn't have left the 8600gt much of an upper hand. Great marketing on apple's part, but consumers usually get the low end of the stick when it comes to great marketing.

which means you would recommend it and not recommend it, which could apply for just about every laptop out there

i guess what i was trying to point out was that your whole arguement for the mbp being reasonable didn't have any validity except to you and those who would chose to ignore the shortcommings of the mbp

yes, mbp is indeed tempting. maybe on one of those moments where i'm unreasonable, i'll pick one up, and thats the most earnest thing i've said today.

 

The MBP is comparative to most and especially Dell's XPS line which is sort crap right now. But you did yourself a justice buying the Asus since you had no intention of using the MBP as a Mac, you just saved yourself time, money and trouble.

 

Personally I'm not making a nut & bolts / value proposition argument for the Macbook Pro. They're nice machines and everyone knows it, and they're also overpriced - although that argument is shrinking. But c'mon - Apple's been selling Intel hardware for about a year and they have the BEST MACHINE ON THE MARKET. And people are buying them. The guys and Lenova, Dell & HP must be stewing.

My point is this - even overpriced, people buy them and feel GOOD about it. Not everybody - obviously - but a lot of folks, and the numbers are growing. Dudes, I'm running Linux and I'm nearly prepared to spend the money on an Apple when it has very little benefit to me.

Example - I priced out an Inspiron for about a grand that does everything I want. It's C2D 2ghz, 2gb RAM, good video, the works. Yet I'd be WAY more satisfied spending twice that for a MBP.

I'd spend a bit more, maybe $1500, for an Asus because they're nicer. If I'm going to use something for the next 3 years, daily, the extra $500 is no big deal.

Clearly it's not about the money. Apple has done a really good job figuring out a problem and delivering a solution. I'll pay a little extra for that.

Maybe.. I'm still thinking about it.