Can Apple afford NOT to upgrade the Macbook to merom?

[anthonymoody]

I've heard all the arguments against dropping the merom into the macbook:

-They need to (better) differentiate the consumer line from the pro line

-Apple doesn't directly compete with PC mfrs and therefore doesn't have to always have the latest and greatest processors in all its products. Plus, PC mfrs are (still) going to be shipping notebooks with lesser processors, even older pentium Ms, so it's not all about the latest and greatest.

-Keeping the coreduo chip in the macbook would allow Apple to drop the macbook price, making it even more affordable (and also further differentiating it from the pro line)


To all this I say. . . I still don't buy it. I still don't see how Apple can afford to have its consumer notebooks be uncompetitive in the marketplace. Look at all the merom announcements - PC mfrs have upgraded their lines pretty much up and down the pole - from consumer laptops up to multimedia powerhouses. Unless Apple pretty dramatically reduces prices on the macbook, I can't see how they leave the coreduo in there.

I could be wrong of course, but that's my opinion, fwiw.

TM

 

[Temujin]

The average consumer doesn’t care if their portable has a CoreDuo or a Core2Duo, or even a Pentium M for that matter. The only thing important to them is that it works.
So yeah Apple can afford not equipping the MB with a Core2Duo, since the MB is targeted at the consumer market and not the Pro consumer market.

 

[clevin]

CPU, CPU, who cares, most nowaday's CPUs are more than enough for everyday use,

 

[Chone]

CPU, CPU, who cares, most nowaday's CPUs are more than enough for everyday use,

More power is always more marketeable...

 

[Fedge]

More power is always more marketeable...

While that is true, and apple certainly likes to take that stance in the market (Fastest Mac Ever!), my guess is that the performace of the Core2 over the yonah chips is not significant enough to matter in the consumer sector. The horsepower of the macbook is already pretty significant for surfing/email/office/dvd playback, etc. The marketing would be better suited for the high-end consumer market and the pro market.

My 2¢ . . .

 

[Temujin]

More power is always more marketeable...

Power is not the most important factor in today’s market. Design for instance is much more important.

 

[Xeem]

I agree with Fedge; while the Merom is undoubtedly faster than the Yonah, the margin isn't nearly so large as the Yonah was over the G4. Apple can afford to wait on the Merom upgrade in its consumer line, but the MBP is a different story.

 

[abbottpc.com]

The Mac Book Pro will always get the newer chips first as it is the Pro Model. I bet if you asked most consumers what a Merom is, they wouldn’t know what you are talking about. It's not that big of a performance jump over the current chips. The Merom will help the Mac Book Pro differ from the current Mac Books. I sure if you wait long enough you will get your Merom in your Mac Book.

 

[abbottpc.com]

oops

 

[gadgetgirl85]

Until I read MR I had no idea what merom was and I've said before probably the majoriy of consumers wouldn't have a clue either unless they did a lot of research or were professionals. My PC is only Pentium 4 there are much faster ones out there now but I don't really notice the difference for the things I do on it and I'm sure it will be the same between merom and yonah. Unless you use the power then you wont notice. Ok blabbing over

 

[ergle2]

I'd just like to address this point:

-Apple doesn't directly compete with PC mfrs and therefore doesn't have to always have the latest and greatest processors in all its products. Plus, PC mfrs are (still) going to be shipping notebooks with lesser processors, even older pentium Ms, so it's not all about the latest and greatest.

I disagree. I'm in the market for a new laptop soon. For me, it's between a MacBook Pro and a Thinkpad.

Sounds pretty damn direct to me, and I'm not alone.

The other thing that occurs to me is that with all the stickers/bullet point ads, Core Duo and Core 2 Duo will no doubt feature prominently, and who wants "last years" (yes, I know it wasn't) CPU, and I wouldn't be surprised to see "64BIT!!!!!" all over some promo material either. "It's twice as big, it must be twice as good!" or something

Personally I want a 64-bit capable CPU for the extra registers, but that wasn't my point.

Bear in mind that Apple already has the "just buys Macs" market. They're trying -- with some success -- to expand into the "buys computers" market -- and that means direct competition.

 

[wmmk]

i think that a lot of us on MR think of all professionals/hardcore users as people who need nice graphics cards. believe it or not, most sound engineers use macs, and to us, a good processor and fast firewire/usb bus is everyhting. portability is also a big issue, as lugging around a 17" MBP with your MIDI keyboard and interface would be quite a pain. this is why apple needs to put merom (and eventually santa rosa) in the MB. then again, they could also make a 13" macbook pro...

 

[suneohair]

I dont understand why everyone is putting so much effort into arguing about this, when nobody here knows what Apple is going to do.

Merom will go into the Macbook, it is just a matter of when.

Whats more, people will still be buying Macbooks regardless. Most people have no idea that there is a Core 2 Duo. The Macrumors community does not make up the mass populous. Lets remember that.

 

[j26]

..."It's twice as big, it must be twice as good!" or something ...

My wife says that to me all the time.


Can Apple afford not to go Core 2? No they can't. They went in hard and heavy into the Intel market, and stole a lot of kudos for producing excellent and very fast machines even at consumer level. Personally I was surprised with the MacBooks specs. Apple has a momentum that they can capitalise on, and not to transition the entire line to some form of 64 bit in the near future would be squandering a good market position. Apple is competing on quality. To fall behind would be a mistake.

 

[ergle2]

Can Apple afford not to go Core 2? No they can't. They went in hard and heavy into the Intel market, and stole a lot of kudos for producing excellent and very fast machines even at consumer level. Personally I was surprised with the MacBooks specs. Apple has a momentum that they can capitalise on, and not to transition the entire line to some form of 64 bit in the near future would be squandering a good market position. Apple is competing on quality. To fall behind would be a mistake.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder why it's even up for discussion -- it's not like Merom will be any great cost to Apple. As you say, they have momentum, it would be silly not to capitalize on it -- especially when the refresh can use the same motherboard. Simple CPU and, hopefully GPU swapout, can keep the same lines etc. ... is there a good reason they wouldn't?

 

[anthonymoody]

I'd just like to address this point:



I disagree. I'm in the market for a new laptop soon. For me, it's between a MacBook Pro and a Thinkpad.

Sounds pretty damn direct to me, and I'm not alone.

The other thing that occurs to me is that with all the stickers/bullet point ads, Core Duo and Core 2 Duo will no doubt feature prominently, and who wants "last years" (yes, I know it wasn't) CPU, and I wouldn't be surprised to see "64BIT!!!!!" all over some promo material either. "It's twice as big, it must be twice as good!" or something

Personally I want a 64-bit capable CPU for the extra registers, but that wasn't my point.

Bear in mind that Apple already has the "just buys Macs" market. They're trying -- with some success -- to expand into the "buys computers" market -- and that means direct competition.

Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing the point with which you're disagreeing. In fact I'm arguing against it. I was presenting it as one of the reasons people give for Apple not putting the merom into the macbook.

And for those who argue that most consumers don't know what a merom or core2duo is, let alone how it's different than a coreduo, I don't disagree at all. However, that's what marketing departments are for. And if you haven't noticed, Apple's is quite good, especially when you consider where they've come in the last few years (i.e. from the brink of oblivion to a real - if still relatively small - player).

Put it this way, when the marketing department points out that it's now "more powerful, has a longer lasting battery, and runs cooler" don't you think people will respond to that?

TM

 

[anthonymoody]

The more I think about it, the more I wonder why it's even up for discussion -- it's not like Merom will be any great cost to Apple. As you say, they have momentum, it would be silly not to capitalize on it -- especially when the refresh can use the same motherboard. Simple CPU and, hopefully GPU swapout, can keep the same lines etc. ... is there a good reason they wouldn't?

That's why I made the original post that I did - presenting the "conventional wisdom" often cited as the various reasons why Apple *wont* put the merom into the macbook. You can also add "consumer ignorance" to the list as has now been posted several times.

And by the way for all - I do mean now (i.e. Sept 12 or whatever) and not "eventually."

All this said, if Apple doesn't drop the merom in now, and leaves the MB a (CPU) generation behind the best laptops on the market, I for one will not ever buy a MB, nor will I but a MBP. And yes, I *am* the target market for the MB. I am not a video professional.

TM

 

[suneohair]

That's why I made the original post that I did - presenting the "conventional wisdom" often cited as the various reasons why Apple *wont* put the merom into the macbook. You can also add "consumer ignorance" to the list as has now been posted several times.

And by the way for all - I do mean now (i.e. Sept 12 or whatever) and not "eventually."

All this said, if Apple doesn't drop the merom in now, and leaves the MB a (CPU) generation behind the best laptops on the market, I for one will not ever buy a MB, nor will I but a MBP. And yes, I *am* the target market for the MB. I am not a video professional.

TM

Core Duo is by now means a generation behind Core 2 Duo. They are both based on Core architecture. Now, if Apple threw a Pentium M in the MacBook then you could say it is a generation behind.

Generation implies inferiority, which does not describe the Core Duo. The Core 2 Duo is a slighty better Core Duo. That's it, it doesnt offer anything NEW. 64-bit isnt NEW so that is moot.

If you are the target market buy it and stop your whining. If you would do your homework you would now that Core 2 Duo isnt a huge leap over Core Duo. You just want the newest otherwise you feel incomplete. And consumer ignorance would be a big reason why they wouldnt do it, if you didnt keep up with technology you would buy a MacBook right now. You wouldnt have any clue new processors are coming. There are people ordering this very minute who dont know anything and that goes for Apple all the way to Toshiba.

And as I said, Apple hasnt come to anyone and said that they arent putting a Core 2 Duo in the MacBook. So until that happens this thread is a waste of time and energy.

Because all you are doing is creating scenarios under which Apple might not do it (Which even if they didnt you would never know the REAL reason) and trying to debunk them with "they brought it on themselves, they have to compete" blah blah blah. This just in: NOTHING HAS HAPPENED YET!

 

[ergle2]

Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing the point with which you're disagreeing. In fact I'm arguing against it. I was presenting it as one of the reasons people give for Apple not putting the merom into the macbook.

Yeah, I realised you were quoting various "collected widsom" -- I was just observing why I felt it wasn't a good argument. IMO, Apple's always compted with PCs -- both a Mac and a Windows box do the same things, the only difference is "how". However, that competition's been put into stark relief now more than ever.

And for those who argue that most consumers don't know what a merom or core2duo is, let alone how it's different than a coreduo, I don't disagree at all. However, that's what marketing departments are for. And if you haven't noticed, Apple's is quite good, especially when you consider where they've come in the last few years (i.e. from the brink of destruction to a real - if still relatively small - player).

TM

Indeed. Not to mention, lots of people ask their Local Friendly Geek[tm] when buying new hardware. You can be damn sure their LFG knows what a Core 2 Duo is

And, of course the sales droids, in some cases.

 

[BornAgainMac]

It should have the Merom because Apple can buy in VOLUME. The slower clocked Merom's will be in the MacBooks. The MacBook Pros will get them earlier.

 

[anthonymoody]

Core Duo is by now means a generation behind Core 2 Duo. They are both based on Core architecture. Now, if Apple threw a Pentium M in the MacBook then you could say it is a generation behind.

Generation implies inferiority, which does not describe the Core Duo. The Core 2 Duo is a slighty better Core Duo. That's it, it doesnt offer anything NEW. 64-bit isnt NEW so that is moot.

If you are the target market buy it and stop your whining. If you would do your homework you would now that Core 2 Duo isnt a huge leap over Core Duo. You just want the newest otherwise you feel incomplete. And consumer ignorance would be a big reason why they wouldnt do it, if you didnt keep up with technology you would buy a MacBook right now. You wouldnt have any clue new processors are coming. There are people ordering this very minute who dont know anything and that goes for Apple all the way to Toshiba.

And as I said, Apple hasnt come to anyone and said that they arent putting a Core 2 Duo in the MacBook. So until that happens this thread is a waste of time and energy.

Because all you are doing is creating scenarios under which Apple might not do it (Which even if they didnt you would never know the REAL reason) and trying to debunk them with "they brought it on themselves, they have to compete" blah blah blah. This just in: NOTHING HAS HAPPENED YET!

FIrst of all you say that "generation implies inferiority" then you say that the c2d is "slightly better" than the cd. Whether "slightly" or not, better is better. Inferiority is binary. Something either is or is not inferior. You yourself said that c2d is "slightly better" therefore the cd is inferior. Therefore it is a new generation chip - by your exact reasoning.

Second, you say that 64 bit isn't new. Well, if you mean "is the merom the very first chip in existence that's 64 bit?" then of course it isn't new. But if the question is "is the meron 64 bit while the yonah is 32 bit?" then the answer is most decidedly YES and therefore the merom is most assuredly NEW compared to the yonah.

To argue that it's neither new nor a generation later than the yonah is preposterous. Now go back to school kid.

My interest in the c2d is precisely because of the improvements that have now been cited in comparison test after comparison test. The results are all over the web. Perhaps we just have different views on what constitutes a material improvement. But to me a 10-22% performance boost (the range in the several comparisons I've seen done), while consuming the same or less amount of power at a given clock speed (again, the findings of all the comparisons I've seen), is a material improvement. Better is better. Full stop.

TM