Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Cheaper Macs for increasing the market share?
- Thread starter sunny5
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's why Apple won't adopt a low-margin strategy with a cheap MacBook.
iPhone SE might appear to be low-margin, but it's not compared to what's available on the market. For $179, you can buy a 6.43-inch AMOLED Redmi smartphone with quad-rear camera.
The MacBook Air is already the SE. There's nothing close to it on the market.
How come you are comparing iPhone SE to other product while we are strictly talking about Apple products? ironic.
I said Mac's price is still high and there are many alternatives.
And you dont know that. Beside, they can still use M1 as an entry level option as I mentioned before.
I think this bit (italics for emphasis) is possibly the key issue here: if Apple starts selling $600-$800 MacBook SEs to try to capture more of the $500-$800 laptop market, there's a good chance it would cost them more in lost MacBook Air sales than it would bring in new revenue from former PC buyers.
What is your business experience? Why should any of us give any of your ideas credence? Especially versus Apple execs with decades of experience and demonstrated success?
This is like those people who get some render software and, with zero product or industrial design experience, tell us how a product should be done. Sorry, but this is kind of silly. Unless you have actual experience here, nothing you say really is anything more than a long winded way of saying "I want..."
The market share is a major problem with Mac. That's why even iOS developers dont wish to support their mobile apps on macOS. That's also why there aren't many apps optimized for Mac and most of them aren't even willing to support. Since only less than 15% of Mac users regularly use Pro apps, this is something that Apple need to deal with. If you think it's silly, then you know nothing about it. For example, I cant even update my camera and lens's firmware because they dont support ARM. No, they dont want to support ARM. Am I suppose to buy PC for this?
Last edited by a moderator:
Since your camera and lens are separate I’m imagining it’s a DSLR? For cases like that (which are certainly annoying), I think market share *within the userbase* (i.e. % of photographers that use Macs) makes a lot more difference than overall market share. In the $600-$900 laptop segment you’re mostly competing with slower machines with poor-quality screens, which presumably don’t overlap much with the DSLR-owner market. With any luck, the new 14” and 16” MBPs and ARM-native Photoshop will make more inroads there.
That’s pretty bad of a DSLR company in 2022 to not offer a macOS firmware updater, though: for my old Canon all the updates were done over SD card which side-stepped the whole issue of macOS/Linux support entirely!
Personally I’ve always kept a Windows virtual machine around for weird Windows-specific utilities and device drivers. I don’t need it often, but it’s handy in a pinch. Parallels might be a good option for your use case since they’ve got pretty good Windows-on-ARM support, would save you keeping a separate PC around for odd jobs!
I would say Apple could capture the lower end of the notebook market by offering a macOS upgrade option to the MPads. They already have a USB port and M-series CPU, all the user would have to do is provide the keyboard and pointing device and buy and install the upgrade. It would require at least 256Gb storage, so that iPadOS could be properly segregated from macOS: you could either use it as a Mac or an iPad but not mix the apps in one UI mode (though data sharing would be fairly simple).
I think refurbished and second hand fills that gap. Nothing good has ever come from affordable Macs. The Classic 2 and LC 400 line come to mind. Crippled machines that leave you wanting more …that you are stuck with because you spent all your extra money for the next three years. Apple has 0% financing on the Apple Card making it more palatable for people on a budget. Personally I see way too many potential downsides for budget Macs.
Education customers can buy a Macbook Air for $899 or a Mac Mini for $649 that run entry-level workloads every bit as well as the Mac Studios and Macbook Pros costing thousands more. You only get graphics, ports, screens, and multi-core performance at the higher price points. $200 more gets you 16gb if memory is an issue.
It's really difficult to buy a Windows laptop at that has anywhere near the performance with a screen like that in a small, completely silent package. I wouldn't discount AppleCare service at the mall and working seamlessly with the phone in their pocket either. To the extent that customers adjust their minimum expectations up (and that includes color, which will come in the new Macbook Air), neither market share or margins is going to be an issue.
also, margins are a blend. The memory/storage/warranty upgrades are north of 80%-90% margin and many customers take them. The base offerings from Apple are a screaming value now that they have the performance. And they work for a lot of people.
It's really difficult to buy a Windows laptop at that has anywhere near the performance with a screen like that in a small, completely silent package. I wouldn't discount AppleCare service at the mall and working seamlessly with the phone in their pocket either. To the extent that customers adjust their minimum expectations up (and that includes color, which will come in the new Macbook Air), neither market share or margins is going to be an issue.
also, margins are a blend. The memory/storage/warranty upgrades are north of 80%-90% margin and many customers take them. The base offerings from Apple are a screaming value now that they have the performance. And they work for a lot of people.
Last edited:
The Macbook SE would make a far bigger impact outside of the US than inside the US.
Apple is known to target margins for high-end devices. Apple is also known to capture market share with SE products. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
You keep saying Apple won't "fight in the trenches". $750 is not in the trenches. $400 is. In addition, Apple Silicon costs 4-5x less than buying Intel i3s in the low end. See my post here. Apple won't ever have to fight in the trenches because of Apple Silicon.
No it's not. The iPad 10.2 is the iPad SE. Then there's the iPad Air, which is a step up. The $1,000 Macbook Air starting price is still well above the mass market for laptops, especially in developing countries, where a Macbook SE would make the most impact.
You don't seem to understand Apple sees Mac as a top-level productivity device. SE products serve as gateway devices to attract customers into the Apple ecosystem. By the time someone buys a Mac, they are fully already invested in the Apple ecosystem and own an iPhone, iPad, and AirPods. Nobody buys a Mac while using an Android phone and a Fire tablet.
There is zero reason for Apple to market a MacBook for $750, much less $400. Apple already has the consumer caught in their net. Mac is their highest margin product family. Why do you think they had the guts to charge $200 for 8GB of RAM, even during the Intel era?
You completely miss the point in proposing Apple launch a $400 MacBook to compete with a plastic Dell Inspiron.
You keep harping about how Apple Silicon means cheaper MacBooks. NO! It means Apple has the ability to increase their margins without being forced to increase volume by lowering ASP.
You keep thinking like a consumer instead of how business leaders think. Their goal is to maximize brand value and margin.
Can't do it. F's the perceived value and pricing on iPad, iPhone. It erodes the whole brand. $749 for an 256gb iPad Air 11" would look too ridiculous by comparison. Much less a $1100 iPad Pro. The pricing structure is thought of across the product line as a whole.
Macbook Air's pricing has been ~$999 for the last 15 years.
That's how Apple's always rolled. Maintain a product price point and margin target, deliver whatever value combination (software, hardware, color, size, features) hits that year's target.
They price by value, not cost of components. Storage is $700-800/TB on the iPhone product line, $300-400/TB on the Mac line. The real cost is what? $30? For all I know a stainless steel apple watch case might be cheaper to make than an aluminum one. They def could make it less than $799, but why? It'll only make the $399 aluminum one seem expensive instead of a bargain.
The whole idea is to make Apple product pricing exist in their own distinct universe with points of differentiation being *anything* other than comparable commodity components. They're not interested in making $99 airPods. They can and will and call them Beats and remove a feature or two though. The computer for the $750 customer is an iPhone.
They're not selling a laptop, they're selling a MacBook. No one else makes one and this year's version (just like the iPhone) is the best they've ever made. ;-).
Last edited:
To further a point, if you told me 10 years ago, 16 year olds would be regularly buying $400 watches and $250 headphones (at Target no less!) by the tens of millions, I would have laughed in your face.
Watches were $50 and headphones were pieces of junk that were basically free.
Turns out people were willing to pay more, much more and had new minimum expectations for product features they hadn't even thought of. Apple could make a $150 watch, but then you'd start comparing it to one. Wirelesss earbuds which sound just as good for $89? They still want Airpods.
Who's to say what Airpods or Apple Watches or iPhones or Macbooks should cost? Once you're in the ecosystem, comparisons basically exist in its own universe.
For the customer coming in the Apple store, the basic questions is "How much do you want to spend?" There's an iPhone at every price point and for the basics, they actually all work fine. Computing? Now more than ever, the Macbook Air does all the basics great. If you have $1000 or more, Apple will sell you the best Macbook they can make.
For the $750 customer, they'd suggest a iPhone or an iPad with a keyboard. Drives competitors (and some online forum posters) completely crazy.
Watches were $50 and headphones were pieces of junk that were basically free.
Turns out people were willing to pay more, much more and had new minimum expectations for product features they hadn't even thought of. Apple could make a $150 watch, but then you'd start comparing it to one. Wirelesss earbuds which sound just as good for $89? They still want Airpods.
Who's to say what Airpods or Apple Watches or iPhones or Macbooks should cost? Once you're in the ecosystem, comparisons basically exist in its own universe.
For the customer coming in the Apple store, the basic questions is "How much do you want to spend?" There's an iPhone at every price point and for the basics, they actually all work fine. Computing? Now more than ever, the Macbook Air does all the basics great. If you have $1000 or more, Apple will sell you the best Macbook they can make.
For the $750 customer, they'd suggest a iPhone or an iPad with a keyboard. Drives competitors (and some online forum posters) completely crazy.
I think Apple isn’t so much concerned about whether a product is cheap or expensive but that it is priced to maximise profits.
So the answer to your question should be - would the increased sales from lowering prices be enough to offset the lower margins for each unit sold? My guess is no.
Over time, just maintaining the $999 price point with a decent offering achieves the same thing. $999 today is approximately equivalent to $752 in 2008 when the MBA was introduced. That's even before considering how much more you're getting for your money with an M1 MBA vs a 2008 MBA! By now, if they can't start nudging up their marketshare with a computer as good as the M1 Air being as (relatively) cheap as $999 it suggests a more fundamental problem with encouraging people en-masse to Macs. I don't think a $750 'MacBook SE' would make a difference.
Let's say it works out like this:
* 13/15" iBook/MacBook colorful lineup this autumn with M2
* 13" MacBook Air becomes "MacBook" for $749 or $799.
There is room for a cheaper model: by continuing to manufacture and sell a previous design at a lower price point.
My experience is the opposite. Nobody commits to a single ecosystem except tech enthusiasts. People buy their first Macs because their friends and family recommend it, or because they already use one at work. Not because they already have a pile of other Apple devices.
It's common to have an Android phone and a Mac laptop, because the iPhone range is still quite narrow and the combination of price and features people are looking for often does not exist. For example, parents may buy cheap android phones for their kids, because it's likely that the kids will break their phones. Then they will use Android phones themselves, because they must be familiar with Android.
The average selling price of a laptop is $730 (in 2020). This is why I suggested a $750 entry price point for a Macbook SE.
Now when customers go into Best Buy, they will look at a $730 Windows laptop and have a choice of buying a $750 Macbook SE instead. This is going to make a massive impact, especially for those who already own an iPhone. Remember that there are more iPhone + Windows users than iPhone + Mac.
Now of course inflation has run wild since I first suggested $750 in 2020. So Let's make it $799.
I think $799 (in 2022 or 2023) is about right for a Macbook SE. This is $100 cheaper than an iPad Pro 11, which probably costs Apple more money to produce. The iPad Pro 11 has a better screen, better and more cameras, higher refresh rate, more sensors, thinner packing, same amount of RAM and storage.
This is only true of the bigger market share is in the same segment. Once you start offering a lower tier this might not be true anymore.
Sorry no! Apple does not force you to buy anything. You are free to choose.
If you choose something that is above what you need, you have not been forced but chose wrong.
If you choose something below what you need, you have not been forced but chose wrong.
In both cases you are an idiot of your own making!!
Apple has a hard time meeting current market-share demand; imagine them trying build twice as many computers.