macbook pro 14 expected price

[Tagbert]

Why does the poll have 4 options but 2 of them are essentially duplicates of the other 2?
Is this asking about price or are you also trying to ask about expected performance but only on one option?

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

Why does the poll have 4 options but 2 of them are essentially duplicates of the other 2?
Is this asking about price or are you also trying to ask about expected performance but only on one option?

Cuz either I'm too dumb to figure the sh*t out ,or i rly can't edit my post

I tried to add explanations on top of the bare options/poll choices ,but it simply created two other redundant polls lol

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

"And for the first time ever, we've removed the charger and cord from the packaging, to benefit the environment. We think you're gonna love it."

For real,don't u think they'll do it ? I mean what's the difference between macs and iphones that the latter can be ripped off it's charger while the former cannot ?

 

[Gherkin]

So if our guesstimates are correct, Apple could drop the retail price for the original M1 macs by $250-300 and maintain their margins

Apple didn't have to spend R&D dollars on those Intel chips though. Even if the component cost is less, there are other factors when they are designing the chips inhouse.

 

[Jorbanead]

So if our guesstimates are correct, Apple could drop the retail price for the original M1 macs by $250-300 and maintain their margins

The chip cost doesn’t cover R&D and other overhead costs. So the margins probably aren’t quite that. I’d also guess that the consumer macs are partially subsidizing the higher-end chips as well (higher-end chips don’t sell as much volume but still require a lot of R&D work and are more expensive to build). That’s why I don’t think we will see a price drop, but I also don’t see a need to raise prices either.

 

[Admiral]

I'm liking the symmetry of a future lineup which consists of:
12" and 14" M2/M3 MacBook (basically an MBA with a different name)
14" and 16" M1X/M2X/M3X MacBook Pro

From your lips to Tim's ears on the revival of the 12" MacBook form factor. I'm cleaning out my office, and in a long-unopened box I found not only 6000 Hong Kong dollars (about US$870) in cash, I found my old 2016 12" MacBook. I had forgotten I still have it. Laying hands on it again and confirming it still works, I became more impressed with how perfect that machine is/was for the business traveler. Its only weakness is the Intel processor inside. Even the much-reviled butterfly keyboard gets the job done.

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

Apple didn't have to spend R&D dollars on those Intel chips though. Even if the component cost is less, there are other factors when they are designing the chips inhouse.

is M1 technically very different from a14 ?

 

[marinersaptcomplex]

I’m all for bringing back the 12” MacBook (which got me thru senior year of highschool and 3.5 years of undergrad), but from a naming standpoint it becomes an aesthetic nightmare. Why would the thinnest and lightest notebook be called “MacBook” and the heavier and bigger notebook called “MacBook Air”.

Ideally a future line up is: 12” and 14” MacBook Air, 13.3” MacBook (basically the current M1 MacBook Pro without the touch bar and at a lower price point), 14” and 16” MacBook Pro.

 

[Erasmus]

I’m all for bringing back the 12” MacBook (which got me thru senior year of highschool and 3.5 years of undergrad), but from a naming standpoint it becomes an aesthetic nightmare. Why would the thinnest and lightest notebook be called “MacBook” and the heavier and bigger notebook called “MacBook Air”.

Ideally a future line up is: 12” and 14” MacBook Air, 13.3” MacBook (basically the current M1 MacBook Pro without the touch bar and at a lower price point), 14” and 16” MacBook Pro.

I always saw the Retina MacBook as a replacement for the MBA, but it was costed wrong, so it never took off.

I don't see a purpose for both a MacBook and MacBook Air to coexist. I also don't see the point of the current 13" MBP and the 13" MBA coexisting.

Apple killing the 13" MBP in a year or two (so no M2 or M3 MBPs), with that product slot taken by one laptop (whether it's called a MB or MBA) makes a lot of sense to me.

All MBPs should have an M1X/M2X/M3X in the future.

I think the "MacBook Air" has had it's time, and should be just called MacBook (12" + 14"). Don't get me wrong; same computer, same price point, same design targets, just simpler name, less product fragmentation.

 

[Erasmus]

is M1 technically very different from a14 ?

Is a Xeon technically very different to an i3 of the same architecture?

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Apple pricing on RAM and storage is the perfect counter example.

Just because the marginal cost is low doesn’t mean Apple has to share that benefit with you.

Apple’s first generation products are often reasonably priced. Once they own the market, price goes up. Look at AirPods, iPhone, Watch, and iPad.

M1X is expected to own the market, whether it’s for mini LED or the processor.

Right, but they also keep a low priced model.

Just look at the airpods (regular, on sale for as low as $99 at times) and the iPad (not mini or air or pro)

 

[marinersaptcomplex]

I always saw the Retina MacBook as a replacement for the MBA, but it was costed wrong, so it never took off.

I don't see a purpose for both a MacBook and MacBook Air to coexist. I also don't see the point of the current 13" MBP and the 13" MBA coexisting.

Apple killing the 13" MBP in a year or two (so no M2 or M3 MBPs), with that product slot taken by one laptop (whether it's called a MB or MBA) makes a lot of sense to me.

All MBPs should have an M1X/M2X/M3X in the future.

I think the "MacBook Air" has had it's time, and should be just called MacBook (12" + 14"). Don't get me wrong; same computer, same price point, same design targets, just simpler name, less product fragmentation.

I think having an “Air” makes sense if you’re selling thinness/extra portability at a premium. In the current pricing hierarchy, I agree, it doesn’t make sense. But in a future hierarchy where a 3lb square design MacBook costs $999, the (12”) Air $1199, and the MX Pros at $1599; I could see it working.

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

Is a Xeon technically very different to an i3 of the same architecture?

What I mean by that is how much does it rly cost them for the R&D of such chips

 

[Erasmus]

What I mean by that is how much does it rly cost them for the R&D of such chips

I know. My point is that just as Intel don't sell Xeons super-cheap, even though they are predominantly an upscale of their desktop processors, plus some tinkering like ECC.

It's exactly the same for Apple and the M1/M1X.

It could also be the case that as they are derived from the same cores, the M1/M1X sales could be subsidising iPhone processor development, just as Xeon sales subsidise Core iX development.

 

[senttoschool]

Apple pricing on RAM and storage is the perfect counter example.

Just because the marginal cost is low doesn’t mean Apple has to share that benefit with you.

Apple’s first generation products are often reasonably priced. Once they own the market, price goes up. Look at AirPods, iPhone, Watch, and iPad.

M1X is expected to own the market, whether it’s for mini LED or the processor.

Sure.

But lower component cost gives Apple the choice to lower prices or keep it the same.

M1 Mac Mini is $100 cheaper than the Intel Mac Mini it replaced, I believe.

 

[senttoschool]

Apple was selling some intel MacBooks for around $1000. That means the marginal cost to apple for the whole computer can’t be more than about $300. So the intel CPU would have to be around $150.

Yeah they get a bulk discount. They’re certainly not paying retail off-the-shelf prices for Intel chips. Still, $150 is half the price of parts used. This article seems to suggest apple’s M1 chip costs them $40-50.

The article doesn't make it clear if the $200 - $300 is the price big computer makers like Apple/Dell/HP/Lenovo pays or if it's the street price. So I don't know.

But keep in mind that Apple uses the very best mobile chips Intel has to offer at each level. The very best bins go to Apple. That's got to cost a pretty penny.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the Intel chips in the MBA did indeed cost $200+. Intel has ultra-high margins as well.

Let's go the middle and say that the Intel chips in the MBA cost $175 and the cost to make an M1 is $50. That's $125 difference. The $125 does make sense because the M1 Mac Mini is $100 cheaper than the Intel Mac Mini that it replaced.

The difference is probably even bigger for Intel highest-binned 8-core chips that go inside the MBP.

 

[JPack]

Sure.

But lower component cost gives Apple the choice to lower prices or keep it the same.

M1 Mac Mini is $100 cheaper than the Intel Mac Mini it replaced, I believe.

The iMac tells us Apple's likely choice in such a scenario.

21.5" 4K iMac = $1,299 | $1,499
24" iMac = $1,299 | $1,499 | $1,699

Apple saved money by replacing the Intel CPU and deleting AMD Radeon (2GB GDDR5) on the iMac. But the MacBook Pro 13" doesn't have a Radeon for Apple to delete. M1X is a large piece of silicon and Apple is adding mini LED and MagSafe. After the launch of M1, Apple now has the mind share of Pro buyers and that group is willing to pay for an increase.

(M1 Mac mini is cheaper by $100 but it lost two TB3 ports, which Apple values at $70 on the iMac.)

 

[Mr. Bear]

The article doesn't make it clear if the $200 - $300 is the price big computer makers like Apple/Dell/HP/Lenovo pays or if it's the street price. So I don't know.

But keep in mind that Apple uses the very best mobile chips Intel has to offer at each level. The very best bins go to Apple. That's got to cost a pretty penny.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the Intel chips in the MBA did indeed cost $200+. Intel has ultra-high margins as well.

Let's go the middle and say that the Intel chips in the MBA cost $175 and the cost to make an M1 is $50. That's $125 difference. The $125 does make sense because the M1 Mac Mini is $100 cheaper than the Intel Mac Mini that it replaced.

The difference is probably even bigger for Intel highest-binned 8-core chips that go inside the MBP.

There's no way Apple was putting a $200+ Intel chip in a $1000 computer. The margins wouldn't support it.

As I was alluding to above, whatever the marginal cost of the computer (i.e., the cost to manufacture a single computer on the assembly line, which includes parts and labor, but does not include R&D, overhead, etc) it's going to be about 1/3 of the retail cost. So a $1000 "at retail" computer costs about $330 to manufacture. The other $670 includes R&D, salaries, other overhead, retailer margins, etc. So if an Intel MBA costs $330 to manufacture (with a $175 chip, although I'll bet the real price is closer to $100), then a similarly spec'd M1 MBA costs around $200 to manufacture. Which means that Apple COULD sell it for $600 and maintain their margins. But by selling it for the same price, they're making a LOT more money on the computer. I'm not sure, but I expect that the $1000 MBA has a wholesale price of around $700-800. (I'm basing that on the 'regular' $150 discount they get - Amazon, BB, etc will still make a little money at $850). That's a 20-30% INCREASE in their profit margin per unit. Which is huge.

 

[Gherkin]

Sure.

But lower component cost gives Apple the choice to lower prices or keep it the same.

M1 Mac Mini is $100 cheaper than the Intel Mac Mini it replaced, I believe.

I think the primary reason they dropped the Mini price was to get people using M1 Macs. They want as many people buying and using these so they can convince software developers to update their apps.

 

[senttoschool]

There's no way Apple was putting a $200+ Intel chip in a $1000 computer. The margins wouldn't support it.

Apple's move to M1 chips will save $2.5B this year – IBM exec - 9to5Mac

An analysis by a senior IMB exec suggests that Apple's move to M1 chips will save the company around $2.5B this year, with far larger savings to come ...

9to5mac.com

I'm not the only one who thinks the MBA CPU costs $175 - $200. I wrote $175.

It costs Intel about $50 to make a chip. Intel is going to sell this chip for at least 4x or more. That's $200. Maybe special Apple discount so it's $150 - $175.

Keep in mind that mobile chips are more expensive than your typical desktop chips. Intel takes the best bins and uses them on mobile. Then Apple comes in and takes the best bins out of the mobile chips.

The most costly component in a Mac is the CPU, by far. Next up is the GPU if it's discrete. Everything else is peanuts.

 

[TSE]

14 inch MacBook Pro standard configurations:

$1899 - 16 GB, 512 GB SSD, M1X with the GPU having a little less GPU Cores

Options:
32 GB - $299
1 TB - $199
2 TB - $499


$2199 - 16 GB, 1 TB SSD, standard M1X

Options:
32 GB - $299
2 TB - $399


16 inch MacBook Pro standard configurations:

$2399 - 16 GB, 512 GB SSD, standard M1X

Options:
32 GB - $299
1 TB - $199
2 TB - $499

$2799 - 32 GB, 1 TB SSD, standard M1X

Options:
64 GB - $699
2 TB - $399

 

[JPack]

I think the primary reason they dropped the Mini price was to get people using M1 Macs. They want as many people buying and using these so they can convince software developers to update their apps.

If that was the goal, Apple would have dropped the price of MacBook Air. The vast majority of Mac buyers choose the Air or Pro. If you look at the Mac mini press release, it's clear the target audience is developers.

Apple uses ports as a price differentiator across the Mac lineup. The reason for the price drop is M1 mini only has two TB3 ports compared to four on Intel.

 

[Gherkin]

If that was the goal, Apple would have dropped the price of MacBook Air. The vast majority of Mac buyers choose the Air or Pro. If you look at the Mac mini press release, it's clear the target audience is developers.

Apple uses ports as a price differentiator across the Mac lineup. The reason for the price drop is M1 mini only has two TB3 ports compared to four on Intel.

isn't the Mini popular with developers? that could be another reason. Get a cheaper machine out there for people who actually write software.

and I guess you could argue that fact that they didn't INCREASE any of the consumer Mac prices for M1 Macs was in itself a way to lure people to upgrade.

 

[Pro Apple Silicon]

I'm voting $1999 because the chip shortage and more expensive screen will increase the price. I don't think they'll raise the price "because it's more powerful." They didn't do this with the M1 Macs last fall.

This. Apple is hell bent on recouping the 5+ years of R&D they've put into mini-LED, which turned out to be incredibly meh in the end. And the chip shortage may indeed push them to raise prices. I expect $200 increases over predecessors.

 

[Pro Apple Silicon]

Just because the marginal cost is low doesn’t mean Apple has to share that benefit with you.

It does however make Apple look incredibly bad. The markups on RAM and storage upgrades, things that can no longer be upgraded after purchase, are quite offensive to customers.