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.
Predicting Tomorrow's MBA Price Points
- Thread starter kingsal
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm personally hoping for a sub-$1000 MBA. My old white MacBook finally gave up the ghost so now I'm stuck using my other broken MacBook as a desktop. Over the last few months, I haven't my MB for much less than typing and browsing, so I'm hoping Apple will offer a cheaper portable.
Jobs doesn't want a netbook though, so I find it hard to believe it'll be cheaper than a MacBook.
Jobs doesn't want a netbook though, so I find it hard to believe it'll be cheaper than a MacBook.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 8.12; MSIEMobile6.0) Sprint T7380)
$1299. and $1,799. for which, the 11.6" or 13.3"?
Those price numbers sound to me like they have high probability, for the 13.3". A rumor saying --- "a lot lower" than the current starting price of $1,499. --- to me could mean just $200. less.
Apple may have priced one product a bit agressively (the iPad) but that's a priority item for them and the pricing (assuming this gives them a lower profit %, which we don't even know) might be something to do with trying to lock in a big early lead, in terms of market share.
That sort of market share motivation applies less if at all in a less new market category, with the Air. Unless they will really have one low-end quasi-netbook+ model.
If the iPad prices are aimed for market share over immediate profit... the situation is also different because iOS is an area with fewer encumbrances to them, so they obviously have tilted their overall strategies towards getting iOS in more hands. So, if they ever do make an iOS quasi-netbook, THEN
I'd look for perhaps some halfway-agressively lower pricing. But that seems off in the future, not what is coming today.
And, back to today's hoped-for Air hardware announcements --- adding BTO options for more memory seems Apple-like both ways: They do it with other notebooks, and it allows them to preserve two stock-model price points that sound good ... 1299 and 1799? .... instead of having the maxed-out price with maximum BTO items, being widely bandied about in every news report... perhaps causing a bit of a "sticker shock" effect.
$1299. and $1,799. for which, the 11.6" or 13.3"?
Those price numbers sound to me like they have high probability, for the 13.3". A rumor saying --- "a lot lower" than the current starting price of $1,499. --- to me could mean just $200. less.
Apple may have priced one product a bit agressively (the iPad) but that's a priority item for them and the pricing (assuming this gives them a lower profit %, which we don't even know) might be something to do with trying to lock in a big early lead, in terms of market share.
That sort of market share motivation applies less if at all in a less new market category, with the Air. Unless they will really have one low-end quasi-netbook+ model.
If the iPad prices are aimed for market share over immediate profit... the situation is also different because iOS is an area with fewer encumbrances to them, so they obviously have tilted their overall strategies towards getting iOS in more hands. So, if they ever do make an iOS quasi-netbook, THEN
I'd look for perhaps some halfway-agressively lower pricing. But that seems off in the future, not what is coming today.
And, back to today's hoped-for Air hardware announcements --- adding BTO options for more memory seems Apple-like both ways: They do it with other notebooks, and it allows them to preserve two stock-model price points that sound good ... 1299 and 1799? .... instead of having the maxed-out price with maximum BTO items, being widely bandied about in every news report... perhaps causing a bit of a "sticker shock" effect.
I expect the low-end model of the 11.6" to be in the $799 to $999 range.
There is also a chance the MacBook Pros and ordinary white MacBooks will be updated, and if so the white MacBook price point may change as well. I am not counting on this before Sandy Bridge but stranger things have happened.
There is also a chance the MacBook Pros and ordinary white MacBooks will be updated, and if so the white MacBook price point may change as well. I am not counting on this before Sandy Bridge but stranger things have happened.
I am going to go with my prices based off the following: An 11" MBA with a SSD would basically be like an iPod touch with a larger screen, larger HD, better processor, more memory, and OSX. An iPod touch costs roughly $144 for Apple to manufacture. A better processor, a better screen, more memory, and better case, and OSX on it
I am predicting they can manufacture an 11" MBA for $400-500
. So I am going to say a starting price of $799 for the 11" MBA! 
- Joe
- Joe
You want to know the actual costs of those items Apple uses?
An SSD would be the most expensive at over $150, but if they're using NAND Flash chips, it could be a lot less depending on how it's broken down and what the total size is (for 128 GB could be less than $60). The displays it currently uses are around $67 wholesale in the quantities Apple buys them in. The case costs are around $4 in aluminum and a few minutes of milling by a machine... reduce the cost divided by the number of MBAs going through the machine and the case might cost $5.
You can go checkout the component costs from Taiwanese resellers and find prices not too much higher than these I have posted. I bought a display for an MBA for $89 when checking out the line issues with the rev Cs. Even add in IPS displays, and it raises the wholesale cost by about 15%.
So while they're not free, they're certainly not $750 just for those components you listed.
the regular mbp's went up in price. i can't see them dropping mba's price anywhere near $1000 price range.
You have a MBP and an iPad and you need the specs to be right to buy a MBA? What could you possibly need it for?
I will bet you a virtual cheeseburger... 11" MBA will be less than that, probably $999.
Looks like we have a winner....
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
I'm a man. My statement was incorrect. I was just about to come on here and express how impressed I was until I saw what concessions they made to get the price that low. No backlit keyboard? Piss poor processor? RAM limitations? Really? That machine should be MAYBE $700. It's still overpriced.
The 13" didn't drop much at all either, as I predicted. That one as spec is competitive at least on the lower end model.
So I should have been more clear. Assuming identical functionality (which this Air lacks), there was no way it would be priced that low. But it's clear Apple is at least trying. Makes me wonder if the white MacBook is now the doomed model.
I'm a man. My statement was incorrect. I was just about to come on here and express how impressed I was until I saw what concessions they made to get the price that low. No backlit keyboard? Piss poor processor? RAM limitations? Really? That machine should be MAYBE $700. It's still overpriced.
The 13" didn't drop much at all either, as I predicted. That one as spec is competitive at least on the lower end model.
So I should have been more clear. Assuming identical functionality (which this Air lacks), there was no way it would be priced that low. But it's clear Apple is at least trying. Makes me wonder if the white MacBook is now the doomed model.
My problem isn't with the Core 2. My problem is with the speed and cache of the one they selected for the BASE model. IMO the base should be no lower than 2.4GHz because the white MacBook pulled that off at the same price point.
Some of you guys are suckers I swear. Anything Apple craps you guys jump all over as the next coming when really, you're just getting ripped off. Did some of you actually LOOK at the specs on this thing? It's LESS than the white MacBook (lower powered processor, lower battery life, less ports, no SuperDrive) yet is the same price? What justifies that?
Again, I'm not talking about whether you need that stuff or not. My point is that there is no logic in a machine that is LESS POWERFUL than the white MacBook yet costs the same. FFS, to even get a MBA that is equal in specs to the white MacBook you're forced to BTO the $1599 version, and even then you still can't match the processor OR the battery life, much less the ports. NOT ABOUT WHETHER YOU NEED IT, it's the principle of the thing.
I am not asking them to lower the price. I expect that they will gain parity with the features of their other MacBooks at a COMPARABLE price point. As it stands the only one that looks halfway decent in terms of price, as I said, is the $1299 one.
Let me show you why that's not the case.
For the 11" size, Apple can chose between 1.2 GHz, 1.3 GHz, 1.4 Ghz, and 1.6 GHz ULV 10W processors. They went with the two highest end ones! There's no 2.4 GHz to chose from.
For the 13" size, Apple can chose between 1.6 GHz, 1.8 GHz, 1.86 GHz , and 2.13 GHz LV 17W processors. They went with the two highest ones. There is no 2.4 GHz to chose from.
There is no ULV or LV 2.4 GHz being sold by Intel right now. Apple would have to go with a MV 25W 2.4 Ghz processor. That would mean less battery life. Much less. And you'd be complaining about that instead of the processor. Steve & Co. know a lot more about this than you and I do, trust me.
Hopefully you learned something. The MacBook is a larger computer. It has a different processor because of it. It has different power requirements and its engineered differently. (Other specs are not the same, like flash storage and screen resolution, but that's besides the point). Your opinion isn't really worth anything if it's not educated, especially if you're referring to processors that exist only in your imagination.
Fine. Then the price is too high and I agree with PCWorld on that point.
SO be it. Charge the proper price.
Come on man. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.
Go to the Apple Store. Pick the $999 MacBook Air. Can you go to the 1.6 processor? NO. You're forced to add $200 for the privilege of adding another $100. So basically, for an incrementally better processor you have to tack on storage you don't need. Why? Why not allow users to pick the 1.6 processor on the lower end model for a tidy and fair $1099 instead of forcing them to pay $1299 for performance should they choose to have it?
Pick the $1299 13" MacBook Air. Can you go to the 2.13 processor? NO. You're forced to add a whopping $300 for the privilege of adding another $100. So basically, for an incrementally better processor you have to tack on storage you don't need for $400 higher than what you'd want to pay. Why? Why not allow users to add the 2.13 on the lower end 13" for a tidy and fair $1399 for performance should they choose to have it?
If it's difficult to see my point, it's this: You can spit all you want about the ULV processors and Apple's choices. The problem is, your statement is flawed by the sheer fact that Apple forces you to into the higher priced (overpriced, in one case) model in order to go to the best processor.
When I make a point about the $999 MacBook and I compare it to the $999 MacBook Air, I expect to see identical features between the two, with the only difference being possibly the # of ports and the form factor, MAYBE the screen res. Beyond that they should be virtually identical in spec if one is to justify the price Apple is asking. As it is the Air is beneath Apple's lowest model yet they're asking the same price. If you can justify that fine. I see it as mind bucking.
Nobody is forcing you to buy it if you can't afford it or think the price is too high (which is subjective). The processor alone costs Apple $289 (not retail, that's what Intel sells it for in bulk). They're not going to make it $699 and have $410 to play with for everything else that goes into it (plus things like R&D) and make a 45%+ margin like other Macs.
. I'm just stating the facts.
So the lower end models don't have the higher processors option. It's weird, I know. It's a business decision. There are several reasons they do it, mostly having to do with being able to make more money from people who really can't live without the practically meaningless boost in processor speed. I don't see anything wrong with it. The option will eventually come to the lower end models once Apple has captured sales from people who are willing to pay the premium for the processor.