Should Apple release a cheap notebook?

[shizzlegtx]

To build a good notebook, you have to find a compromise between three contrasting factors - speed, weight, and battery life. In my experience, PC notebooks with a good balance of these factors are sold for prices comparable with Apple's models.

If you are satisfied with a "2 out of 3" or "1 of 3 is enough" solution, you can get a Windows laptop for considerably less money. But you will always be on the hunt for a wall plug, or have something heavy dragging your shoulders, or simply be waiting for the desktop to finish loading until late in the afternoon.

What? I'm saying that this gateway is superior to the Macbook in everyway and is cheaper. It basically comes down to, do you want to run OS X or Vista. I prefer OS X, but that doesn't mean that Vista is incapable of doing the same thing, and if anything, that gateway is by all means better than the low end macbook.

 

[CWallace]

I didnt say the other companies wish they could, what I said is that Apple is ripping their customers off.

Apple is charging what the market will accept. Same as every other computer manufacturer.

Every month, over one hundred thousand more people buy a Mac then the month before. They either like getting ripped off, or they feel that the price Apple is charging, if not "fair" is at least "acceptable" for what they are getting in return.

I am sure a lot of people think being asked to pay $10,000 for a Voodoo or Alienware gaming computer is a "rip off", yet Voodoo and Alienware still find enough people who think $10,000 for a gaming computer is not a "rip off" to keep the company going. Heck, there are enough to make it appealing to another company to actually buy them to get access to those customers.

 

[Berlepsch]

What? I'm saying that this gateway is superior to the Macbook in everyway and is cheaper. It basically comes down to, do you want to run OS X or Vista. I prefer OS X, but that doesn't mean that Vista is incapable of doing the same thing, and if anything, that gateway is by all means better than the low end macbook.

No, you only said it is as fast (or faster) as the Macbook. What about weight and battery life?

 

[CWallace]

I have a Macbook, but why do they cost $1099 and that Gateway is nearly half the cost? The Processor is the same, it has more memory, a bigger hardrive, bigger screen and a comparable OS. Not to mention it burns DVD's which the low end Macbook does not.

Some one please give me a real answer and not an Apple fanboy response of "Apple has higher quality parts" because the parts in this case are the same if not of higher quality.

Build quality alone is not the only determinant in what defines "quality" in the marketplace. And this model has some features similar to a MacBook and some similar to a MacBook Pro.

For example, the Gateway M-6487 Red:

• Uses the same X3100 integrated graphics that the MacBook does, as opposed to the discrete graphics that the MacBook Pro uses.
• The 15.4" display is the same size as the MacBook Pro, but has the same resolution (1280x800) as the 13" display used in the MacBook (which is lower then the 1440x900 in the MBP).
• Uses an older generation 65nm Memrom CPU with a 667MHz FSB and 2MB L2 cache compared to the 45nm Penryn CPUs used in the MacBook and MacBook Pro with their 800MHz FSB and 3MB of L2 cache.
• The systemboard can only accept 3GB of RAM vs. the 4GB the MacBook and MacBook Pro can.
• Comes with a 3.6mAh battery vs. the 5.4mAh battery in the MBP (so the MBP will last longer on battery). I am sure the MacBook has a larger and longer-lasting battery, as well.
• The laptop is larger and heavier then both the MacBook and MacBook Pro.
• Supports only 802.11a/802.11b/802.11g. It does not also support 802.11n like the MacBook and MacBook Pro.
• Supports only 10/100 Ethernet vs. 10/100/1000 Ethernet.

So you see, it's cheaper then either a MacBook or MacBook Pro, but it is also lower-speced across the board then either model. It uses last-generation CPUs, systemboards and LCD panels because they are now "out-of-date" and cheap. It also uses smaller capacity batteries and a cheaper case.

And Gateway is likely lucky to be making 4% profit on the sale to OfficeMax (who themselves are likely barely making that) vs. the 35% profit Apple can command for their product because people believe it is a more "quality" product and therefore worth paying more for.

 

[shizzlegtx]

Build quality alone is not the only determinant in what defines "quality" in the marketplace. For example, the Gateway M-6487 Red:

• Uses the same X3100 integrated graphics that the MacBook does, as opposed to the discrete graphics that the MacBook Pro uses.
• The 15.4" display has the same resolution (1280x800) as the 13" display used in the MacBook, not the 1440x900 used in the MacBook Pro.
• Comes with a 3.6mAh battery vs. the 5.4mAh battery in the MBP (so the MBP will last longer on battery).
• The MacBook Pro is also smaller in all dimensions (in some cases by up to 1") and weighs .7 pounds less.
• Uses a 65nm T5750 Memrom CPU at 2GHz with a 667MHz FSB, 2MB L2 cache compared to the 45nm Penryn T8300 CPU at 2.4GHz, 800MHz FSB and 3MB of L2 cache.
• Supports only 10/100 Ethernet vs. 10/100/1000 Ethernet.

So you see, it's cheaper then a Mac, but it is also lower-speced across the board then a Mac. It uses last-generation CPUs, systemboards and LCD panels because they are now "out-of-date" and cheap. It also uses smaller capacity batteries and a cheaper case.

And Gateway is likely lucky to be making 4% profit on the sale to OfficeMax (who themselves are likely barely making that) vs. the 35% profit Apple can command for their product because people believe it is a more "quality" product and therefore worth paying more for.

Was I talking about the Macbook pro?


Let me check:

I have a Macbook, but why do they cost $1099 and that Gateway is nearly half the cost? The Processor is the same, it has more memory, a bigger hardrive, bigger screen and a comparable OS. Not to mention it burns DVD's which the low end Macbook does not.

I'm taking the low end Gateway, comparing it to the LOW END macbook. Why would I compare it to the MBP? The MBP is a great computer, although I still believe it's over priced.

Although I see your point, that it shares qualities of both MB and MBP. However, bringing profits and whatnot really makes apple look like the thieves here. You did hit the nail on the head here:

he 35% profit Apple can command for their product because people believe it is a more "quality" product and therefore worth paying more for.

Not that they aren't good quality, but the fact that people would believe that they are, even if they weren't.

 

[CWallace]

Was I talking about the Macbook pro?

No, which is why I was editing my comment to reflect that your MacBook is a better computer then that Gateway across the board except in the area of LCD panel size. And because of that larger LCD panel size, some people will compare it to the MacBook Pro which really outclasses the Gateway.

And because the MacBook/MacBook Pros are better computers, many people feel that it's worth paying more for them which is why Apple's sales keeping growing so fast.

 

[cube]

They should not release a cheap notebook. They should make the price of ALL their notebooks competitive.

 

[CWallace]

They should not release a cheap notebook. They should make the price of ALL their notebooks competitive.

They don't need to be competitive because their value proposition in people's minds is not competitive.

People believe that an OSXtel machine is better then a Wintel machine. If they didn't, Apple wouldn't be able to sell them for the prices they are and would have to lower the cost.

Why do you think every Wintel manufacturer is coming out with a net-top PC even though they have such a limited market niche? It's because they have a "follow the herd" mentality empowered by their decision to use Windows. Because Windows runs on anything, nobody can create a niche and then exploit it like Apple does. So ASUS comes out with the net-top that costs them $379 to make, but they can't sell it for $999 because everyone else can make one, too, and they will all start charging less for it to try and grab marketshare so ASUS has to sell it at $399 because that is what everyone else will sell theirs at. And so you have this new market niche that everyone exploits and nobody makes any money off of because they have to sell at close to cost for competitive reasons.

Dell doesn't want to license OS X so they can sell a "DellBook Pro" for $999 instead of $1999. They want to license OS X so they can sell a "DellBook Pro" for $1999 too. They see Apple making 35% profit compared to their 15% profit and they want to make 35% profit too because it would get their shareholders off their arses. HP couldn't make an "HPBook Pro" or Lenovo a "LenonvoBook Pro" without their own OS X license so Dell would not have to discount. They could match Apple's price and sell a few million a quarter at something like 40% profit (thanks to better purchasing contracts then Apple) and rake in the money. They would be stupid to undercut Apple's pricing because that would just make Apple pull their license like happened with the PPC clones.

 

[Digital Skunk]

.....

CWallace hits another home run.

I will stop co-signing now. What you stated however is what a lot of people miss when they pull that price argument for Apple computers. It goes along with the market share strawman as well.

Dell and Hp would love to get their hands on that OSX magic that gives Apple those margins that Dell and HP haven't seen since the 90s. Same thing with the iPod and iTunes charm that has been copied and failed many times.

But the biggest aspect that drives many average consumers to the Mac is that support and all in one service that is also kind of added to the price. I have dealt with Dell and HP support and nothing compares to Apple Care. Especially since once you have a broken iMac, you want to get it back asap since you send the whole thing in.

p.s. the best thing Apple did was switch to Intel. Those of us that need to run both or more platfroms can do so with one machine. I think the only crew left behind are the gamers.

 

[CWallace]

And if people don't want to believe Digital Skunk and myself, just look at the iPod+HP experiment.

HP matched Apple's iPod prices, they did not undercut them. A 20GB unit was $299 whether you bought it from Apple or from HP, for example.

 

[PowerFullMac]

Apple is charging what the market will accept. Same as every other computer manufacturer.

Every month, over one hundred thousand more people buy a Mac then the month before. They either like getting ripped off, or they feel that the price Apple is charging, if not "fair" is at least "acceptable" for what they are getting in return.

I am sure a lot of people think being asked to pay $10,000 for a Voodoo or Alienware gaming computer is a "rip off", yet Voodoo and Alienware still find enough people who think $10,000 for a gaming computer is not a "rip off" to keep the company going. Heck, there are enough to make it appealing to another company to actually buy them to get access to those customers.

The reason Apple gets away with charging stupid prices is because of OS X.

By only allowing OS X to work with Macs, people who want the amazing OS will need to fork out a fortune for Apple branded hardware. This being the case, Apple can get away with charging a lot. The average computer-illiterate user will hear it cant get viruses and can also run Windows and whatnot and label the computer itself far superior and it will make sense it costs more.

It also means there is no competition, whereas in the PC market they all have Windows or some super-user-friendly Linux distro, so they have nothing unique and there is a ongoing price war.

It is for this reason that Apple wants to get Pystar so badly, if companies like Pystar get to make computers with OS X, and make them cheaper, people will not buy Macs, will they? They will go for the cheaper option that still has OS X on it. I pursonally hope Pystar dont get stopped, then Apple will be forced to make Macs cheaper. It wont kill Apple, not even close, this time, as they get bucket loads of money from iPod and iPhone sales/contracts, and they will get money for the licensed copies of OS X.

 

[CWallace]

OS X certainly is a major selling point for Apple, but it is not the only selling point. After all, Apple controls a huge swath of the personal media player market and iPods don't run OS X.

That being said, I agree with you that Apple does not want Psystar - or other OEMs - selling OS X without their permission because it will likely have an impact on their business. But far more dangerous then the impact it will have on the business, it will be the impact on the product that really keeps Apple's lawyers up at night - and should keep you up at night, as well, if you have any serious long-term experience with the Wintel world.

It is the entire experience of Mac ownership that makes it desirable to own. It is easy to buy. It is easy to set-up. It is easy to use. And it is easy to maintain. None of those apply to a Wintel machine and I am not being flippant when I say that.

Replacing Windows for OS X is not going to make the experience of buying, setting up or maintaining a Dell or an HP any easier. And it may not make it any easier to use. Those who believe that if only Apple licensed OS X to major Wintel OEMs it would quickly take a commanding share of the market are not giving that statement the thought it deserves.

And be careful what you wish for. If Wintel OEMs make OS X boxes and Apple only makes money from selling OS X like Microsoft, Apple will have to adopt the same practices Microsoft does. They will need to have OEMs make cheap quality PCs that last 12-18 months so you have to replace them with a new copy of OS X. They will charge many multiples of the current $130 for retail copies of OS X and will imply onerous DRM and authorization/activation/verification schemas like Microsoft does to make sure that you continue to "render unto Steve what is Steve's", to coin a phrase. And as OS X becomes more and more popular, the malware community will start to focus on it with more and more emphasis. Sure, Unix has 30 years of security experience under it's belt, but it also has 30 years of attacks aimed against it and I bet a great deal of them have not been discovered or closed so you will still be vulnerable.

And finally, if OS X is why people will pay more for a computer, why would any OEM want to license it just to make no money? Again, people who believe that if only OEMs could license OS X so they could give us are $599 mini towers and $999 laptops are not giving that statement the thought it deserves. Those OEMs want to be able to charge $1499 for a desktop or $1999 for a laptop too, and if OS X will allow them to do so, they're certainly not going to charge less just because it's the "Christian" thing to do.

 

[atad6]

Personally I don't think they ever will. Adding a 500 dollar or cheaper notebook would spread the line too thin and kill sales of the macbook and macbook air. I can eventually see them creating a larger touch based device, although not for a while since the platform is still relatively new.

That being said, I still wanted such a device so I went ahead and made my own

I already own a 24" imac and 17" MBP and wanted something small and cheap that I could toss in my bag and also run osx.

I bought an asus eee 1000h which is 2lbs, 10inch screen 80gb hard drive and 1.6 ghz intel atom processor. I was able to bring the memory up to 2gb for 35 dollars, which brought the entire cost of the machine new at under $500.

As for osx, I have an extra license on my leopard family pack. Yes, I know it violates the EULA, but to me that just means that Apple doesn't have to offer any support or liability for installing it on unsupported hardware.

Anyway, osx runs great on the machine and boots up in less than 30 seconds. It's not slow at all and gets around 5 hours of battery life with wifi.

The downside is there's no sound, but for less than $500 dollars it makes a great notebook for school.

So yes, a cheap netbook can run osx quite well!

 

[PowerFullMac]

OS X certainly is a major selling point for Apple, but it is not the only selling point. After all, Apple controls a huge swath of the personal media player market and iPods don't run OS X.

That being said, I agree with you that Apple does not want Psystar - or other OEMs - selling OS X without their permission because it will likely have an impact on their business. But far more dangerous then the impact it will have on the business, it will be the impact on the product that really keeps Apple's lawyers up at night - and should keep you up at night, as well, if you have any serious long-term experience with the Wintel world.

It is the entire experience of Mac ownership that makes it desirable to own. It is easy to buy. It is easy to set-up. It is easy to use. And it is easy to maintain. None of those apply to a Wintel machine and I am not being flippant when I say that.

Replacing Windows for OS X is not going to make the experience of buying, setting up or maintaining a Dell or an HP any easier. And it may not make it any easier to use. Those who believe that if only Apple licensed OS X to major Wintel OEMs it would quickly take a commanding share of the market are not giving that statement the thought it deserves.

And be careful what you wish for. If Wintel OEMs make OS X boxes and Apple only makes money from selling OS X like Microsoft, Apple will have to adopt the same practices Microsoft does. They will need to have OEMs make cheap quality PCs that last 12-18 months so you have to replace them with a new copy of OS X. They will charge many multiples of the current $130 for retail copies of OS X and will imply onerous DRM and authorization/activation/verification schemas like Microsoft does to make sure that you continue to "render unto Steve what is Steve's", to coin a phrase. And as OS X becomes more and more popular, the malware community will start to focus on it with more and more emphasis. Sure, Unix has 30 years of security experience under it's belt, but it also has 30 years of attacks aimed against it and I bet a great deal of them have not been discovered or closed so you will still be vulnerable.

And finally, if OS X is why people will pay more for a computer, why would any OEM want to license it just to make no money? Again, people who believe that if only OEMs could license OS X so they could give us are $599 mini towers and $999 laptops are not giving that statement the thought it deserves. Those OEMs want to be able to charge $1499 for a desktop or $1999 for a laptop too, and if OS X will allow them to do so, they're certainly not going to charge less just because it's the "Christian" thing to do.

Good points.

Although, I think the OEMs will sell them cheaper because of competition. Say Dell, Sony and HP release towers and laptops with OS X, and HP sells them £100 cheaper than Sony and Dell to increase sales, which do you think will sell more? The cheaper, obviously. Therefore, Sony will make a cheaper one, then Dell will make a even cheaper one.

Thats why they will charge less, nothing to do with christians.

 

[CWallace]

Although, I think the OEMs will sell them cheaper because of competition. Say Dell, Sony and HP release towers and laptops with OS X, and HP sells them £100 cheaper than Sony and Dell to increase sales, which do you think will sell more? The cheaper, obviously. Therefore, Sony will make a cheaper one, then Dell will make a even cheaper one.

And then OS X suffers from the same tyranny as Windows does. And OS X users suffer from the same tyranny as Windows users.

Apple will be driven to make OS X as compatible as possible in order to maximize the number of licenses they can sell, because they will only make money by shipping software. And that drive for compatibility will suborn things like security, stability, usability and elegance.

Apple will loosen their driver quality control standards to allow more hardware to work with the OS, which means we will see misbehaving hardware and hardware that might impact the stability of the base OS.

Application development will become "faster and looser" because as the install base grows, application developers will no longer spend the time and money to make their applications "great" because they won't have to in order to get people to buy it. When you're selling to a market of 10 million, you need to be good to sell a million copies. When you're selling to a market of 50 million - or 100 million - you don't.

And what of the iPhone and iPods? The software (iTunes / Music Store / App Store) drives the sale of those hardware. What happens when iTunes starts to work like WMP? Or when Apple starts raising prices on music and Applications (with the full support of the studios and labels and developers) to extract more revenue from the user community? We'll save money on our Macs and spend more on our iPhones and iPods.

And since the iPhone uses OS X, as OS X devolves, so will the iPhone's OS. Soon our iPhones will work like a Windows Smartphone. And owning and using a Smartphone, I can say that they are not.

OS X will become Windows and all the things that repelled us from Windows and drew us to OS X will appear in OS X. And again, I am honestly not trying to be flippant or whip up FUD. I've used Windows from 1.0 to Vista x64 daily. I've worked for Microsoft and know plenty of Windows OS and application developers.

And, of course, Microsoft will not just stand by and watch Apple divert a substantial part of their revenue stream away.

About the only good thing I can see is that Apple is quicker at updating OS X then Microsoft is at updating Windows. But I expect that as the OS X codebase expands and sprawls, it will become as convoluted and unmanaged as Windows and OS releases will stretch out to many years, as well.

Call me selfish or call me a snob. I want to pay £1000 for a current MacBook Pro with a stable OS X and stable applications then £500 for a future MacBook Pro with an unstable OS X and unstable applications. My time is worth far more to me then £500. Or £1000, for that matter, which is why I moved from Windows to OS X a year ago.