I thought customs checked on imports to the US. Why would they need to clear customs to ship from AK to the rest of the US? Are they still in customs from arriving from china?
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.
When exactly is the MacBook Pro shipping?
- Thread starter candyapple8
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Felldownthewell said:
That is my understanding - customs at the first port of entry. If boxes were people they'd get off the plane, enter the customs and get back on the plane. I guess that middle bit could be considered to be outside the FedEx location ....
elbirth said:
Mine left Alaska at 8:55pm on 2/19, so it is the one after the plane yours is on. Either that one is held up in customs for some reason, or they have had problems getting updates into their system, which is a possibility. I had a ground shipment disappear off the face of the map (never said it had left Indiana) until the day it was put onto the truck for delivery. Go figure.
Krevnik said:
So perhaps the 8:48 2/18 lot are headed to another hub (Memphis?) and may reappear at a different time for that reason (Memphis was clogged by weather on 2/18 also). I am in Houston - so perhaps that gets serviced via Memphis... Anyone here work for FedEx?
oliverb said:So perhaps the 8:48 2/18 lot are headed to another hub (Memphis?) and may reappear at a different time for that reason (Memphis was clogged by weather on 2/18 also). I am in Houston - so perhaps that gets serviced via Memphis... Anyone here work for FedEx?
I doubt it. My personal gut instinct is that the planes coming from Alaska are going to Indiana specifically. I would suspect that Alaska has about one plane coming in from Shanghai once a day, and that plane is simply rerouted to Indiana for cost reasons. At Indiana, they can split the incoming cargo onto different planes, and add in other cargo from similar planes inbound from the east coast, Canada, Mexico, and so on, and then send out a dozen fully-loaded planes from there.
I would be practically willing to bet money that all the Shanghai->Anchorage planes were refueled, cleared through customs, and sent onward unchanged to Indiana. If that wasn't the case, then I would have my MacBook by now, as Seattle has a pretty sizable and capable facility for FedEx Express off Boeing Field.
Yall might wanna go check this thread out last page.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2159226&posted=1#post2159226
Or page 9 if its to filled up
last page.https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2159226&posted=1#post2159226
Or page 9 if its to filled up
Texas04 said:Yall might wanna go check this thread out
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2159226&posted=1#post2159226
Or page 9 if its to filled up
I am REALLY angry that us 1.83 Ghz buyers are still left waiting! I wouldn't be so mad if people who ordered the higher end 2.16 models had ordered at the same time, many of us 1.67/now 1.83 guys ordered RIGHT after the keynote, and people who ordered the 2.16 just a week ago are getting theirs shipped! If Apple ever reads these forums, I hope they know how dissapointing it is that I sold my iMac G5 and have waited over a MONTH to have a powerful Apple MacBook Pro laptop, while others who simply spend 800 dollars more get the priority. I hope I get my CC charged and shipment email soon, or the local St. Louis Apple Stores get some MacBook Pro's in, as this is very frustrating!
alep85 said:
Apple is historically late on shipping new models that generate high demand. I don't have much sympathy for you. Keep in mind that since MacBooks started shipping, only ONE BUSINESS DAY has passed. Keep your shorts on.
io_burn said:
No, that's not what it's about! It's about the fact that a 2.16 customer should have to wait at least 2-4 weeks and sit in the back of the queue line. It's alright if the 2.0's are shipping ahead of us, but as a customer who has waited for a month, I find it offending that they would just plop the 2.16 people in front of us or ANY of the 2.0 people who haven't had theirs shipped yet! Sorry to start an angry tone because I'm still quite excited, but I don't think it is fair, sorry if you disagree (by the looks of what you ordered I can see why!). Anyways, hopefully all of us get our Macbooks soon so we can enjoy what we spent so much $$$$ on!
alep, I agree it is suspicious that 1.83's ship later. Definitely the case that Apple earns more money this way, especially if they get the 2.0 and 2.16 ones into stores this week and make people that can't afford to wait another week for their 1.83's pay the extra money.
alep85 said:
I understand your anger, but really its not about making you wait on purpose, it is about what they have in stock. They happen to have 2.0 and 2.16ghz processors in their posession, and they are shipping those. It is a business move. They could be fair, and ship to those who ordered first, and not ship what they have to new orderers, but that would make EVERYONE mad. Apple knows they messed up, and that the macbooks should have shipped earlier, so this way at least they make SOME people happy instead of having everyone angry.
Felldownthewell said:
maybe, but it's still not obvious to me why they would have thousands of 2.0 and 2.16 chips ready in time, but not a single 1.83, although this is the one chip that was announced originally.
alep85 said:
I can definitely understand your frustration. I thought about getting the 2.16, but the customer support person told me it would add a 4 week delay for my order. Had I known it would ship just as quickly if not sooner I might have gone for it.
In any case I doubt "fairness" has anything to do with it. It probably has something (if not everything) to do with capitalism. Lets take a very simplified example. You run Apple Computers and you make 20% on each computer sold (usually the profit margin goes up the more expensive something is, but let's pretend it's a constant for this example). You make two models: a $2000 model and a $3000 model (again...a simplification for math's sake).
You have a backorder queue of 1000 $2000 machines and 1000 $3000 machines. You know that the longer people wait in a backorder queue the greater chance they will cancel their order. Lets say that regardless the last 20% of orders unfulfilled will be cancelled. Here are your choices:
1) Ship the most expensive ones first. You report $4,600,000 revenue and $920,000 profit next quarter.
2) You ship them in the order they were placed (50/50 distribution). You report $4,500,000 revenue and $900,000 profit next quarter.
3) You ship the least expensive ones first. You report $4,400,000 revenue and $880,000 profit
Any pure capitalist will take #1 over the other two any day. I don't think anyone could scoff at twenty thousand dollars profit.
Then you can start talking about how companies, as a rule, cater to the largest spenders in an attempt to realize incremental revenue from them. What's the rule...I can't remember: Take all the money of the 5% richest people and it's more than the other 95% combined. Something like that. I wish I was in that 5%!
verb said:
I never heard a good argument for why capitalism and fairness can not go hand in hand. To act to one's own ends to the disadvantage of others does not follow from the definition of this trading system. It is a decision everyone who takes part in free trade has to make by her or himself.
helpful? hopeful?
I'm not an econ major but I just got an email from apple support that might cheer some of us up..
Dear Spencer,
Thank you for your recent inquiry.
Due to an unexpectedly high demand, we are unable to ship your MacBook Pro until on or before 03/20/06.
At this time, we do not have more specific information. Please note that product availability can change rapidly, and it is possible that your order may ship sooner than we anticipate. You may even receive a shipment confirmation between the time we send this email and the time that you read it.
Haha, not as good as a shipment notification, but its all i have..
I'm not an econ major but I just got an email from apple support that might cheer some of us up..
Dear Spencer,
Thank you for your recent inquiry.
Due to an unexpectedly high demand, we are unable to ship your MacBook Pro until on or before 03/20/06.
At this time, we do not have more specific information. Please note that product availability can change rapidly, and it is possible that your order may ship sooner than we anticipate. You may even receive a shipment confirmation between the time we send this email and the time that you read it.
Haha, not as good as a shipment notification, but its all i have..
macbook123 said:
Well, the system we have isn't really capitalism (in the US anyways), it is a mixture of a command market and capitalism, but that is beside the point. Since our economy and lifestyle has become so interdependant, and tied to corporations, this leads to a market where right now, isn't a free one. Because it isn't a truly free market by any stretch of the imagination (except for luxury goods, which is only closer by a margin, but hardly fair), companies are encouraged to focus on profit margins more than customer service. It comes down to: once all the apples are bad, and people accept it en masse, then the bad apples have leeway they would never have in a free market.
Krevnik said:
I agree. Then even if encouraged to be unfair, each person/company/bad apple has the freedom to chose fairness (in this case customer service) above profit margins. Sure other members of society will kind of exploit this by not applying the same moral standards to their ways of trading, however I claim that rarely will this bring the one who chose fairness into existential troubles.
macbook123 said:
Well, not from the standpoint of the customer, but from the standpoint of investors, whose motivation for investing in your company is to get return on their investment (profit). If you are dependant on that venture capital (i.e. you are publically traded, or just starting out on loans), then you tend to cater to the investors. The average person even does it with their 401k and similar retirement investments.
So the same customer is also a potential investor placing pressure on a company in a way that negatively impacts the customer experience.
Krevnik said:Well, not from the standpoint of the customer, but from the standpoint of investors, whose motivation for investing in your company is to get return on their investment (profit). If you are dependant on that venture capital (i.e. you are publically traded, or just starting out on loans), then you tend to cater to the investors. The average person even does it with their 401k and similar retirement investments.
So the same customer is also a potential investor placing pressure on a company in a way that negatively impacts the customer experience.
Am not sure whether this is meant as arguing against what I wrote. In the (hypothetical) case that Apple decided to prefer profit margin over fairness to its customers (by delivering 1.83 Ghz models last), it probably didn't do this out of an existential angst. I am just claiming that in the majority of cases people/companies/investors are able to make the more moral choice without losing their basis for living a happy life, but fail to, justifying it by "that's the way most people do it", which is not a justification.