Why the Black MB isn't a ripoff, and why Integrated Graphics isn't so bad.

[russed]

The only reason Apple has priced the black MacBook so much higher than the equivalent white MacBook is profits. They think some people will pay a $150 premium for the color, which is pure profit. That's okay, as far as it goes (and as a stockholder, I hope they sell millions of them), but I have stated a problem with this pricing scheme that does not rely on saying that "it sucks."

i have acknowledged in my previous post that it has been done for profits. but then apple is clearly a company that prides itself upon being 'cool'. being cool comes hand in hand with being different and unique. and this is also why they have done this.

If dell did this do you think they would manage to ship laptops that are in black and cost more (plus 20Gb extra). the answer is obviously no. only apple can do this and fair play to them.

 

[savar]

But the concept of paying for something that you find externally more attractive isn't new. We do the same for t-shirts. Take off the print on the front of the shirt, and what do you get? Yep, a plain $5.00 t-shirt.


This place is going loony over the smallest things to the point where nobody seemed clear on how they felt, when things are really simple if you stop, think, and break things down.

I think people are incredulous at the fact that the market will supposedly supoprt a $150 black, matte finish. If the market tolerates it, fine. I just think people are crazy if they're spending that much for a different color.

 

[kevin.rivers]

-----------------------------------------------
Integrated Graphics is teh suxx0rs!

It's not the best, but it's not bad. It's actually not that bad for gaming, or for most other tasks. Just don't expect to run Motion, or do heavy duty video editing on a MacBook, that's all. You can still run CounterStrike, or newer games at medium quality.

Yes, the graphics card is good enough for you to check email, use Word, organize a 5000 photo library in iPhoto, use iMovie, watch movies, etc. Photoshop won't be negatively affected. In fact, the Intel Integrated graphics we're getting now is better than some of the video cards that were put in the PowerBooks from 12 months ago, especially that Nvidia 5200 they kept putting into the 12" PowerBooks.


-----------------------------------------------
Is the 15" MBP worth the extra cost over the 13.3" MB?

Well, depends what you do. Paying an extra grand or so for a nice MBP isn't a ripoff at all despite the similar performance numbers you're going to get. You wouldn't be paying for performance this time. You're paying for the practicality of having a larger screen, higher resolution, and a dedicated graphics card. If you don't need such things, then yes, it's a ripoff. But if you intend on doing video editing on this machine, the 15" and 17" MBPs aren't a bad way to do it.

The 1280x800 resolution of the MB would be much too limiting to do video work on a long-term basis, and would be too slow because of the lack of a dedicated GPU.

The 15" MBP is only a ripoff if you don't do video editing or high intensity gaming.

Your statements about video editing on the Macbook are false. Video editing(even heavy duty) are not and will not be adversely affected by the intergrated graphics. Again IT WILL NOT be affected. Please adjust accordingly.

The only thing that would make video editing better on a MBP, is its slight higher clock speeds and the larger screens. I sure wouldn't want to edit video s on a 13.3", but that doesnt mean it is not possible.

 

[beatle888]

if you dont like it, dont buy it, but PLEASE do stop complaining about it.

hahahaha, the guys in agony, i wonder if he works for apple. "Yes its a rip off but just except it PLEASE." or "dont buy it if its too expensive". it is a rip off. what makes people go on about that fact is that others try to tell them its not a rip off and they cant believe how people are willing to get the shaft. thats my theory.

 

[IJ Reilly]

i have acknowledged in my previous post that it has been done for profits. but then apple is clearly a company that prides itself upon being 'cool'. being cool comes hand in hand with being different and unique. and this is also why they have done this.

If dell did this do you think they would manage to ship laptops that are in black and cost more (plus 20Gb extra). the answer is obviously no. only apple can do this and fair play to them.

Well you said that there were reasons this was done "apart from profit." I don't see any reasons apart from profit, and certainly would not expect to see any. Simply said, I think this pricing scheme feeds into the negative image many already have of Apple and its customers. Apple will take another drubbing in the media for charging a big premium for a color, which I believe is not good for the company in the long run.

 

[MattyP]

I was all prepared to hate the black macbook. It just looked dissapointing on the web. This weekend the strong gravitational field of an Apple store pulled me in to its orbit and I found myself typing away on a black macbook. I have a HUGE cast on my right hand which makes it difficult for me to type, and I have to say that keyboard is sweet. For comparison I typed the same sentence on a macbook and a 17" macbook pro, and it was much easier on the macbook. Put together I like the white color better, because it will match my JBL speakers... but in person the matte black finish on the macbook is kinda sexy. I just think it doesn't photograph well, but then neither do I. Oh, which one to buy...

 

[kodiak]

Good summation abstract, and useful to 'buying advice'

yawn, on the followingh debate though...

yes, Apple is doing it for a profit (they are a company, not a mac fan base provider)
yes, they believe they can charge extra, because apple/,macbook is possibly fashionable
(thats what presumably, marketing/sales have told them... its there choice)

no, its not a rip-off - you have a choice, dont like it.. buy a white one

if they are wrong, they will no doubt adjust pricing/range...
so what if they didnt before, they obviously think now the market will bare it,
perhaps this is the 'new' strategy.


however, i very much doubt, its going to make any much difference to reviews, (at worst, a couple of sentences in the odd review)

what will cause grief is overheating, noises etc. this will form bad reviews, bad opinions on apple. it will also prevent sales.
so surely thats where the focus should be

personally, im holding of on purchasing either MBP or MB, till the real issues are sorted... and then color will be largely irrelevant

 

[andiwm2003]

I think people are incredulous at the fact that the market will supposedly supoprt a $150 black, matte finish. If the market tolerates it, fine. I just think people are crazy if they're spending that much for a different color.

have you checked how much people spend on ipod accessories?

If people are willing to spend $29.95 on IPOD SOCKS then let them bleed for a black MacBook! Apple would be stupid to not charge the premium.

 

[russed]

hahahaha, the guys in agony, i wonder if he works for apple. "Yes its a rip off but just except it PLEASE." or "dont buy it if its too expensive". it is a rip off. what makes people go on about that fact is that others try to tell them its not a rip off and they cant believe how people are willing to get the shaft. thats my theory.

no i definatly dont work for apple, i wish i did though!

 

[iHeartTheApple]

Your statements about video editing on the Macbook are false. Video editing(even heavy duty) are not and will not be adversely affected by the intergrated graphics. Again IT WILL NOT be affected. Please adjust accordingly.

The only thing that would make video editing better on a MBP, is its slight higher clock speeds and the larger screens. I sure wouldn't want to edit video s on a 13.3", but that doesnt mean it is not possible.

Yep. This is what I was looking for...So it *is* true that for video editing alone, there is little difference between the integrated graphics of the MB and the dedicated graphics of the MBP? Remember, I'm not talking about screen size or resolution...it's just a comparison between the two graphics cards.

So then is it true that the MBP will only really perform *significantly* better on gaming (especially 3D games)? Can someone please put this to rest now...I haven't been able to get a straight answer. Thanks!

 

[Madmic23]

Where do you buy your cars?

Man, where do you buy your cars? I've never seen a dealership charge for a different colour, they normally just ask what colour you'd like and show you the selection. For a custom paint job or something, sure, I can see an added cost. But for buying a blue car?

 

[russed]

Well you said that there were reasons this was done "apart from profit." I don't see any reasons apart from profit, and certainly would not expect to see any. Simply said, I think this pricing scheme feeds into the negative image many already have of Apple and its customers. Apple will take another drubbing in the media for charging a big premium for a color, which I believe is not good for the company in the long run.

they may well get some negative comments in the media but at the end of the day, if they sell more and so get more money, will they care - i somewhat doubt it. if the market can take it, it will show up the media that gives the negative comments, as they will have been proven wrong.

as for reasons, i believe, as i have said, apple prides itself on being 'cool' and so producing cool products enhances this (which i am presuming here were are taking the black macbook as being cool). if using market pricing to limit the probable demand for the black macbook then so it should be. the people who want it pay for it, those that dont or cant afford it, dont get it. apple are providing the opportunity for people to be different, but it comes at a price.

on another note, buying a black macbook from apple is cheaper than getting one done by that company (buty admittedly you get less colour choice).

 

[russed]

Man, where do you buy your cars? I've never seen a dealership charge for a different colour, they normally just ask what colour you'd like and show you the selection. For a custom paint job or something, sure, I can see an added cost. But for buying a blue car?

more like where do you buy your cars. usually the solid colours are one price and the metallic colours or the unique colours are more - so for the example, in the mini range they did a kind of blue colour that was only available in the mini cooper s. a year or so later they gave this option to the rest of the mini range but you had to pay more for it.

 

[e_ticket]

The 15" MBP is only a ripoff if you don't do video editing or high intensity gaming.

You spend more money, you get more computer. Regardless of how you use it, how is that a ripoff?

 

[wako]

simply because cars and other things we buy in the world are also marked up for the color, still doesnt mean we arent being ripped off on the macbook as well as the cars and other things we buy.

 

[clayj]

I wouldn't buy a black MB for one reason: That glossy black surface is going to be IMPOSSIBLE to keep clean. Seriously. An FBI forensics technician's wet dream... you can read fingerprints off it without even using powder.

Luckily, I prefer the MBP design, so its silver finish (which is remarkably good at hiding smudges and stuff) will continue to do nicely for me.

 

[jsw]

I wouldn't buy a black MB for one reason: That glossy black surface is going to be IMPOSSIBLE to keep clean.

Not that it really matters, but the black finish is more of a matte one, and the black MB's I played with last night didn't really show much in the way of fingerprints, smudges, etc.

Not that it's worth the $$, but it seemed less easily "dirtied" than other finishes.

 

[russed]

simply because cars and other things we buy in the world are also marked up for the color, still doesnt mean we arent being ripped off on the macbook as well as the cars and other things we buy.

you are only ripped off if you unwillingly buy the black over the white and dont want the benefits of the black - i.e. exclusivity and the extra 20GB. so you are then paying the extra price for nothing.

however, if you buy the black and you want the benefits, you are not ripped off. it all depends on if you value the benefits at the extra cost of the black model. - its cost-benefit analysis.

 

[wako]

It is 150 dollars for a paint job, when it probably costed Apple no more than 20 dollars. You are definately being ripped off no matter if you want or don't want the benefits.

 

[carfac]

I was trying to read this post, but it was not opening in my browser. I think too many people have spilt Kool Aid on this thread for it to open properly, starting with the OP...

 

[mccldwll]

"a rip-off (informal)
something that is not worth as much money as you have to pay for it."

I'll agree with original poster's basic position that it's not a rip-off if you are happy paying $150 more for black. But if you might prefer black but think $150 is way too much to pay for color alone, it is exploitation, and a rip-off. Macs have always been more expensive, but the argument has always been that they're still a good value because of everything included, and operational ease. Fashion and exclusivity are bogus IMHO. If a blackbook made the statement that it had shipped with 1GB ram and a still bigger drive (or special software), that's a positive statement. That's value. All it says now (to many people) is "I overpaid by $150 because I wanted black."

 

[Demon Hunter]

Abstract, I like the way you think. Nice thread.

 

[-M7-]

yes "I overpaid by $150 because I wanted black."
And I'm totally happy

 

[IJ Reilly]

they may well get some negative comments in the media but at the end of the day, if they sell more and so get more money, will they care - i somewhat doubt it. if the market can take it, it will show up the media that gives the negative comments, as they will have been proven wrong.

I think they should care, is what I am saying. I don't believe that Apple entirely realizes how they are perceived by the media and the public, and how this limits the appeal of the company's products. If Apple really wants to double the Mac's market share, as Steve says, then I don't think that charging a stiff premium for something as superficial as color is the way to do it. To make matters worse, they've never charged this much for so little before. Not going in the right direction, IMO.

 

[jsw]

I fail to understand how any non-mandatory purchase can be considered a rip-off. I also fail to see why market dynamics aren't obvious to some people. If you're in business, you charge what you can get away with charging. In this case, given demand, the extra fee for black paint is clearly within the range of what people will pay. On the other hand, a perfectly equivalent version is available for less, and no one has yet been forced to buy the black one.

So unless there's someone out there who has been forced to buy the black version, I can't see how anyone could argue it's a rip-off.

As far as the perception of Apple is concerned, I suspect this won't have nearly the effect of the $100 iPod case, but I could be wrong. WSJ won't mock it if it sells, and it's selling. It'll serve as further proof of how shallow people are, but I don't see the problem there. And, frankly, I don't want market share to grow too quickly, so I actually hope it somehow slows that growth a bit - I just don't see how it could.