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

[Abstract]

Apple doesn't hide the fact that they're charging $150 extra for the black matte finish. This just proves that consumers are shallow and want/buy things that not only work well, but also look great (to them). It doesn't mean Apple is ripping customers off.

Again, do you own any t-shirts with logos and aren't entirely plain in colour, and cost more than $5. Were you ripped off? Surely you have.

its a blatant rip-off

from apples own dictionary:
"something that is grossly over priced"

Ask the people who paid the extra $150 whether they feel like they got ripped off and paid too much, and if they say "No", then they didn't pay "too much."
"Overpriced" would imply that the black matte finish is too much to pay, and that the market won't pay that price for it.....making it "overpriced."
It isn't worth it from a specs/technology standpoint, but is from an aesthetics standpoint for those people who willingly paid it.

For you, it's a ripoff because you're not willing to pay $150 for what you see as "Nothing." But hey, it's all a matter of perspective. Life is easier to understand if you realize that some people care about things you don't.

and if you dont like apples definition...heres Websters..."a financial exploitation"

People aren't being financially exploited if they're given a choice. If the superficial perk of owning a black MB is worth $150 to you, and you're given the choice of paying extra or not, then you aren't being "financially exploited."

Pharmaceutical drugs are a different story. You're sick, and they make the drugs. Unless you're going to earn a PhD or 2 in biochemistry and make it all yourself, you really don't have a choice if you're really that ill.

 

[vangrl]

is the Macbook screen 13.3" measured straight across or diagonally?

 

[Kaiser Phoenix]

I think what apple should have done was change the material like Sony.

For example they could have had the black one made of Carbon Fibre so that it was actually lighter or something.

I dont know if anyone cares or have noticed but the Macbooks are awfully heavy at 2.3KG for a portable machine with a 13.3 inch screen when a MPB15 is only 2.5KG for a bigger screen and more parts....

 

[lowtudoor]

It's your choice

If you want a white Macbook buy one, if you want a black one buy it.
I hear more whining on this web site then I ever heard from any Mac I've ever owned.

 

[yadmonkey]

how can you deny what the scholars of the world are in agreement with?

Yikes. I guess the world is flat.

 

[Clix Pix]

I dont know if anyone cares or have noticed but the Macbooks are awfully heavy at 2.3KG for a portable machine with a 13.3 inch screen when a MPB15 is only 2.5KG for a bigger screen and more parts....

I noticed. I looked at the new MacBooks and picked them up and hefted them for a moment, then picked up a MacBook Pro. Came home with a MacBook Pro for several reasons, and the weight consideration was definitely a factor. If they'd offered a shiny and glossy black MacBook like my black iPod I might have been tempted to go with that, but the matte black really didn't tickle my fancy. Looked too much like my ancient WIN 95 Compaq laptop. I like the white MacBook much better and of course it matches my iMac.... In the end, the MacBook Pro really meets my needs more. Guess we'll all have to wait a little longer for Apple to bring out a very lightweight ultraportable two-pounder....

 

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, the black matte finish is available for purely aesthetics purposes. So? Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't get your argument.

I'm sure you're not the only one who doesn't get it. Honestly, I think some Mac users need to spend more time outside of the Mac ghetto. I believe they'd discover that Apple charging $150 for nothing but a color serves as a perfect example to many people for why Macs should only be of interest to effete snobs.

 

[BKKloppenborg]

Ya i don't mind the black, in fact i love it. But i am still trying to decide to get the Macbook (Integrated graphics) http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

Here is info i don't think Integrated grahics are THAT BAD, they have come a LONG LONG way. I used to have a Toshiba 2.4 ghz Celeron, 752MB RAM and 32MB VRAM. I could play many games on it World of Warcraft, Warcraft 3 Starcraft, Unreal 2004, and some others. Real key to intergrated graphics are having LOTS of Ram. Mine orignally came with 32MB Video ram upgraded auto to 64MB ram and thats all it would do.

Now this new Integrated graphics
Optimization of System Resources Dynamic Video Memory Technology (DVMT) 3.0 supports up to 224MB of video memory; system memory is allocated where it is needed dynamically.

Can go up to 224MB that is a LONG way up from 64MB. So i am not that worried about using iphoto, imovie, and some other applications. **** one of my friends put half-life 2 on his Macbook (Running windows XP and Mac) and he said it was decent no lag .

It it CAN do Half Life 2 i would i would think i could do quite a bit.

The only reason i am not running out to buy one now is.... I can't decide if the Extra features on Pro are worth extra money. Blacklight, etc.

 

[THX1139]

Everyone is talking...no one is listening. This whole thread has turned into a personal stroke fest. Bla Bla...

 

[aquajet]

...apples definition...

I don't mean to be a nitpicker, but dictionary.app is an electronic version of The New Oxford American Dictionary.

 

[gnasher729]

I think the only people who think it's a rip-off are the ones who can't afford it (and want one), or are so careful with their financies, that all major purchases are scrutinized (tight-wad).

I'm clearly in the second category, and I don't think it's a rip-off. I compared the models, I think the black one is nicer, and I think it is not $150 nicer, so I bought a white one.

That said, the white model looks quite nice. If Apple had two models, one dead ugly that you never, ever want to be seen with, and a nice looking one for $150 more, then I might call it a rip-off. As an example, when my wife bought her car, it was available in three basic colors, all other colors cost significantly more. I don't know how they managed to do this, but in all the three basic colors the car looks cheap and tacky, so you are basically forced to pay more for an acceptable color (it is quite a common model, and I have _never_ seen one in the basic colors), so that could be called a rip-off.

 

[matticus008]

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.

The thing is that it's not necessarily all profit. They could be offloading costs elsewhere onto the black model. Are they taking advantage of the people with money to spare? Yes. But that's what they do with BTO options--they're never sold at reasonable prices.

There's a black model for people who want it, and it's certainly overpriced, but what if without the expensive black one, all the white ones had to be more expensive? In this case, the exploitation benefits everyone and hurts no one, so I can't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[netdog]

This price disrepancy has brought up something really dark in people.

I am sorry, but this isn't about a notebook being unfairly priced. There is way too much concern here about what others are spending.

Many people have large amounts of disposable income or capital and hence don't worry one iota about the extra $150. If they like the MacBlack, why not buy it? Do we question people when they buy diamonds?

Are you aware of how common diamonds are? Are you aware that the only reason that they are expensive is because it is a controlled market? Are you posting at DeBeers.Com to protest this blatant rip-off? Of course not.

Are you aware of the profit margins Sony gets on their televisions? Is Sony inundated with protests at Sony.Com? Of course they aren't. Why should they be? They have built a brand, and hence people desire Sonys and pay a very large premium for them despite the fact that there are many Chinese televisions that are just as good and cost much less. Often these televisions sport LCDs made at the same factory, and offer similar chipsets, but they just don't say Sony on the front.

Generally people's differing opinions are tolerated and even welcomed here, but people who keep harping about this "rip-off" are expressing something more personal, a personal resentment about the nature of today's consumer culture, and often about their perceived place in that culture.

Apple has opened a box here, and inside that box is the tantalizing potion called exclusivity at a price. Apple, a company that has positioned itself as friend to the artist and the people, but is in fact a company that provides luxury items, has made an obvious play here to create an object for which the value is not created merely by the sum of its parts, but is enhanced (by $150 in their estimation) by its perceived desirability.

Apple has always capitalized to some degree on such desirability since they introduced the original Macintosh (the Performa and the eMac lines aside). The only difference with the MacBook is that they have done so nakedly more nakedly than ever with this more expensive color option, and they have done this at a time where most people are worrying about the economy, and their place in it, while a significant number are still rife with disposable cash.

What is really interesting to me here is the amount of anger and resentment that people are projecting onto Apple here. There is no rip-off. Nobody is being exploited and everything about the transaction is out in the open. The Oxford English Dictionary defines rip-off as follows:

1 an article that is greatly overpriced.
2 an inferior imitation.​

I don't think that $150 for a non-essential cosmetic tweak to a luxury item is "greatly overpriced" anymore than I think that the iPod or an attractive Sony Vaio or a stunning cellphone would fit that definition. If you want material value, build yourself a PC, don't shop at Apple.Com. As for the second definition, an inferior imitation, clearly the MacBlack does not qualify.

Look, you can attack Apple all you want, but it isn't going to get you very far, nor is it going to get at the core of what is unnerving you. I suspect that many of the virulent complainers actually covet the MacBlack to some degree. People who prefer the white seem to have little problem with this pricing structure.

As for expressing opinions, very few here are against that, but many of us are reacting to this indiscriminate spewing of rage in this forum, in this case projected upon Apple. Most successful brands do not price things according to their material cost. That is known as brand value in its most obvious manifestation.

It's up to the whingers to figure out why they find it find it so terribly objectionable in the case of Apple, and honestly they will be better off if they figure out what they are really afraid of, the emotion that always underlies anger. In the meantime, expect these angry rants against Apple for charging what the market will bear to be met with similar distaste and resistance. For God's sake, MacBlacks are flying off the shelves, and clearly these people don't feel ripped off or exploited. Who the hell are the whingers to think that they know what's better for these satisfied buyers.

Oh, by the way, number me among those who is quite happy with his black MacBook. Guess I just don't know that I was ripped-off. I should be angry about it. Must just be the Soma kicking in.

 

[netdog]

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?

This is absurd. Most new cars today are offered with what they usually call "metallic" colors, and these cars are always offered at a substantial premimium. BMW, Audi, Mercedes and virtually all other non-budget brands certainly do this. Oh, I know, they are all rip-offs. LOL. Personally, I love driving my 330i, and I couldn't care less if somebody on an Internet forum thinks I got ripped off. That said, your statement above is just bizarre.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

is the Macbook screen 13.3" measured straight across or diagonally?

Diagonal, according to the specs. Most screens are (I'm tempted to say all, but there might be an exception somewhere, there always is).

 

[MS bulldog]

overpriced? depends on who you ask. corporations are responsible for increasing profits for its shareholders. if the market will bear it, then let her rip tater chip. personally, i would never pay $10 much less $150 for a fashion statement.

there are items that people will pay for no matter the price. a few examples:

sony charges $600 for a gaming machine (currently unproven that people will support this one, but i'd put money on it)
apple charges $150 for black paint
exxon charges $3 for a gallon of gas
such is life...

the us thanks you for supporting your economy.

 

[coffey7]

I am really new to apple products.I bought my first 17" imac a month ago. I'm now looking for a laptop. I was not very happy when I saw the extra charge for a plastic cover that was made in some 3rd world dive where the kids are abused and girls are sold into slave sex. Maybe Mr. Jobs should give the extra money from the profits of the black macboks to end the abuse of kid in these countries.

 

[mccldwll]

I want to beat this horse some more because I think it's actually an important discussion about apple's direction. As a stockholder I should be "pleased as punch" about the extra $150 profit/blackbook. As a consumer, and apple kool aid drinker, I'm not. I'm still not sure which one I would buy if priced the same (since matte black is more sedate/professional looking, but looks cheap compared to my pismo IMHO). But let's say I preferred black. Some have said nothing wrong with paying an extra $150 for exclusivity/fashion and likened it to buying a Hummer. There's the problem. While I can afford one, I would never buy a Hummer (conspicuous consumption, environmental callousness) or a Mercedes SUV (worthless, trouble prone piece of crap SUV) or an Escalade (let's not even go there). For many consumers, cars, computers, clothes and purchases in general are a reflection of values. Even if I wanted black (and even if $150 is chump change relatively speaking), I don't want to be in the fashion/exclusivity camp. I'm not accusing posters here who are willing to pay the extra $150 of that, but many buyers out there are, and that's not an impression I want to convey. You don't agree? How many here would be comfortable wearing the latest $200 basketball shoes, carrying a $500 purse, wearing a rolex, polo logos on everything, or wearing mink? Nuf sed. Historically apple has connoted intrinisic quality, and style/fashion has been a byproduct of the obsessive (in a good way) attention to detail. Nakedly charging the extra $150 for black color alone is a huge direction change for apple, and I wish it had been handled differently (such as including worthless "goodies" to at least try to hide the gouge).

 

[MS bulldog]

I am really new to apple products.I bought my first 17" imac a month ago. I'm now looking for a laptop. I was not very happy when I saw the extra charge for a plastic cover that was made in some 3rd world dive where the kids are abused and girls are sold into slave sex. Maybe Mr. Jobs should give the extra money from the profits of the black macboks to end the abuse of kid in these countries.

he might if apple was a non profit entity, but as it stands they are a corporation whose duties are to benefit the shareholders and not some sally struthers posterchild.

 

[devilot]

I was not very happy when I saw the extra charge for a plastic cover that was made in some 3rd world dive where the kids are abused and girls are sold into slave sex. Maybe Mr. Jobs should give the extra money from the profits of the black macboks to end the abuse of kid in these countries.

Um, before you get high and mighty about other countries, how about ending sex trafficking, domestic violence, poverty, and raising the literacy level here in the States? Yes, all of that happens here, too.

 

[netdog]

I agreed with you right up to here...

Historically apple has connoted intrinisic quality, and style/fashion has been a byproduct of the obsessive (in a good way) attention to detail.

I support your right to not buy status-oriented luxury-label brands. Honestly, I find the materialism that infects our culture (inlcuding me) to be quite disturbing for a number of reasons. That said, Apple has gone to great lengths to build stylish products, market them as desirable luxury items, and sell them priced accordingly.

The iPod is an ideal example of their succeeding at this. Their setting trends with transluscent and colorful cases was also done to add a touch of desirability to their lineup and brand, and Apple has never marketed value-oriented products since the first Mac (an incredibly stylish luxury PC at the time).

From what you have said, even if you did prefer the black MB, you might forego it. A good choice for you if that's the case. Surely, however, you don't begrudge people who would pay the extra, or who do wear Rolexes or Polo-branded shirts. I am sure we agree that if that's how they want to spend their money, much mazel to them.

So why shouldn't Apple charge what they can get? They always have in the past, and they have repeatedly created beautiful objects (for the most part) in the process. They are a publicly traded company trying to maximize profits, now and in the future. In attempting to do that, they are continually building a brand that is based upon "different products" for "creative trendsetters and thinkers," all in incredibly smart looking packages. Apple buyers have always paid a premium for those stylish products, be they iPods, iMacs, G-Towers, iBooks or MacBooks. Is this really any more naked? Wasn't it always clear to you that these concepts were central to Apple's business model since the original Mac, just as much as building great tools is part of their business model?

Truth be told, I initially purchased a white MacBook, but saw that the keyboard and platform were quickly getting soiled. Despite what is said here about the black being prone to getting dirty, I find that the way in which the white MacBook shows dirt to be much more of a problem, and I didn't want to find myself with a dingy notebook in two years, so I traded up to a black model. It had nothing to do with being stylish in my case as I actually find the white book more stunning.

That said, I didn't resent Apple charging me more. It's their product, one that they can price as they wish. I made the choice to pay for it, and I take responsibility for that. In fact, I am thoroughly impressed with this new lineup, and think that Apple deserves to be praised for delivering a great product at a good price. Last but not least, white or black, I appreciate the thoughtful beauty of the beast. I prefer having what to me is a beautiful tool as opposed to an ugly one.

 

[pashazade]

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.

Agreed, and Apple isn't charging as much as other companies. The Nokia 8800 is 600 UKP in silver or 800 UKP in black.

The only issue I have is that I want the 1.83Mhz, no superdrive model in black. At the moment if I want black I need to buy the higher spec version.

 

[QCassidy352]

I think what everyone forgets is that the integrated graphics in the new MacBook outperforms the GPU that was in the older iBooks.

No, no it doesn't. I'm so sick of this pro-integrated reality-distortion-field bull****. Haven't any of you seen these benchmarks for UT2004??

I mean good god, a dual core 2 Ghz processor *barely* beats a single 1.42 Ghz G4 with a radeon 9550!!! And LOSES to a 1.67 Ghz G4 with Radeon 9700!!

Given how badly a 2 Ghz core duo smokes a single G4, do you have any idea how bad the integrated graphics must be for these scores to be even remotely close? I mean, look at what the core duo does with a real graphics card - 3x the fps of the powerbook G4! So the OP and SC68Cal are both wrong -- the GMA950 is NOT better than the Radeon 9550, and in fact is total **** for any 3d work or gaming whatsoever.

Which brings me to my last point. You don't have to be a real gamer to enjoy the ability to play an occasional game. Which you really can't do with the the GMA950. I'm not interested in buying a console, I'm not interested in playing Doom3 on highest settings, but it would be nice if a $1500 computer could run the occasional modern game at decent quality.

You were all really quick to condemn integrated when it was only PCs that had it. Now that it's in macs you jump on the bandwagon. Sorry, but I'm not buying. Integrated is fine for 2d, and is complete and utter garbage for 3d, worse than mid-range cards from 2 years ago.

but I agree with the OP about the color. If you don't think the black is worth it, buy the white. If there had only been white, nobody would have complained, but because black is even an option, people think it has to be a free option. Nope, doesn't work that way.

 

[ManchesterTrix]

And I'm sick of whiners like you that pick and choose benchmarks just so they can continue to be indignant. Such is life.

 

[TBi]

Diagonal, according to the specs. Most screens are (I'm tempted to say all, but there might be an exception somewhere, there always is).

The reason is that all screens used be 4:3 and if you knew the diagonal then you can work out the height and width. You can work it out for widescreen too. It's easier to use one number to tell the difference between screens than giving people two numbers.