netdog said:
Industrial design. In large part, yes. Possibly you don't understand what is meant by industrial design.
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.
Why the Black MB isn't a ripoff, and why Integrated Graphics isn't so bad.
- Thread starter Abstract
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Industrial design. In large part, yes. Possibly you don't understand what is meant by industrial design.
Just for discussion's sake, none of us know if the cost to manufacture the white MB is the same as the black MB.IJ Reilly said:
Assuming that they cost the same, then you might just have a valid point.
If however, the black model cost more to manufacture, then your point may be moot.
Regardless, no one is being forced to purchase the black model It is an option. And as such, will be purchased by those who feel that it is worth the price difference.
netdog said:
I agree, but function comes first. Yeah, Apple has attracted many switchers through style, but those who have proven loyalty to apple were buying their machines when they were beige. They are the heart of the Mac community and the one most likely to give you the best help and advice on these boards.
I'm all for Apple gaining market share through style, but many of those style-switchers are only as loyal as style-trends. My concern, as I've stated, is that they are turning off people who could potentially be Apple loyalists based on function. Like me.
netdog said:
It's a much, much larger part than you apparently realize. This story goes all the way back to the original Macintosh.
netdog said:
Yes. Build quality of hardware and software, and their integration. Historically you paid more upfront for greater reliability and fewer hassles. Style reflected greater attention to detail throughout the machine (beige box period aside). Model/price differentiation has always reflected functional differences (speed, ram, graphics, hd, etc.). Charging the equivalent of both a memory and hd bump for style alone is a first.
sushi said:
The last issue I think has been addressed fully. I don't think anybody is arguing that any arm-twisting or kneecap-bashing is going on here.
As for cost, I think we can agree that black plastic probably isn't more expensive than white plastic, at least not significantly. Most of the electronic items I buy these days are molded out of black plastic. It's become ubiquitous, which I don't think it would be if it cost ten times as much as white plastic. Whether you're pro or con the black MacBook premium, I think we should all accept that Apple is conducting an experiment here. They're trying to find out how much people will pay for a pure fashion statement. Some people are perfectly fine with this. Others are pointing out the potential downsides.
aristobrat said:
I think if you consider the tone of his posts, it's clear that Reilly is assuming no such thing.
aristobrat said:
Good question. Until a few of us brought up the potential downsides, this issue wasn't being discussed. So draw your own conclusion.
mccldwll said:
So buy the white one. Problem solved! Yay!
beatle888 said:yes but that doesnt make it any less of a rip off and thats Abstracts whole argument. hes saying we're ripped off all the time so its ok.
No, you miss the point. The point is you're only ripped off if you choose to buy the black. If you think it's a ripoff, just buy the white. If you're one of the poor souls "ripped off" you made that choice so you have nobody but yourself to blame.
savar said:
From the reports of people buying the black in these and other forums, and reports of the black selling out first, it sure looks like the market is OK with it.
beatle888 said:
Nope, exactly the opposite. If you think it's a ripoff, DON'T accept it. You can buy the white instead.
IJ Reilly said:
I don't think charging for color will matter one iota. If anything, it's extra money apple can put toward R&D or subsidising other products. As long as color is independent from other options, I say bring it on.
And it's silly to complain that apple hasn't done this before. They limited colors to certain configs with the imacs, and with the U2 iPod, they did the exact same thing, charged extra just for color. It did NOT include the songs, you had to buy those seperately.
mccldwll said:
Again, you are only telling part of the story. What you say is not untrue, but it is incomplete.
Also, charging for color is not a first here. They did it with an iPod, it worked, and they are doing it again. Fortunately, nobody was maimed in the process.
yadmonkey said:
I don't agree that the BlackBook will turn off potential swtichers.
A potential switcher sohlud have done thier homework and know why they want to buy a mac in the first place - if its simply the style, so be it.
1 overpriced item in a range of 3 models is not going to turn anyone off.
Is a potential Merc SLK buyer going to be turned off all SLKs because the 3 Litre version costs more than the others?
I don't think so.
Even when macs were beige they still looked better than the average PC, the powerbook has always looked cool.
Style is part of Apple's brand.
And sometimes Style costs money.
netdog said:
Integrated graphics are a bad choice for 3 reasons.
1) For the last time (yeah, right
) you don't have to "game heavily" to appreciate the ability to play a modern game once in a while. I, like many people, want my mac to be an all-purpose system. Please get it out of your head that only hard-core gamers care about games. A lot of average users like to be able to play games once in a while, at decent quality and framerates. Doesn't have to be stellar, but a radeon x1300 or x1400 could make the macbook a *decent* computer for games while adding very little cost. Still wouldn't make hard-core gamers happy, but with a low-midrange dedicated chip as a BTO option, the macbook could legitimately claim to be a small-form pro notebook.2) As noted in this thread, the GMA950 uses system memory, meaning that any time you use it, you're in effect down to 432 RAM (64 + 16 for the system) on a base macbook. This is not enough for OS X, especially if you have to use Rosetta.
3) The GMA950 is basically as bad a graphics solution as you can get on a new computer these days. IMO it's never smart to build (or buy) the lowest of the low end. You're limiting the life of the computer that much more... how long until OS X has effects not supported by this chip? I'd guess Leopard will have features that the GMA950 can't handle. (the Radeon 9200 in the second to last ibook G4s couldn't handle the ripple in Tiger, and Tiger came out while those ibooks were still current.)
QCassidy352 said:Integrated graphics are a bad choice for 3 reasons.
1) For the last time (yeah, right
It's not trying to be a Pro notebook. If you want a Radeon, buy a MacBook Pro. The Intel chips are part of the motherboard. You said it yourself: a notebook with integrated graphics is a bad choice for you. Therefore the MB is a bad choice for you. Simple as that.
QCassidy352 said:
512MB is not enough for OS X either.
QCassidy352 said:
Let's hope that Apple doesn't do this to people with what will be 7 month old notebooks, but it is possible.
From what I understand, the GM950 is not limited to 64MB, so I think we will be fine with Leopard. Not ideal, perhaps, but then again, they aren't trying to create the ideal notebook here.
Now, all of that aside, this notebook screams in benchmarks tests, does much better in graphics performance than one might expect, and is a solid performer in realworld non-gaming tasks. Heck, it even runs FCE well, something that shocked the heck out of me. So with this fantastic notebook, why are so many MacHeads whinging and whining? I just don't get it.
yadmonkey said:
Screw that. Where's the floppy drive???
ferretboy said:
But you're OK with the first $1200 paying for materials made in sweatshops?? I guess it only offends you if the color you want costs more than you're willing to pay?
QCassidy352 said:Integrated graphics are a bad choice for 3 reasons.
1) For the last time (yeah, right
2) As noted in this thread, the GMA950 uses system memory, meaning that any time you use it, you're in effect down to 432 RAM (64 + 16 for the system) on a base macbook. This is not enough for OS X, especially if you have to use Rosetta.
3) The GMA950 is basically as bad a graphics solution as you can get on a new computer these days. IMO it's never smart to build (or buy) the lowest of the low end. You're limiting the life of the computer that much more... how long until OS X has effects not supported by this chip? I'd guess Leopard will have features that the GMA950 can't handle. (the Radeon 9200 in the second to last ibook G4s couldn't handle the ripple in Tiger, and Tiger came out while those ibooks were still current.)
1) Plenty of games aren't even 3d. And I think that casual gamers are more likely to be satisfied with lower resolutions, lower framerates, and dare I say it, even older games.
2) 512 isn't enough for OSX, even if there was dedicated graphics memory you'd STILL want to upgrade. So that's kind of a moot point.
3) Sounds like FUD to me. If you're so worried about future OS's not working because of the graphics hardware, tell me what versions of OSX so far have not run on machines because of video card? I'm guessing there aren't any? Worst case is what, some machines that don't do the water animations with widgets?
yadmonkey said:
The PC card is a dying peripheral or whatever you wish to call it. ExpressCard or something or other is taking it's place nowadays, which is offered on the MBP. Not that I care because most of the basic stuff (which I used to use PC Card for) is now integrated into the laptop.
As for cellular wireless, how about using Bluetooth? That's what I'm gonna use .
Again, paying more for color isn't unheard of or absurd (it's just a matter of balancing wants with cash) but the $150 is a terribly lot compared to the amount the laptop costs, where as the prices for metallic colors are much smaller when compared to the total price of the car.
Oh and netdog: E46 or E90?
Actually, the GMA950 is newer and more capable than even the 9700 Mobility. Of course the 9700 wipes the floor with the 950 in 3D, but compared to the previous GPUs (Radeon 9200/9550, Go 5200), the GMA950 is a huge leap forward. You'd be limiting the life of the machine substantially more by sticking with what they had to begin with, and your premise is problematic as the lifespan is no worse than other notebooks on the market in its class, nor is it more limited technologically than a computer in any class (aside from being not-upgradeable), unless hardware 3D suddenly becomes essential to computing in the next three years (and it won't).QCassidy352 said:
The GMA950 solved the problem of the 9200 dilemma. The GMA950 is matched, technologically, with all other modern GPUs. It has no more or less longevity than ANY other GPU currently on the market, which is unlike the situation you'd have by choosing a "value" card with outdated technology. Yes, it's the low end...but your advice never to buy the low end is logically impossible: there always has to be a lowest spec, and there's nothing about the MacBook or the 950 that is inadequate for a general computer.
FWIW, a lot of EVDO BlueTooth devices can only push 100-150kbps, which kinda sucks when the connection itself is 400-700kbps.designed said:
Having said that, USB tethering is another way of getting a fast wireless connection without having to have a PCcard slot.
Here's a video of Doom 3 running on a MacBook one again showing intergrated graphics aren't so bad....
ShadoW
ShadoW
Precisely. The Black ones are a different texture, a different pigment, and a substantially lower volume (at least twice as many white ones and conceivably even triple or more). All of those things could contribute to higher prices. We should also remember that it's not one or two pieces like the iPod or the colored iMacs--it's a different battery, a different trackpad, keyboard, at least four or five case pieces, etc. When each one of those is even just a little more expensive, it adds up.sushi said:
Also, like I've said, we don't know that the costs of the black ones don't serve to subsidize the white ones. It's not uncommon for "elite" products to have costs deferred to them to make the downstream products more affordable.