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

[sushi]

But I don't understand being in denial over whether it is actually happening.

While I agree that the white and black models probably cost the same to manufacture, until we see the figures to back it up, we are merely speculating.

Period.

Data based decisions vice emotional response!

Personally, I would like to see some hard data before going down the speculating road.

To each his own.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Insulting people won't get you anywhere IJ.

If you look over what you said, you will see that my reply made perfect sense, and was not off the mark in raising the influence of the brand upon the ensuing designs and marketing desicions. I do understand the aspects that you raise that influence Apple design. I just replied that your asolutist view only allows you to understand one aspect that informs their design. Cheers.

My view isn't "absolutist," by any stretch of the imagination. Sorry you felt insulted, but the reality is, you were responding to a different point then the one I was trying to make.

 

[IJ Reilly]

While I agree that the white and black models probably cost the same to manufacture, until we see the figures to back it up, we are merely speculating.

Period.

Data based decisions vice emotional response!

Personally, I would like to see some hard data before going down the speculating road.

To each his own.

Let's jump off the deep end and say the black case cost twice as much to manufacture. Is that still $150, given how little it costs to manufacture plastic parts? Since we're never going to get the exact number, unless Apple decides to publish it (right), then I guess you're saying that no opinion about this can ever be informed.

 

[dogbone]

While I agree that the white and black models probably cost the same to manufacture, until we see the figures to back it up, we are merely speculating.

It's pretty obvious that different coloured plastics cost the same to produce unless they were using rare metal pigments, which they obviously aren't. The only criteria that affects cost is only quantity produced, and with two colours and tens of thousands of units there would be no difference whatsoever.

 

[2jaded2care]

Personally, I think $150 is kinda steep for black. However, I can't say for sure I wouldn't pay it, if I really liked the black much better than the white (and keeping in mind that previous post about the white eventually looking dingy). I would still somewhat resent that color tax, though.

A $50-$75 color premium would've been more palatable -- as I'm sure most other consumers would agree -- but I would've also liked to see more color/design choices. (Yes, an inventory nightmare, I know.) I think the perception would've been much more positive if the white had been offered as the "base" model, with black, pink, denim, leopard, etc. as "custom" colors.

Oh, and I also want world peace...

 

[mccldwll]

It's the nakedness of the charge for black that's the problem, not the $1499. I think it was a marketing misstep which didn't need to happen. IMO, apple should have bundled more ram, bigger drive, software, or discount software coupons (which might never be used) to further differentiate the black and white and hide the obvious $$ grab. Alternatively, the black could have remained as introduced, but the middle macbook could have been a 1.83, with superdrive and a bumped 80 gb drive (with 2.0 as an option for $100-$150). That still would have resulted in a $50-$100 color premium, (as well as a $50-$100 mid-level price increase, as fully configured). Apple probably would have done as well financially, but style tax would not have been as obvious and irritating.

 

[yadmonkey]

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 .

While I realize that doing cellular wireless is possible without a PC card, it's simply the best way to go in my little opinion. I don't like the idea of using my cell phone for it because:

1. It's slower.
2. It uses up the battery of my cell phone and I already do that enough!
3. It makes the cell phone unavailable during an internet session.
4. Oh, and I'm pretty sure my carrier, Verizon, doesn't support it.

Just seems like a PC card or express card is the most graceful solution. Plus, you never know when that next thing will come out which will make an expansion card slot useful. I've used it on every laptop I've ever owned, Mac and PC.

 

[skipsandwichdx]

4. Oh, and I'm pretty sure my carrier, Verizon, doesn't support it.

Verizon certainly supports it. I dial in with my E185 with Bluetooth all the time. I don't live in an EV-DO area (limited to 14.4kbps), but I'm fairly sure connecting at 14.4 just comes out of your plan's minutes, instead of some monthly charge.

 

[electronboy]

Well, I don't understand [snip] the complaints [snip] regarding the extra cost of buying the black model

Because we are already paying a premium for Apple products. That's why we are angry. At these prices BLACK should be included.

 

[yadmonkey]

Verizon certainly supports it. I dial in with my E185 with Bluetooth all the time. I don't live in an EV-DO area (limited to 14.4kbps), but I'm fairly sure connecting at 14.4 just comes out of your plan's minutes, instead of some monthly charge.

Wow - that's new to me. I remember when Verizon first started coming out with BT phones, they were limited to BT headsets.

Thanks for the update.

 

[IJ Reilly]

It's the nakedness of the charge for black that's the problem, not the $1499. I think it was a marketing misstep which didn't need to happen. IMO, apple should have bundled more ram, bigger drive, software, or discount software coupons (which might never be used) to further differentiate the black and white and hide the obvious $$ grab. Alternatively, the black could have remained as introduced, but the middle macbook could have been a 1.83, with superdrive and a bumped 80 gb drive (with 2.0 as an option for $100-$150). That still would have resulted in a $50-$100 color premium, (as well as a $50-$100 mid-level price increase, as fully configured). Apple probably would have done as well financially, but style tax would not have been as obvious and irritating.

Yes, I can't help thinking that Apple originally planned on including a speed bump with the black MacBook. If the model offered some unique differentiation from the less-expensive configuration beyond color, then I think we'd be calling it the MacBook Semipro, and would not be having this debate. Come to think of it, I wonder if anyone would pay an extra $150 for a 2.1 Ghz MacBook, if the case was white?

 

[netdog]

My view isn't "absolutist," by any stretch of the imagination. Sorry you felt insulted, but the reality is, you were responding to a different point then the one I was trying to make.

I wasn't. I said that what you said presenting a not untrue, but incomplete picture. Simple.

 

[netdog]

Because we are already paying a premium for Apple products. That's why we are angry. At these prices BLACK should be included.

Don't get angry. Just don't pay for black if it isn't worth it to you. Goodness.

 

[netdog]

This is my last post on this thread. From here on in I will let people like IJ have their last word.

Apple surely doesn't care about any of the whinging here. Their product is a great success, and obviously switchers and MacHeads are buying the white and black MacBooks in record numbers. They are achieving the greatest success so far in their recent rennaisance, finding themselves in the best position in years to gain market share. All the whining in the world by posters about how Apple got it wrong here is just noise.

Apple clearly got it right and they know it. This company is on the rise at the moment. To suggest that they have bungled this laptop in its pricing structure or marketing strategies (black at a premium, integrated graphics) is ludicrous. The numbers won't lie when they are in, and Apple Stores have never been so busy at the registers.

Have a nice bitchfest everyone!

 

[IJ Reilly]

Not just me, but people like me. Wow. I didn't know there were any people like me.

BTW, you got the last word. So there.

 

[TBi]

Because we are already paying a premium for Apple products. That's why we are angry. At these prices BLACK should be included.

Wuhoo snap on covers! Black one day and white the next !!

 

[matticus008]

(as well as a $50-$100 mid-level price increase, as fully configured). Apple probably would have done as well financially, but style tax would not have been as obvious and irritating.

A style tax (on top of the [debatable] "Apple" tax) has to be obvious and irritating. If it's spread around, it's just a general price increase.

It's fascinating how people are irritated about the black being the one to bear the weight--it proves they made the exact right call. If they'd been evenly priced, the lust factor wouldn't be nearly as intense ("oh, the top one is black, that's cool" versus the over-the-top response here). They're targeting people who want to pay for elitism and jealousy, and it's so working. Note that people aren't complaining that the price is out of reach on specs--people who want top performance can get it for a great price.

Any other top-product in Apple's history always got the "I need x and y, but it's sooo much more expensive; Apple overcharges us and we can get PCs for half the price." Now the hype is "I really want the black one sooo badly, but it's more expensive." The performance is now more affordable, but the Apple price premium and elitists/purists still have boasting power. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.

 

[w8ing4intelmacs]

Personally, I think it's pretty funny that people want to pay $150 for a color. But it's hilarious that people are irritated by people who "complain". They're just bugged that people are pointing out what should be obvious and not giving them the respect of having the "top" model. The complaints about the "complaints" are just people justifying a vain decision. If you're fine with your decision, then it shouldn't bother you what other people think.

lol.

 

[mccldwll]

A style tax (on top of the [debatable] "Apple" tax) has to be obvious and irritating. If it's spread around, it's just a general price increase.

It's fascinating how people are irritated about the black being the one to bear the weight--it proves they made the exact right call. If they'd been evenly priced, the lust factor wouldn't be nearly as intense ("oh, the top one is black, that's cool" versus the over-the-top response here). They're targeting people who want to pay for elitism and jealousy, and it's so working. Note that people aren't complaining that the price is out of reach on specs--people who want top performance can get it for a great price.

Any other top-product in Apple's history always got the "I need x and y, but it's sooo much more expensive; Apple overcharges us and we can get PCs for half the price." Now the hype is "I really want the black one sooo badly, but it's more expensive." The performance is now more affordable, but the Apple price premium and elitists/purists still have boasting power. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.

HUH?? I think you've missed it. The point has never been that products be "evenly priced." It's not about "elitism and jealousy" or "elitists/purists" having "boasting power." It's about rational pricing related to cost/function. Some people need or want black simply because they need or want black. I think it was a great idea having the black as the top model since differentiates it from the old ibook consumer line. The problem is that ($50 hd upgrade included), the macbook with superdrive is available in white plastic for $1350, or black plastic for $150 more. $150 for color alone. I clearly don't think apple made "the exact right call" since the gouge is too obvious. The object of good marketing (or a good con) is to make the purchaser feel good after the purchase (or the mark unaware he's been taken). Some people, for whatever reason, may in fact feel good about paying $150 more just for color. And some may feel good knowing that they got same computer for $150 less, in a color they liked as much or more. But many, whether they buy black or not, will not be pleased about it being obvious that they have/had to pay $150 extra for nothing more than color. And that's not good.

 

[yadmonkey]

I want a beige Macbook. I'm serious. I love Apple products for their OS and I've never been crazy about the white iPod/iBook style. At first, I really liked the black book because it didn't have that trendy look - it didn't look like a typical Mac, but Apple used the pricetag to make it trendy and elitist. I don't like that.

It's great that Apple makes stylish products, but that should always be secondary to their great functionality. If I were rolling in dough, I'd buy a black one and paint it beige. That would be a true way to say I love Apple for all the right reasons.

It's not about the money. I was buying Macs when they were expensive and beige. I believe that many PC users (potential switchers) are curious, but skeptical about Apple product being better and write it off to style and hype. Those are the ones I want to have switch - the others will always be only as loyal as a style trend.

 

[matticus008]

HUH?? I think you've missed it. The point has never been that products be "evenly priced." It's not about "elitism and jealousy" or "elitists/purists" having "boasting power." It's about rational pricing related to cost/function.

So people enjoyed paying more for less computing power, and the Apple superiority complex had nothing to do with it? I think you might be looking at it from the wrong perspective. The MacBooks are MUCH more competitively priced than the iBooks/PowerBooks they replace...yes, even the black one.

Some people need or want black simply because they need or want black.

Nobody needs black. I'm sorry, but nobody needed a black one before it existed, and no one needs it now.

$150 for color alone. I clearly don't think apple made "the exact right call" since the gouge is too obvious. The object of good marketing (or a good con) is to make the purchaser feel good after the purchase (or the mark unaware he's been taken). Some people, for whatever reason, may in fact feel good about paying $150 more just for color. And some may feel good knowing that they got same computer for $150 less, in a color they liked as much or more.

People do feel good. The black ones are flying off the shelves, and they're not whining that they got ripped off. The only people whining are the people who want the black ones but don't want to pay for it. Just like people whining for options only available in more expensive/bigger models whined that they didn't want to pay for those features. This is an obvious marketing success.

But many, whether they buy black or not, will not be pleased about it being obvious that they have/had to pay $150 extra for nothing more than color. And that's not good.

That's why it's a style tax...people who want the style (which has nothing to do with performance) will pay for it, and others who don't pay for it will be jealous, which amps up the Apple lust factor, which is an integral part of marketing. People who don't care about the black model don't care that it's $150 more expensive, because they can get the same Apple computer for $150 less. No one loses. It's a near-perfect marketing move, and it's a carefully crafted price position. You don't go to the white one and click "change to black - $150." All you do is go straight to the black one. People who want the black and are willing to pay for it (and there are lots of those people) just do it, not noticing and/or not caring about the white ones.

 

[aquajet]

<snip>

Meh, whatever. If I ever get a MB (my PB is cutting it fine), it'll be a white one and I'll put a bumper sticker on it that says "This white MacBook does all the same stuff as your black MacBook, but I paid $150 less." So there.

 

[matticus008]

Meh, whatever. If I ever get a MB (my PB is cutting it fine), it'll be a white one and I'll put a bumper sticker on it that says "This white MacBook does all the same stuff as your black MacBook, but I paid $150 less." So there.

Exactly. Marketing in action. You wouldn't put down the people who bought black if you only cared about performance. You'd buy the white one and forget about it. Instead, you're trying to turn black MB envy around so people are jealous of you for getting a better deal.

 

[mccldwll]

Exactly. Marketing in action. You wouldn't put down the people who bought black if you only cared about performance. You'd buy the white one and forget about it. Instead, you're trying to turn black MB envy around so people are jealous of you for getting a better deal.

Not a direct response to the above quote but, you...are...missing...the...point.
It doesn't matter that many black buyers are happy and many white buyers are happy, but that many (40% in an informal, thus irrelevant poll on this pro-apple forum) think it's a rip-off, excessive charge, style tax, gouge, overreach, exploitation. Again, "[m]any, whether they buy black or not, will not be pleased about it being obvious that they have/had to pay $150 extra for nothing more than color. And that's not good." You may be happy but many are not, or this and other similar discussions elsewhere would not be taking place.
It...is...not...good...marketing...to...leave...a...bad...taste...in...that...large...a...segment...of...the...target...market. Period.

And to your earlier response that nobody needs black, that's not really true. Many don't give a wit about color, but want/need the smaller 13" form factor, and need the more subdued/professional/business look.

 

[kevin.rivers]

Not a direct response to the above quote but, you...are...missing...the...point.
It doesn't matter that many black buyers are happy and many white buyers are happy, but that many (40% in an informal, thus irrelevant poll on this pro-apple forum) think it's a rip-off, excessive charge, style tax, gouge, overreach, exploitation. Again, "[m]any, whether they buy black or not, will not be pleased about it being obvious that they have/had to pay $150 extra for nothing more than color. And that's not good." You may be happy but many are not, or this and other similar discussions elsewhere would not be taking place.
It...is...not...good...marketing...to...leave...a...bad...taste...in...that...large...a...segment...of...the...target...market. Period.

And to your earlier response that nobody needs black, that's not really true. Many don't give a wit about color, but want/need the smaller 13" form factor, and need the more subdued/professional/business look.

I think you are missing his point...