What's inside future low-cost Apple MacBooks?
With new lower-cost Apple MacBooks reportedly on the way soon, it's time to engage in a favorite diversion: what, pray tell, is inside?
(Credit:
Apple)
The low-cost MacBooks may appear sooner than expected and would be "the most affordable notebook offerings in the Mac maker's history," according to an AppleInsider report.
The idea that the new models would be unprecedentedly low-cost is intriguing in itself considering the recent appearance of low-cost "ultrathin" laptops from Hewlett-Packard and Asus, among others, that typically range between $600 and $900.
And what powers these laptops? Low-cost Intel ultra-low-voltage "ULV" processors like the SU4100 or SU7300. And what's so important about these processors? They are at the heart of a new wave of laptops that boast extra-long battery life, some claiming up to 10 hours. Will Apple opt for battery life over performance? The current 13-inch white polycarbonate MacBook uses relatively high-performance Intel processors and claims about five hours of battery life.
Another thought: will this be Apple's un-Netbook? With no immediate plans for a Netbook (though a media pad is expected next year), this may be an opportunity for Apple to go at least half way toward addressing the low-end laptop segment.
Along these lines, will Advanced Micro Devices processors be forever ostracized from the MacBook lineup? In a hotel near the Intel Developer Forum that ended on Thursday, AMD was showing off an MSI dual-core ultrathin laptop with ATI graphics that starts at about $500. Not bad for a Netbook-like price. (Yeah, I know, highly unlikely.)
The truth is MacBooks are trending toward low-cost already. Even the once stratospherically priced MacBook Air can be had for less than $1,500 and the 13-inch MacBook Pro starts at $1,199. So, a MacBook that comes in lower than $999 (the starting price of the current MacBook) wouldn't be a big surprise. It would be a surprise if Apple went as low as $800. Now that's a cheap MacBook.
Brooke Crothers has served as an editor at large at CNET News, an editor at Dow Jones' Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, and a senior editor at InfoWorld. His CNET blog covers chip technology and computer systems, and how they define the computing experience. He also contributes to The New York Times' Bits and Technology sections. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. Follow Brooke on Twitter @mbrookec. 
Macs come with just about everything the average user needs included in the iLife suite, which is much more than any PC contains. Just about anything available for Windows has some type of alternative Mac version, even anti-malware that isn't needed. Free software is available for almost anything needed also, the same as for a PC.
Plus, if you have software that you simply must use that isn't made for OS X then you can install Windows virtually or in a dual boot configuration and use anything you want.
That argument doesn't hold water anymore, and buying a Mac is well worth it.
Macs come with just about everything the average user needs included in the iLife suite, which is much more than any PC contains. Just about anything available for Windows has some type of alternative Mac version, even anti-malware that isn't needed. Free software is available for almost anything needed also, the same as for a PC.
Plus, if you have software that you simply must use that isn't made for OS X then you can install Windows virtually or in a dual boot configuration and use anything you want.
That argument doesn't hold water anymore, and buying a Mac is well worth it.
Macs come with just about everything the average user needs included in the iLife suite, which is much more than any PC contains. Just about anything available for Windows has some type of alternative Mac version, even anti-malware that isn't needed. Free software is available for almost anything needed also, the same as for a PC.
Plus, if you have software that you simply must use that isn't made for OS X then you can install Windows virtually or in a dual boot configuration and use anything you want.
That argument doesn't hold water anymore, and buying a Mac is well worth it.
Its still $799 for a ultra small screen and who knows where the other cuts will be. and do you think iLife will be availible on a Mac priced that low? Something is going to be cut, slimmed, and shaved. Windows XP or Vista...is that software free? Last I looked Windows Vista/7 was still not free, unless you were in Thailand.
HALLELUYA!! Now anyone can buy a Mac....and check Facebook. My $449 Dell I bought from Best Buy does that.
@ SlimGem
Its still $799 for a ultra small screen and who knows where the other cuts will be. and do you think iLife will be availible on a Mac priced that low? Something is going to be cut, slimmed, and shaved. Windows XP or Vista...is that software free? Last I looked Windows Vista/7 was still not free, unless you were in Thailand.
HALLELUYA!! Now anyone can buy a Mac....and check Facebook. My $449 Dell I bought from Best Buy does that."
@baggyguy1218--iLife comes with the Mini, which is the cheapest Mac available. You assumption is wrong, just like the rest of your comment.
I imagine the only things that would not run well on it are the high-end video games and anti-virus programs from the Windows side of the street...
So you're saying it makes sense to buy a MacBook and theb find Mac alternative software to Windows software. Then, anything you can't find, install inside a virtual machine, for which you will have to buy a Windows license.
I could see doing this as reasonable if it would be less than a PC, but it costs more. Not to mention that you can't even run all your applications natively in your OS.
Where is the sense in doing this?
It was almost a religious experience. Everything was better than the PC...everything! Aluminum construction, backlit keyboard, large trackpads. Leopard is what Vista should have been, rock solid dependable with cool new features like virtual desktops and Time Machine - full system back up software with undelete.
Windows 7 still doesn't have these features, hell it still looks like Vista to me. I'm gonna stay on the Mac for a while. Microsoft and the plastic, sticker covered PC laptop manufacturers can call me when they get a clue.
Take out the optical drive and firewire.
Replace mini-DVI with mini-displayport
Add GPS
Reduce the screen size to 11 or 12 inches
That's a winner.
Ultraportable
GPS chips are now only $5
Keep in mind that you're talking to Mac users. They're used to spending $1500-2000 for a machine with decent specs. So $800 is going to sound like a phenomenally low price to them.
I tried it on the Dell Latitude XT and it sucked!
You're berry punny, ya know.
You forget that netbooks also run Linux which still struggles with ULV's. OSX will be no different.
OSX is as much of a resource hog as XP, which is what's ran on netbooks, not Vista.
But we're talking about Macs here. Those things can run for 5000 years without even a minor glitch. Or did I just make that up? It's hard to tell because it's as ridiculous a claim as "OSX can't get trojans" and "OSX never crashes" like you normally see on these posts.
Who has ever claimed that OS X doesn't get trojans? Since a user actively does something to install one, of course it gets them. There still haven't been any true viruses for it, however.
My computers die in fact they are still perfectly healthy, I just need another computer or just have the intense urge to upgrade. And believe it or not I have never had a virus, not on vista, not on 7, and not on OSX.
IMO i'd like the price point to be around 750-800 and have around the same specs as the $1,000 macbook and if it's good then I'll take back everything bad I've said about Apple in the past.
Apple users use to say that you pay more for Macs but you get better quality. The equation was: cheap PCs = constant failures, bad quality, etc. Mac users always claim that PCs are Hondas, while Macs are Ferraries, and you get what you pay.
So, using this logic it means that the new, cheap Macs are going to be a waste of money. They will crash, burn, etc. You'll be buying a Honda and not a Ferrari.
It seems that Apple realized that not a lot of people are willing to pay to own the Apple brand. The fact is that most just don't (this is in contrast to the iPod and iPhone, which usually don't cost more than the competition).
I think this is a good move and more people will be able to buy Macs. Will people move to OS X? I don't know and time will tell...
yea looks like the macs are great at posting comments...is it that great ilife you all speak of? safari?..."
Now there is the pot calling the kettle black.
This is about diversifying the brand to accomodate a broader market... not about destroying the image of the Ferarri of computers. The users who are already loyal Apple fans and believe the better hardware is worth paying for, will... surprisingly enough... continue paying for the high-end Macs. The point of offering some cheaper product lines will be to broaden the market and bring in new customers previously not willing to shell out for the Ferarri.
<a href="http://mattlisk.com/about">Matt Lisk</a>
Macs come with just about everything the average user needs included in the iLife suite, which is much more than any PC contains. Just about anything available for Windows has some type of alternative Mac version, even anti-malware that isn't needed. Free software is available for almost anything needed also, the same as for a PC.
Plus, if you have software that you simply must use that isn't made for OS X then you can install Windows virtually or in a dual boot configuration and use anything you want.
That argument doesn't hold water anymore, and buying a Mac is well worth it.
It's intreresting to see this kind of comments against Windows (Macs comes loaded with software and not Windows) since the very reason why Windows doesn't come loaded with software is everytime Microsoft includes something for free with Windows the "lesser OS" community goes up the baricade barking about how the big bad Microsoft is illegally using its monopoly to put them out of business....
what r u talkin about?
lol, you sound like a microsoft PR person. Did you just drink a gallon of Microsoft koolaid?
First of all, the so called "apple-tax" price is for extra small things that one wouldn't normally notice, such as
- Faster ram (ddr3 vs ddr2, which is quite expensive, but still fast)
- Faster Processors (the average macbook has 2.4 ghz vs the average 2 ghz)
- Better Shells (aluminum vs plastic)
- A Fully-featured OS (Full Snow-leopard vs a reduced Home Premium)
- More software (iLife vs nothing on the average PC's Part, and trust me, I have never seen 3rd party free alternatives that even matched to the usability, or professionality of iLife)
If you want to use the overstated "apple tax" argument, then you are believing the lie that Microsoft has been telling you. It is quite obvious that the average mac comes with better hardware than the average PC, in addition to free software like iLife (no, free alternatives do not even compare to ilife, and iMovie is 10x better than movie-maker). If we were however, to get similar software (take a mac-pro vs an alienware desktop), you would find that with the same hardware, they are nearly the same price.
Next up, full OSX updates cost an average of $100, where as windows OS updates can cost up to $250 for the so called "ultimate" version.
And FYI, I didn't buy a mac to run windows, I bought a mac to run mac. Now how about that?
We're talking about the future "cheap" Apple laptops here, not the top of the line models, which may have better hardware than low-end PC's, but the Apple computers still come at a much, much higher price. Do you really think that an $800 Apple laptop will have hardware that's superior to let's say a $500 netbook? It'll have to use the same components to keep Apple profits in line. C'mon face reality - "Apple tax" is not something that I invented. In buying Apple you're paying for a brand and that's a fact.
Anyways, what's a feature in OS X that's not in Vista Home Premium? I dunno but it should be something BIG since per you, Vista Home Premium is "reduced." iLife is a media management suite that's easily replicated. Name one feature in iPhoto that isn't in Picasa as combined with a million other photo editing programs like Paint.net. Does iPhoto support third party plugins? What do you do when you have to perform an action that Apple didn't plan for you? I don't do any movie editing, but there's also ton of software out there. Mac users get comfortable in a walled garden, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a whole world out there.
As far as the cost of the upgrades, you gotta make up your mind. Either Windows is "reduced" since it's the Home version or it's "overpriced" but then looking at the Ultimate version. I ordered the Home Windows 7 upgrade for $50, as could anyone with a little bit of planning.
Name me one $500 netbook that has the same components as a $800 macbook. This includes a Core 2 duo processor, a geforce graphics card, ddr3 memory, and OSX with ilife (which includes iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, iWeb, Garageband).My point exactly.
Next up, OSX has more features than home-premium, such as-
1. Support for more than 1 TB of ram
2. Advanced networking options
3. Exchange support
4. Automated backups built into the OS
5. Live-data encryption (only ultimate has this, mind you)
and much more. All of the features listed above or either only on buisiness, or ultimate.
Next up, you still fail to recognize the fact that no other software suite provides as many, high-quality consumer programs like ilife. Picassa is about the only program that meets the quality, and options of iPhoto, but that is about it. There exist no other free programs that meet the quality, and usability of iDVD, iMovie, iWeb, or garage band. Even a comparable application to garageband would cost nearly $200.
Give me a list of free programs that even compare to these iLife applications, and I may deem your comments slightly credible.
If someone can afford $750 - $800 for a MacBook, then that same someone can afford $1000 if you just wait a couple of months.
Yeah... Cause major retail companies make it a habit of turning away potential customers based on their budgeting practices. I can see major lenders and banks or credit unions, car dealerships and any place you have a chance of opening a line of credit of some form. But a company that deals in full payment upfront...?
How can a manufacturer produce low-cost product without sacrificing the quality or other stuffs related to the product and it manufacturing?
Almost always, business main objective is profitability. Companies will provide low-cost products and still profit by reducing overhead manifacturing costs - quality control, product parts/components, etc.
The same way PC manufacturers do it. Most of the components in a Mac are not Apple specific. Open it up, and you will find the same hard drives, RAM, etc. that you would find in many PC laptops. Aside from the casing and maybe a proprietary monitor connection, there is nothing really special about Apple hardware.
The quality comes from Apple having consistent hardware configurations, and having a nice OS that works well with those configurations. It comes from not putting a lot of extraneous software on the machine that runs on start up and is hard to remove. It comes from having much more intuitive included software for typical computing needs.
Guess what, Windows comes with comparable software included in the boxed OS, and probably cost more to develop, partly since they have to support so many configurations. The complete Laptop and OS package is a lot cheaper for a PC. So basically Apple is "better" because of how they configure and develop their products, not because their products cost more to build and develop. "Better" quality does imply higher development and manufacturing costs.
If Apple want to sell their computers at prices comparable to their PC counterparts and achieve similar profit margins, they probably could. They'd probably more than make up for the higher prices on volume, but I guess Apple's image as a high end, premium product is much more important to them.
They can cut into their profit margins, which is what PC makers have to do to stay competitive with each other. However, Apple user's do not have the luxury of direct competition, so they must pay more if they want an Apple computer.
Well, let's face it: Most Macbook users ARE elitist.
Probably homeless because there overpriced macs just pay for expensive apple showrooms.
But hey what do I know, 90% of the world must be wrong
Nope. Clean shaven, short hair,, shower everyday. 1500 sq ft city center loft, printing press in the back yard, two real, paint on canvas artists and a photographer downstairs.
And seven Macs.
I have always believed that if you take care of the product line, the bottom line will take care of its self.
I would, because as a computer engineer I value the quality, fit, and finish of the hardware.
@ckh1272: Leopard is SL, $30 apple tax for a service pack. Core innovation lol, just moving to Intel x64 and they call that core innovation. I would call that crappvation.
And unlike ckh1272 and Gold_Storm_Mac who are Apple paid zealots, Charlie Miller was not paid to say that. That's the truth. They can't write secure codes, embracing what was already written--UNIX that's it. I doubt they can't even write their own kernel. LOL
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/26/pwn2own_contest_winner_macs_are_safer_than_windows.html
Good luck with those blinders and that tinfoil hat.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/26/pwn2own_contest_winner_macs_are_safer_than_windows.html
@shelly--Too freakin' funny. Believe me, if I were a paid "Apple zealot", you would never catch a break. Good thing that tinfoil hat of yours isn't wrapped too tight. LOL!!
uhmm...please read the whole article. $30 lol, I have acess to Windows 7 Professional x64 RTM and almost every other Microsoft software for free via MSDNAA and their product keys too. LOL
- by fastfred1 September 27, 2009 3:40 PM PDT
- I enjoy reading all this stuff haha. My first mac was a Mac Plus I bought two @$2600.00
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by tektaktyks September 27, 2009 5:52 PM PDT
- see,u got it all mixed up,its us who is laughing at you,pc's can do all the things that macs can do for 1/3 of the price,unless your a ******* ...
- Like this
-
- by Perry_Clease September 27, 2009 7:27 PM PDT
- "by tektaktyks September 27, 2009 5:52 PM PDT
- Like this
-
- by lordmorgul September 27, 2009 11:23 PM PDT
- "pc's can do all the things that macs can do for 1/3 of the price"
- Like this
-
- by espeed623 September 28, 2009 1:40 AM PDT
- @tektaktyks
- Like this
-
- by shellcodes_coder September 28, 2009 7:33 AM PDT
- @lordmorgul: Because that's by design, unlike Apple, Microsoft won't vendor lock it's OS. But to install crap os x, you have to buy their crappy hardware though we can still install OS X on a PC aka hackintosh
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (152 Comments)Next I bought a Mac II $5448.00 Then I got the Lazer Printer around $4000.00 I think I can't remember. You guys are talking about $600/$800 I have to laught. You have to be real young or from another planet....anyone get their sub prime loan yet.
Apple offers them?
see,u got it all mixed up,its us who is laughing at you,pc's can do all the things that macs can do for 1/3 of the price,unless your a ******* ..."
Listen kid, if you think Mac users care if someone like "u" is laughing at us then that would be another thing about which you are wrong. Hell, "u" can't even type worth a damn.
My Mac runs Windows without hacks. This clearly debunks your false claims. Thank you come again.
"see,u got it all mixed up,its us who is laughing at you,pc's can do all the things that macs can do for 1/3 of the price,unless your a ******* ..."
Hey, guess what! My "I don't care" levels are over 9,000!