Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #70712 > unrolled thread

Question on MBPro

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Question on MBPro Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-09 14:19 -0400
    Re: Question on MBPro nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-09 14:39 -0500
      Re: Question on MBPro Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-09 14:52 -0400
        Re: Question on MBPro Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-10 09:46 +1300
      Re: Question on MBPro dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-03-10 07:56 +1300
        Re: Question on MBPro Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-10 09:48 +1300
        Re: Question on MBPro John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-03-09 14:06 -0700
          Re: Question on MBPro JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-09 17:14 -0400
            Re: Question on MBPro Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-09 21:47 +0000
          Re: Question on MBPro nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-09 17:51 -0400
          Re: Question on MBPro dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-03-10 11:33 +1300
            Re: Question on MBPro John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-03-09 16:17 -0700
      Re: Question on MBPro Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-03-09 14:57 -0400
        Re: Question on MBPro Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-03-10 09:53 -0400
      Re: Question on MBPro Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-09 12:37 -0700
        Re: Question on MBPro tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-10 00:20 +0000
          Re: Question on MBPro Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-11 09:10 +1300
            Re: Question on MBPro Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-10 13:18 -0700
              Re: Question on MBPro Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-10 20:37 +0000
              Re: Question on MBPro Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-03-10 18:16 -0400
                Re: Question on MBPro Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-10 15:19 -0700
                Re: Question on MBPro Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-11 00:20 +0000
                  Re: Question on MBPro Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-10 17:44 -0700
                    Re: Question on MBPro Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-11 14:37 +0000
                      Re: Question on MBPro tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-12 03:29 +0000
                        Re: Question on MBPro Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-03-12 01:51 -0400
                          Re: Question on MBPro tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-12 06:12 +0000
                  Re: Question on MBPro Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-10 17:46 -0700
            Re: Question on MBPro JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-10 16:19 -0400
              Re: Question on MBPro Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-10 20:38 +0000
              Re: Question on MBPro Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-10 21:51 +0000
                Re: Question on MBPro nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-10 17:57 -0400
            Re: Question on MBPro nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-10 17:17 -0400
          Re: Question on MBPro Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-11 09:11 +1300
    Re: Question on MBPro JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-09 14:41 -0400
    Re: Question on MBPro dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-03-10 07:47 +1300
      Re: Question on MBPro Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-03-09 15:04 -0400
        Re: Question on MBPro nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-09 15:08 -0500
          Re: Question on MBPro Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-09 12:35 -0700
            Re: Question on MBPro John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-03-09 14:04 -0700
        Re: Question on MBPro Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-10 09:44 +1300
          Re: Question on MBPro JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-09 17:12 -0400
            Re: Question on MBPro Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-10 13:40 +1300
              Re: Question on MBPro Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-03-10 10:52 -0400
                Re: Question on MBPro Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-10 09:29 -0700
                Re: Question on MBPro Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-11 09:18 +1300
                  Re: Question on MBPro Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-03-10 16:55 -0400
                    Re: Question on MBPro Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-10 21:01 +0000
                      Re: Question on MBPro nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-10 17:17 -0400
                        Re: Question on MBPro Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-10 21:39 +0000
                        Re: Question on MBPro JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-10 17:40 -0400
                          Re: Question on MBPro Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> - 2015-03-12 22:12 -0400
                    Re: Question on MBPro Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-11 13:19 +1300
                      Re: Question on MBPro Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-10 18:03 -0700
                      Re: Question on MBPro dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-03-11 14:49 +1300
                        Re: Question on MBPro Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-11 16:07 +1300
                          Re: Question on MBPro nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-10 23:09 -0400
                          Re: Question on MBPro dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-03-11 17:32 +1300
                            Re: Question on MBPro Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-11 18:28 +1300
                            Re: Question on MBPro JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-13 01:39 -0400
                              Re: Question on MBPro Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-13 05:51 +0000
                                Re: Question on MBPro nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-13 02:10 -0400
                                Re: Question on MBPro Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-12 23:51 -0700
                              Re: Question on MBPro Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-13 09:00 -0400
                      Re: Question on MBPro JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-11 01:57 -0400
          Re: Question on MBPro Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-03-09 20:33 -0400
            Re: Question on MBPro Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2015-03-10 11:49 -0700
              Re: Question on MBPro Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-11 09:14 +1300
    Re: Question on MBPro Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-09 18:57 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#70746

In article <barmar-818448.15044009032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <1m125ff.12evvry1ixk8clN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
>  dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> 
> > The new 12-inch MacBook is for those who want an ultraportable machine
> > and don't need a lot of physical devices connected.
> 
> Aren't those usually the ones that get the "Air" name?

They are, but the new "MacBook" is even thinner and lighter than the
MacBook Air models ... which begs the question of why Apple didn't
simply use it to replace the Air models.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70754

On 15-03-09 16:44, Your Name wrote:

> They are, but the new "MacBook" is even thinner and lighter than the
> MacBook Air models ... which begs the question of why Apple didn't
> simply use it to replace the Air models.

Product development cycles, and get the first model out to work out
production kinks before you roll out that tech to all othet "light"
models. Especially for the custom batteries.

Remember that Apple is also testing the waters with dropping of its
popular and unique MacSafe and the other connectors such as audio ports,
SD cards, real USB, Ethernet etc.

The fact that the "Pro" is still being updated leads me to believe that
the need for those is still there.

And Apple may simply be moving to different branding with MacBook and
MacBook Pro. dropping the "Air" since the MacBooks now occupy that space.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70771

In article <54fe0cd5$0$19827$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-03-09 16:44, Your Name wrote:
> > 
> > They are, but the new "MacBook" is even thinner and lighter than the
> > MacBook Air models ... which begs the question of why Apple didn't
> > simply use it to replace the Air models.
> 
> Product development cycles, and get the first model out to work out
> production kinks before you roll out that tech to all othet "light"
> models. Especially for the custom batteries.
> 
> Remember that Apple is also testing the waters with dropping of its
> popular and unique MacSafe and the other connectors such as audio ports,
> SD cards, real USB, Ethernet etc.
> 
> The fact that the "Pro" is still being updated leads me to believe that
> the need for those is still there.
> 
> And Apple may simply be moving to different branding with MacBook and
> MacBook Pro. dropping the "Air" since the MacBooks now occupy that space.

Nope. Apple also updated the MacBook Air models at today's event. The
MacBook Air may be phased out eventually, but at the moment there's now
three tiers to the "MacBook" family:
   - MacBook
   - MacBook Air
   - MacBook Pro

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70793

In article <100320151340259957%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> Nope. Apple also updated the MacBook Air models at today's event. The
> MacBook Air may be phased out eventually, but at the moment there's now
> three tiers to the "MacBook" family:
>    - MacBook
>    - MacBook Air
>    - MacBook Pro

But it's no longer the case that Air refers to the thinnest ones with 
the fewest connectors. Is there still some quality that distinguishes MB 
from MB Air?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70798

In article <barmar-E2193A.10525110032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <100320151340259957%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 
> > Nope. Apple also updated the MacBook Air models at today's event. The
> > MacBook Air may be phased out eventually, but at the moment there's now
> > three tiers to the "MacBook" family:
> >    - MacBook
> >    - MacBook Air
> >    - MacBook Pro
> 
> But it's no longer the case that Air refers to the thinnest ones with 
> the fewest connectors. Is there still some quality that distinguishes MB 
> from MB Air?

I think they should have called it MacBook Helium.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70815

In article <barmar-E2193A.10525110032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <100320151340259957%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nope. Apple also updated the MacBook Air models at today's event. The
> > MacBook Air may be phased out eventually, but at the moment there's now
> > three tiers to the "MacBook" family:
> >    - MacBook
> >    - MacBook Air
> >    - MacBook Pro
> 
> But it's no longer the case that Air refers to the thinnest ones with 
> the fewest connectors. Is there still some quality that distinguishes MB 
> from MB Air?

The "quality" is that the new MacBook is thinner, lighter, has fewer
ports than the Mac Book Air, and comes in a few different colours ...
and is probably less powerful / slower.

As for why Apple didn't simply use it to replace the MacBook Air with
this new laptop, only Apple will know, but it's liely at least partly
due to that last "quality" - whiners would be complaining about how
their new "MacBook Air" was slower then their old one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70821

In article <110320150918579430%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <barmar-E2193A.10525110032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article <100320151340259957%YourName@YourISP.com>,
> >  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Nope. Apple also updated the MacBook Air models at today's event. The
> > > MacBook Air may be phased out eventually, but at the moment there's now
> > > three tiers to the "MacBook" family:
> > >    - MacBook
> > >    - MacBook Air
> > >    - MacBook Pro
> > 
> > But it's no longer the case that Air refers to the thinnest ones with 
> > the fewest connectors. Is there still some quality that distinguishes MB 
> > from MB Air?
> 
> The "quality" is that the new MacBook is thinner, lighter, has fewer
> ports than the Mac Book Air, and comes in a few different colours ...
> and is probably less powerful / slower.

But that's not a quality common to all MacBooks. Previously, the 
lightest were Air, heaviest were Pro, and MacBooks were in the middle. 
Now MacBook includes laptops that are both lighter and heavier than Air.

Does the naming scheme have any relationship to the designs any more?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70822

On 2015-03-10, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Does the naming scheme have any relationship to the designs any more?

The relationship isn't defined by you, but Apple.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70824

In article <cm94e4FrpmsU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > Does the naming scheme have any relationship to the designs any more?
> 
> The relationship isn't defined by you, but Apple.

his point is that it makes no sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70826

On 2015-03-10, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cm94e4FrpmsU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > Does the naming scheme have any relationship to the designs any more?
>> 
>> The relationship isn't defined by you, but Apple.
>
> his point is that it makes no sense.

It doesn't have to make sense.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70827

On 15-03-10 17:17, nospam wrote:

>> The relationship isn't defined by you, but Apple.
> 
> his point is that it makes no sense.

Which is why my gut tells me that Apple will no longer release "Air"
branded laptops since that designation is no longer needed.

Consider that the "Air" came as an innovation (fewer plugs, SSDs, not
upgradeable etc) which are now standard. That designation is no longer
of any value.

The "Pro" designation still makes sense as it now distinguises those
models with hard drives, plugs (and I think still upgreadable memory,
but not sure).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70948

On 3/10/15 5:40 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 15-03-10 17:17, nospam wrote:
>

> The "Pro" designation still makes sense as it now distinguises those
> models with hard drives, plugs (and I think still upgreadable memory,
> but not sure).
>
>
Actually, my MacBook Pro has an SSD (not a hard drive) and its memory 
cannot be upgraded. That distinction went away almost three years ago.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70838

In article <barmar-CA70B8.16552910032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <110320150918579430%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > In article <barmar-E2193A.10525110032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
> > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <100320151340259957%YourName@YourISP.com>,
> > >  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Apple also updated the MacBook Air models at today's event. The
> > > > MacBook Air may be phased out eventually, but at the moment there's now
> > > > three tiers to the "MacBook" family:
> > > >    - MacBook
> > > >    - MacBook Air
> > > >    - MacBook Pro
> > > 
> > > But it's no longer the case that Air refers to the thinnest ones with 
> > > the fewest connectors. Is there still some quality that distinguishes MB 
> > > from MB Air?
> > 
> > The "quality" is that the new MacBook is thinner, lighter, has fewer
> > ports than the Mac Book Air, and comes in a few different colours ...
> > and is probably less powerful / slower.
> 
> But that's not a quality common to all MacBooks. Previously, the 
> lightest were Air, heaviest were Pro, and MacBooks were in the middle. 
> Now MacBook includes laptops that are both lighter and heavier than Air.

There is no "MacBook" heavier then the MacBook Air ... unless you're
referring to the old plastic models that were discontinued a few years
ago.




> Does the naming scheme have any relationship to the designs any more?

Did it ever?? 

The idea of *adding* a 12" laptop to the line-up seemed rather
ridiculous to me even when it was just a rumour. The difference between
11", 12", and 13"  simply doesn't warrant it. It would have made more
sense to drop the old MacBook Air models and use just this 12"
version... but the answer (as I posted earlier) is likely to be due to
the new MacBook being slower. That means you've now got three tiers
(although I haven't checked the pricing structure):

    MacBook      = slowest, most compact

    MacBook Air  = faster, less compact

    MacBook Pro  = fastest, least compact

A secondary issue is why doesn't the MacBook Air now have a Retina
screen?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70842

In article <110320151319521673%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> There is no "MacBook" heavier then the MacBook Air ... unless you're
> referring to the old plastic models that were discontinued a few years
> ago.

The new MacBook weighs 2.03 pounds (920 grams); the 11" MacBook Air
weighs 2.38 pounds (1,080 grams).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70846

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <barmar-CA70B8.16552910032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article <110320150918579430%YourName@YourISP.com>,
> >  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > In article <barmar-E2193A.10525110032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
> > > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > In article <100320151340259957%YourName@YourISP.com>,
> > > >  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope. Apple also updated the MacBook Air models at today's event.
> > > > > The MacBook Air may be phased out eventually, but at the moment
> > > > > there's now three tiers to the "MacBook" family:
> > > > >    - MacBook
> > > > >    - MacBook Air
> > > > >    - MacBook Pro
> > > > 
> > > > But it's no longer the case that Air refers to the thinnest ones with
> > > > the fewest connectors. Is there still some quality that distinguishes MB
> > > > from MB Air?
> > > 
> > > The "quality" is that the new MacBook is thinner, lighter, has fewer
> > > ports than the Mac Book Air, and comes in a few different colours ...
> > > and is probably less powerful / slower.
> > 
> > But that's not a quality common to all MacBooks. Previously, the 
> > lightest were Air, heaviest were Pro, and MacBooks were in the middle.
> > Now MacBook includes laptops that are both lighter and heavier than Air.
> 
> There is no "MacBook" heavier then the MacBook Air ... unless you're
> referring to the old plastic models that were discontinued a few years
> ago.

That was my interpretation of Barry's comment.

> > Does the naming scheme have any relationship to the designs any more?
> 
> Did it ever?? 
> 
> The idea of *adding* a 12" laptop to the line-up seemed rather
> ridiculous to me even when it was just a rumour. The difference between
> 11", 12", and 13"  simply doesn't warrant it. It would have made more
> sense to drop the old MacBook Air models and use just this 12"
> version... but the answer (as I posted earlier) is likely to be due to
> the new MacBook being slower.

I think that, like with the original introduction of the MacBook Air,
this new "MacBook" is the first iteration of what will eventually become
the entry level and mainstream Mac notebook. At some point, the MacBook
Air will be discontinued, but probably not until the performance of the
"MacBook" gets up to a good enough level, and USB-C early adoption
issues have settled down.

> That means you've now got three tiers (although I haven't checked the
> pricing structure):
> 
>     MacBook      = slowest, most compact
> 
>     MacBook Air  = faster, less compact
> 
>     MacBook Pro  = fastest, least compact
> 
> A secondary issue is why doesn't the MacBook Air now have a Retina
> screen?

Power consumption. A retina display in the existing 11-inch and 13-inch
MacBook Air would have reduced its claimed battery operating time,
unless something else was changed, such as a slower processor. Cost of
the retina display might have also been a factor.

Pricing structure has the MacBook between the MacBook Air and MacBook
Pro for standard configurations, but if you match memory and SSD
configurations, they are much closer, or match in one case.

For standard configurations, the order is (US prices):

$899    11-inch MacBook Air     (4 GB RAM, 128 GB SSD)
$999    13-inch MacBook Air     (4 GB RAM, 128 GB SSD)
$1099   11-inch MacBook Air     (4 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD)
        13-inch classic MacBook Pro (4 GB RAM, 500 GB HD)
$1199   13-inch MacBook Air     (4 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD)
---------------------------------------------------------------
$1299   12-inch MacBook         (8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD)
        13-inch MacBook Pro     (8 GB RAM, 128 GB SSD)
$1499   13-inch MacBook Pro     (8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD)
$1599   12-inch MacBook         (8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD)
$1799   13-inch MacBook Pro     (8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD)
$1999   15-inch MacBook Pro     (16 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD)
$2499   15-inch MacBook Pro     (16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD, GPU)

Everything above the line has a non-retina display. Everything below the
line has a retina display. This also happens to match the 4 GB/8 GB RAM
split for standard configurations.

If you configure each model with the same specifications of 8 GB of RAM
and 256 GB SSD, the 13-inch MacBook Air and 12-inch MacBook end up being
the same price. Here are all of them for comparison:

$1199   11-inch MacBook Air
$1299   12-inch MacBook (retina)
        13-inch MacBook Air
$1499   13-inch MacBook Pro (retina)
$1549   13-inch classic MacBook Pro
$1799   Hypothetical 15-inch MacBook Pro (retina) downgraded to 8 GB

Upgrading from 4 GB to 8 GB of RAM costs $100.

Upgrading from 128 GB to 256 GB SSD costs $200.

Upgrading from 256 GB to 512 GB SSD costs $300.

For some reason, Apple has chosen not to offer the new MacBook with 128
GB SSD. Assuming consistent pricing, it would be $1099. I wouldn't be
surprised to see this being added as an option in future.

The "classic" MacBook Pro is somewhat of an anomaly which is presumably
still being sold because there is ongoing demand for its "legacy"
features and cheaper price than the retina Pro in their default
configurations. Upgrading the classic MacBook Pro to an SSD at Apple's
prices is not cost effective unless you REALLY want bulit-in optical
drive, Ethernet and/or Firewire.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70850

In article <1m14h94.k679zy1vdgb71N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
<dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> 
> Pricing structure has the MacBook between the MacBook Air and MacBook
> Pro for standard configurations, but if you match memory and SSD
> configurations, they are much closer, or match in one case.
> 
> For standard configurations, the order is (US prices):

According to MacRumors.com Apple has just raised prices in many
countries (including New Zealand) due to the low US$ exchange rate. 
:-(

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70851

In article <110320151607030781%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> According to MacRumors.com Apple has just raised prices in many
> countries (including New Zealand) due to the low US$ exchange rate. 
> :-(

blame the exchange rate, not apple.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70854

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <1m14h94.k679zy1vdgb71N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > 
> > Pricing structure has the MacBook between the MacBook Air and MacBook
> > Pro for standard configurations, but if you match memory and SSD
> > configurations, they are much closer, or match in one case.
> > 
> > For standard configurations, the order is (US prices):
> 
> According to MacRumors.com Apple has just raised prices in many
> countries (including New Zealand) due to the low US$ exchange rate. 
> :-(

That is the normal pattern and has been for as many years as I've been
paying attention to Apple product releases.

When a new/updated product is released, Apple recalculates prices in
countries outside the US, based on the exchange rate at that time, plus
local taxes and duties, plus a small markup to cover exchange rate
fluctuations, then usually rounds the price up to their next "standard"
price, e.g. $599 rather than a calculated price of $591.

They may reprice other products at the same time even if they haven't
been updated. This often applies to products related to those which were
updated (e.g. in this case the 15-inch MacBook Pro). Sometimes unrelated
products also have their prices recalculated (e.g. iPhone prices in New
Zealand just went up, but iPad, Retina iMac and Mac Mini prices didn't;
other iMac models might have changed but I don't have the recent prices
handy to confirm).

Sometimes Apple adjusts prices at other times, if there has been a
significant shift in the exchange rate since the price was set, or when
there is a localised change such as the tax rate. There was an extreme
case recently where they suspended sales in Russia due to wildly varying
exchange rates.

Looking at the MacBook Air in New Zeaalnd as an example, the Early 2014
series was released at a time when the NZ dollar was the highest it has
been against the US dollar since the introduction of the MacBook Air, so
they were the cheapest MacBook Airs ever in New Zealand.

NZ prices have increased for the Early 2015 series, but they are still
cheaper than the Mid 2013 or any earlier series, thanks to Apple
reducing the US prices since then.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70859

In article <1m14p3j.rnuczgsazr02N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
<dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: 
> > In article <1m14h94.k679zy1vdgb71N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> > <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Pricing structure has the MacBook between the MacBook Air and MacBook
> > > Pro for standard configurations, but if you match memory and SSD
> > > configurations, they are much closer, or match in one case.
> > > 
> > > For standard configurations, the order is (US prices):
> > 
> > According to MacRumors.com Apple has just raised prices in many
> > countries (including New Zealand) due to the low US$ exchange rate. 
> > :-(
> 
> That is the normal pattern and has been for as many years as I've been
> paying attention to Apple product releases.
> 
> When a new/updated product is released, Apple recalculates prices in
> countries outside the US, based on the exchange rate at that time, plus
> local taxes and duties, plus a small markup to cover exchange rate
> fluctuations, then usually rounds the price up to their next "standard"
> price, e.g. $599 rather than a calculated price of $591.

Yep, just saying they had done it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70952

I often plug my iphone into laptop. At home, to recharge the iPhone, I
have a USB cable permanently attached to laptop near bed to plug the
iphone to charge overnight.

On trains/planes, I use the plug to power the laptop and charge iphone
from laptop.

And then when I need to tether, I plug the iphone into the laptop
without laptop being powered externally. (since in those situations I
generally don't have access to a plug).

The problem here is that when plugging direct into laptop, I need
iphone-USB-C cable, and when connecting via dongle I need iphone-USB cable.

Ideally, I need a dongle with a charging port, a USB-C plug (for my
phoe) and a USB plug for Camera/GPS/other gadgets.

Having 2 USB-C ports on the laptop would make things much simpler, since
a USB-C to USB dongle would only be needed when connecting
camera/GPS/gadget , operations which are generally short times (plug,
exchange data, unplug).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web