15 Inch -The Missing MacBook
Lately I've been investigating laptops, including non-Apple ones. One thing I noticed among the Windows versions is 15" laptops are the cheapest. So it got me to thinking, if Apple made a 15" MacBook, it could be its budget laptop that we all want.
In the last week, I came within a skerrick of a gnat's leg of buying a Windows laptop. It was like standing on the edge of a chasm on a windy day. Fortunately the wind blew me back. My previous article is all about why I stuck with Macs despite PCs offering better hardware value.
In exploring the dark-grey plastic side, I noticed something odd: 15" laptops can be had a lot cheaper than 13" ones. For instance, in Australia, Dell's cheapest consumer 15" laptop is AU$799. However, it's cheapest 13" is a whopping AU$1799 - one thousand dollars dearer! These are in different ranges, but it still makes you wonder.
And if you visit the Dell US site it's the same (albeit with more choices). In it's Inspiron range, 15" start at US$349, while 13" start at $499. That's slightly misleading, as we're not comparing spec-for-spec. But if we spec them up as closely as we can, we still find the 15" is cheaper.
Dell Inspiron 13 US$614
• Intel® Pentium™ Dual Core T4200 (2.0GHz/800Mhz FSB/1MB cache)
• Glossy, widescreen 13.3" LCD (1280x800) w/o Camera
• 3GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 at 800MHz
• 250GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
• Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100
• 8X Slot Load CD / DVD Burner (Dual Layer DVD+/-RW Drive)
• 6-cell 56Whr Lithium Ion Battery
• Dell Wireless 1395 802.11g Mini-Card
• Soundblaster X-Fi Hi Def Audio - Software Enabled
Dell Inspiron 15 US$554
• Intel® Pentium® Dual Core T4200 (2.0GHz/800Mhz FSB/1MB cache)
• Glossy, widescreen 15.6 inch display (1366x768) w/o Camera
• 3GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 at 800MHz
• 250GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
• Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X4500HD
• 8X CD / DVD Burner (Dual Layer DVD+/-R Drive)
• 6-cell battery
• Dell Wireless 1397 802.11g Half Mini-Card
• Soundblaster X-Fi Hi Def Audio - Software Enabled
The only difference is the graphics cards. The Inspiron 15 has better graphics card, but $60 better? I highly doubt it.
This is not unique to Dell. In fact, I first noticed this trend when looking at HP laptops. HP's cheapest 13" is US$650 but its cheapest 15" is US$400.
Obviously 15" is the sweet spot of demand, mass-production of components and has the least engineering or design challenges.
So it got me thinking, why doesn't Apple get in on this advantage too by offering a 15" MacBook? Would you pay $US50 to $100 less for a 15" MacBook? Could Apple maybe even do a 15" MacBook for US$699? Now that would be sweet!
Changes already afoot
The other day there was some activity in the MacBook range, with the white MacBook getting a minor but useful upgrade. It has become quite good value and is going to tempt more than a few people away from its big brother. Obviously Apple won't let that situation persist, so an upgrade of the unibodies must be imminent as well.
But why hasn't this occurred at the same time? One suspects that the upgrade must be a bit more significant than a processor tweak and extra hard disk space. Rumors are circulating of the whole unibody range being rebranded as MacBook Pros. One significant update many will be praying for is the return of FireWire to the MacBooks. And, Apple being Apple, it might even bring us USB 3.0.
If the unibody MacBooks become part of the Pro range, would Apple leave the white MacBook on its own? Or would it give it a sibling? If it's the latter, my vote is for a cheaper 15" white MacBook, and even if it doesn't, it'd be good to see a 15" MacBook, because a cheap 15" MacBook is currently a glaring hole in the Apple laptop range.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
I so wanted to get a 15” for my wife to use, but we were forced into the MacBook Pro. She has so much more computer than she needs. Hopefully it translates in longevity. We’ll see.
I agree.
It would be interesting to finally come back to the original iBook/Powerbook differences.
ie: not just size!
Guarantee: If they came out with a 15” Macbook, it would be the most expensive in the Macbook line.
Beeblebrox - it sounds like you’re talking about a larger variety of Macbooks. Given the suggestion was 2 MacBook whites - 13inch and 15inch - are you simply saying the 15” Macbook would be more expensive than the 13inch?
If so I’d agree (despite the article saying it is cheaper in other brands). However, it would be very possible for a 15inch MacBook White to be cheaper than the 13inch unibody Macbook.
Yeah, I know what Beeb’s saying and totally agree. Apple couldn’t swallow its ego and have a 15” cheaper than a 13” within the same line.
So, whether it’s a white MacBook or an aluminium unibody, if it’s 15”, Apple would charge more for it than a 13”, despite other manufacturers proving the 15” is cheaper.
However, it would be very possible for a 15inch MacBook White to be cheaper than the 13inch unibody Macbook.
Lots of things are possible. Apple hardly ever does any of them, especially when a lower price is involved.
Despite using Macs all day at work, the lack of a 15” Macbook is why I went with a Windows notebook two years ago for our only (but light duty) home computer. The 13” Macbook screen was just too small and the Macbook Pro was 60% more expensive than a PC notebook that could do the job we needed. I couldn’t believe Apple didn’t have a consumer oriented option right in the “belly” of the market. And it’s still not there. If ever there was a time to be offering more Mac options, were in the middle of it.
Hey Beeblebrox, do you (or anyone) remember the old prices of 12” Powerbook in comparison to 14” iBook?
I don’t remember… just wondering (per your comment above)
Greg, the last of the iBooks (released mid-2005) were:
12” : $999
14” : $1299
and the Powerbooks (released Jan 2005)
12” : $1499
15” : $1999
17” : $2699
Source: EveryMac.com
Those figures don’t correlate with what we’re seeing from PC makers nowadays. Hopeful, even if a 15” MacBook was dearer, it wouldn’t be 30% dearer like in 2005.
It is intriguing (to say the very least) that in 3 years of MacBooks, there’s only been 13” versions.
Those figures don’t correlate with what we’re seeing from PC makers nowadays.
I would surmise that in the commodity PC market, the more common size would be the least expensive due to factors such as competition, availability of parts, and volume. Apple pricing does not even remotely work that way.
The only way for a 15” Macbook to cost less is if they invented a low-end line of Macs to stick it in. It’s sort of the how the MBA can exist in its own little pricing netherworld among the Mac notebooks.
But of course Apple doesn’t really do low-end all that well and probably consider the current Macbook about as cheap as they want to get. Therefore, a 15” Macbook would be on the high-end of that line and would be the most expensive model.
The MBA is more expensive because smaller parts are more expensive.
Smaller is fine to a point. It’s when you go beyond that point that new tricks and technologies push the price up.
What I have noticed since I started buying Macs (for myself and work) in 2004 is a gradual separation of their products, so that less of them overlap with one another, and they are more clearly defined as ‘pro’ or consumer.’
Generally, the only time you see a price overlap is with the top-end of one model and the bottom end of the next, and this exists either to have you pay a ridiculous amount of money, or up-sell you to the next line. Just like when your car insurance firm tells you it’ll be £3,000 to insure your car—they don’t want to insure you but if you’re willing to pay, well…
In the same way, who would spend almost a grand on a Mac Mini? They want you to get the lower end iMac for the same / slightly less and they’re hoping you’ll add a couple of small upgrades and make a few hundred more out of you.
I also get the impression that they design from the top end down. It would be feasible to have a quad core iMac but that won’t happen… until the base Mac Pro is based on a six-core Xeon.
Apple have firmly held beliefs about ‘pro’ and ‘consumer.’ All laptops are glossy, unless you are a photographer, but they have no intention of letting someone who carries three grand of camera around with them get away with a 15” MacBook Pro. You’re a pro? Prepare to pay like a pro then.
A few years back I worked at an agency with five graphic designers. Two were running early Power Mac G5’s with dual 1.8’s in them. Those machines were 18 months old and still running fine. The other three were running old G4 Power Macs, 500 - 800MHz. Everyone ran CRT monitors. Those machines were just too slow. We bought two Dell 20” monitors (back when they had the same panels as the Apple Cinema Displays) for 1/4 the Apple price and they went to the G5s. The three G4 PMs were replaced with 20” Intel iMacs. Each one ran at about 2GHz, and between the 20” panels (IPS back then, I believe), had 2Gb RAM (double what the G4’s had) and the designers loved them.
That’s no option now, though. Glossy screens? No good for colour accuracy. With one design choice, Apple have said ‘No. You shall not use our consumer Macs for professional work. How dare you get by on £1,000 of kit? Our Mac Pros are £1,900 and this is what you must pay.’ Throw in the choice of nasty, cheap TFT panels and there’s no choice. Mac Pro or nothing.
The point I am making with this rather long-winded post is that Apple already have a 15” laptop. It’s a MacBook Pro. And we Apple users are dumb enough to do as they tell us… like bvdecicco said above, they needed a 15” and so they bought a MB Pro. Why would Apple make a 15” MacBook and lose that extra few hundred dollars?
The MBA is more expensive because smaller parts are more expensive.
Except that the Mac mini is the cheapest desktop despite being the smallest. The manufacturer-cost/retail-price ratio one might expect to find in the commodity PC market simply does not hold up in the Mac pricing schemes. They price them they way they price them. It has virtually nothing to do with how much they cost to make.
The MBA costs more not because the parts cost more, but because Apple sees the weight as a valuable feature (unlike in the Mac mini where weight doesn’t matter) that their customers will pay a premium for.
I agree with Chris and others that it appears Apple is getting ready to re-brand the whole unibody lineup as “pro” machines with those long lasting “smart” batteries that you can’t swap.
If the unibodies become MacBook Pro, that leaves only one MacBook. Customers (and Apple financials) demand some choice. I think the one feature customers understand most is screen size. That means the MacBook becomes a 2.13GHz machine with 9400M graphics in either 13” or 15” case. I think that makes more sense than the current choice of processor speed as the main differentiating factor between models. If you aren’t driven by performance (and most non-MBP customers aren’t) then the difference between 2.0 and 2.4 won’t be noticed as much as a larger screen would be.
I’d further reduce the number of standard configurations and have just three stock MacBook Pros: 13”, 15”, 17”, all with the same processor, graphics, RAM, etc. Faster processors, “gaming” graphics, more RAM, high res displays, matte finish, etc. would all be options available through the Apple Store.
I understand why Apple puts slower processors in their smaller machines, it’s because smaller batteries wouldn’t last as long, but some people want full power in a small package while others want a big screen and don’t care nearly as much about that last ounce of horsepower.