Originally Posted by jrbroad77
Good stuff. I'd put money on it being a Trinity Macbook Air; that would easily cut down close to $200 in cost on the CPU ( typical Intel ULV's are in the $3-400 range).
I wouldn't bet on it--Apple approached AMD for APUs, but AMD couldn't support the numbers they wanted at the time. I'd be willing to bet that they're sticking with that, and this will just be Intel SB/IB.
Originally Posted by DuckieHo
This is probably in response to Intel's push for Ultrabooks.
This prices basically kills the competition who were going to try and beat out Apple on price.
Agreed. It's bad enough that Apple strong-armed the cessation of the Zenbook production by Pegatron. But on the other hand, it would be interesting to see if this fairly drastic reduction in price has an effect on the choice of a Mac vs. non-Mac ultrabooks.
Originally Posted by Sylon
Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this?..snip...
I agree with the observation that this is different from the standard/historical Apple marketing philosophy. But to answer your question directly, I see nothing wrong with it. IMHO, I detest Apple as a company--mostly because of Steve Jobs and his "character"/attitude. I would ask--as a person that doesn't own a piece of Apple--what's so bad about it becoming more-available to the masses? Do you, as a consumer, not want more options vs. less?
Regardless, I don't think this price change is a permanent thing--it's to compete momentarily with the ultrabooks. As soon as Apple feels that it's retained its market share of that segment, I doubt they'll be slumming it much. Tim Cook is not really all that different from Steve Jobs in terms of business decision personality.Edited by guyladouche - 5/7/12 at 9:47am