Even compared to other Apples, MBP 17 is too pricey

Just noticed this today.

Starting price of a MacBook Pro 17: $2,499

Starting price of an iMac 21.5 and a MacBook Air 13: $2,498

Does that seem crazy to anyone else? I understand that the normal comparisons (MBP 17 versus Vaio F, MBP 17 versus Envy 17) can be apples-and-oranges because of OSX versus Windows, Apple Store tech support versus call-to-third-world-country tech support, etc. But comparing Apples to other Apples seems fair. And the fact that you can get a nice ultraportable AND a nice all-in-one desktop for the price of the MBP 17 seems way off. I can't think of another brand where you can get a nice ultraportable AND a nice all-in-one desktop for the base price of their desktop replacement machine.

Think Vaio SA, Vaio L...put them together is twice the price of the Vaio F, not equal to the price of the Vaio F. Not comparing Apple pricing directly to Sony pricing, but instead comparing the price structure of Apple machines as a whole to the price structure of Vaio machines as a whole. Desktop replacements shouldn't be THAT expensive relative to the rest of your lineup.

 

Give me a list of *two* other current laptops (i5/i7), besides MacBook Pros, that do a 1920x1200 screen.

Not 1920x1080. 1920x1200. Two laptops.

 

I thought this for many years. Now with all these high res windows laptops coming out and rumors of super high res apple screens coming, its going to be really hard for them to sell this as a super high end machine, at least to me. I can't belive in 2012 apple is still using 1440 x900 on the near $2,000 15" mac book pro. Many laptops for half that price have full HD, granted they are totally different otherwise its still really absurd, and to charge extra for 1650 res and still be short of 1080p is equally bad. The 13" is near the ipad res.

to the above poster 1920 x 1200 is really outdated, I remember that even a gateway $1,000 best buy special had that res. No one uses it any more, 1080 is the universal standard. 120 more lines is worth almost nothing. If your telling me thats why the 17" price is justified, I mean thats just not true at all.

 

1920*1200 is actually worth a lot. It's the only way to display 1080p content and have enough lines for a menu bar at the top and/or bottom. This would be extremely important for, say, editing 1080p video.

 

pretty sure 99.9% of the people who edit hd video are not using full screen on the viewer window, if thats even possible in final cut. I know the 2" can make a HUGE difference, but I also dont see it as being worth an extra $700? over the 15". personally I just don't see the vaule of the 17" anymore, maybe back in 2007-8 when that res was almost unheard of a laptop. but with all these sub $1200 laptops with 1080p it really hard to convince yourself to spend more than double that just for 1200p and OSX. but I guess thats what the other macbooks are for. besides at this point its even more irrelevant because there these rumors of like 4000 x 3000 or somthing screen coming out on mac book, then 1200p is going to look like then new 800 x 600

 

I get that you like 1920x1200. But that's not the question. Those extra 180 rows of pixels don't double the price of a machine.

A 1080p Vaio F is the same price as a 1080p Vaio L.
A 1200p MBP 17 is twice the price as a 1080p iMac.

Whether you prefer 1200p and whether Apple is overcharging for 1200p are two separate issues.

 

Heh, to be a jerk, if you can find the Dell M6500 or the HP 8740w outlet, both are "i5/i7" though admittedly last gen. They almost completely make up for it by utilizing RGBLED or IPS

But yeah... even the Alienware M17x dropped the 1920x1200 RGBLED display

 

Don't you guys think that Alienware and other companies dropped 1200p screens because most people don't care? I honestly don't.

 

Just to play the 1200p advocate.... I like the 1200p screen because the 1080p just doesn't provide enough top to bottom space for code (doing IOS dev using Xcode, or really any other text editor for that matter. Even running the iPhone 4 retina or iPad simulator on 1080p is a PITA. Of course, now that Xcode4 is basically only in one window--which doesn't help--more screen is definitely better.

I typically use the 17" combined with the 30" cinema display (1600p) and it's worth a lot to be able to see that much code, and other windows, as possible at once. It's a total pain to have to use multiple desktops to achieve similar results. I even find 1080p desktop displays annoying enough not to use.

Of course, I do find the 17-inch machine to be a little expensive at $2500 to start-- but that's the price for the top of the line (okay, I got mine refurbed so there but after using the 15" i7 high-res anti-glare I find it's limited too when I need to code-on-the-road.

 

I don't agree with that because for certain machines (especially Alienware....the higher end ones) that people are buying for gaming they generally do care about the screen quality, especially if the contrast is too low. Nobody shopping for a computer with gaming in mind should be settling for a washed out screen with low resolution.

 

I think they dropped the 1200p screens b/c of the cost and the fact that they could get away w/cheaper screens and call it a 1080p feature.

 

For god's sake, this is NOT a thread about whether people prefer 1200p to 1080p. This is a thread about how with Apple, it's desktop-replacement laptop is twice the price of its all-in-one laptop with similar build quality, whereas for most manufacturers, the two come in about equally priced (the larger screen on the AIO offets the hinge and other costs of the desktop replacement, resulting in a similar overall price point).

I think that the MBP 17, compared to other Apples, is seriously overpriced. The fact that it's got a feature you really like does not answer that inquiry.

Analogy time: let's say that Honda charged $80,000 for the Odyssey minivan, and $30,000 for a Pilot SUV on the same platform. Now, the Odyssey has sliding doors and the Pilot does not. But "I prefer sliding doors" is NOT an answer to the question "is Honda over-charging for the Odyssey?"

 

To bring this around for people who can't get beyond the 1080p thing:

MacBook Pro 17 (17" 1920x1200): $2,499
iMac 27 (27" 2560x1440): $1,699
MacBook Pro 15 (15" 1440x900): $1,799

Discuss.

 

Okay, here's my answer: they're not overcharging for the 17". Sure it's expensive, but not overpriced for what you get IMO. Buy it or not. Vote with your wallet. If you don't see the value in the 17-inch for the money, go with the 15.

 

I would argue that the 15" is equally overpriced, maybe even more so, when you look at the $1,800 configuration, which is $100 more expensive than Apple's all-in-one with the following:

27" 2560x1440 display
2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 with 6MB on-chip shared L3 cache
1 TB HDD
6770M

If the MBP 15 and 17 aren't overpriced for what you get, then the iMacs are the steals of the century.

This thread isn't about "Apples are overpriced". I don't think Apples as a whole are overpriced. Instead, I think MBP pricing is out of line with MBA and iMac pricing.

 

so this thread is really complaining that portables cost more than desktops?

 

That was the other point I made on page 1--desktop replacements typically DON'T cost more than that manufacturer's all-in-one with similar performance specs and a larger screen. That was the purpose of comparing the Vaio L all-in-one and the Vaio F desktop replacement...to show that a desktop replacement is not normally twice the price of a similarly-equipped all-in-one. Likewise, an Envy 17 is barely more expensive than an HP Omni Quad 22" ($1250 versus $1000). I can't think of another manufacturer where their desktop replacements cost double what their all-in-ones do. That's what I was talking about when I said that MBP pricing was out of line with other Apple lines.

And I can't think of another manufacturer where their desktop replacement machines are twice the price of a well-equipped ultraportable. That's certainly not true of either Sony (F versus SA) or HP (Envy 17 versus Envy 14 Spectre), where a full-size desktop replacement is about the same price as a 900p ultraportable. Yet the MBP 17 is twice the price of the MBA 13.

 

Just putting it out there that I got my macbook pro 13 inch this past weekend for 650 (no HDD) but I poped a spare in and it works perfectly. Still under original warrenty for another 2 weeks (they didn't buy apple care but I could still buy it but I think I'll pass)

 

since most others have moved over to 1080p, it's possible that it's a simply matter of supply and demand. there might be enough people who want a 1200p screen that Apple thinks it's smart to sell their product at that price, especially in an environment where no one else is really offering 1200p screens.

Unfortunately, that means that for those who want a 17" apple but don't really care about the resolution, it's not a great buy.

you'll have to find some alternative. Maybe get the high res 15"

 

I don't really feel like looking up what all these other models of Sony whatevers and stuff. Is the comparison really valid... are the Sony machines just as tiny as the MBP?

 

The new Envy 17 is the best comparison here. It's about a half-pound heavier and a quarter-inch thicker than the MBP 17, but is roughly comparable dimensions-wise. The Envy 17 is roughly 20% more expensive than a similarly-equipped HP all-in-one with a 22" screen, not 100% more expensive like the MBP 17 versus the iMac. The Envy 17 is actually slightly cheaper than HP's premium 900p ultraportable (the Envy 14 Spectre), whereas the MBP 17 is twice the price of Apple's premium 900p ultraportable (MBA 13).



HP Envy 15 and 17 (2011) - Engadget Galleries

As for the Vaio F, that's notably thicker than the MBP 17 (1.7" thick), but only a quarter-pound heavier (6.85 as opposed to 6.6 lbs).

Neither of these are twelve-pound Alienware monsters, if that's what you're asking.

 

I dont find it surprising at all.
Gaming desktop + netbook <<< portable gaming notebook price wise
and by gaming i mean powerful

When you have something unique price can be anything really.
Combining thinness, power, screen, battery life is kinda unique.

Is it overpriced compared to other products? — its really hard to say cause other products are kinda overpriced as well. And by overpriced i mean that they have some unique value and charge money for it unlike any other company.

 

in short: yeah, MBP 17 is expensive and IMO overpriced. Would I buy another MBP 17 someday? Perhaps

I will say though that I do like the 1920x1200. I use my MBP for programming mostly. I do not run external monitors. I'm wanting to get one or two externals eventually though. But this is, as far as I'm aware, the very LAST of the 1920x1200 laptops. But no, that doesn't justify it's higher cost. Shoot, we've always known that Macs in general have always been overpriced. But we love them.

 

See, that's the interesting thing. At least nowadays, the MBA and iMac lines aren't any more expensive than their PC competitors. The iMac actually slightly undercuts a similarly-equipped Vaio L in price, and the MBA 13 is $100 cheaper than the similarly-equipped Envy 14 Spectre. It's only the MBP line that commands a substantial price premium over roughly-comparable PCs.

 

Looking at Apple refurb prices, the MBP 17 is pretty competitive vs a MBP 15 with similar specs. Compare these models:

15"/2.2GHz i7/1440x900/Glossy - $1659
15"/2.2GHz i7/1680x1050/Anti-glare - $1829
17"/2.2GHz i7/1920x1200/Glossy - $1949
17"/2.2GHz i7/1920x1200/Anti-glare - $1999

Of course, Micro Center is having a deal right now on 15"/2.3GHz i7/1680x1050/Anti-glare for $1600.

 

Although I agree that the 17" MBP is expensive, I don't think it is overpriced (anymore so than Apple's display is overpriced or the Mac Mini). The 17" MBP has always commanded a much higher price even back in the PowerBook G4 days.

However, all MacBooks are a bit higher than their competition. The slew of $1000 ultrabooks undercut the 13" baseline MBA by $300 while having the same specs. That generally holds true for the 13"-15" MBP models as well. I could have went with a similarly equipped Sony or HP for around $1100 (comparing models with aluminum bodies, nothing plastic) but I paid the extra $300 for my MBP.

The 17" MBP does have a larger "Apple tax" but it has always been that way for their 17" notebooks. I don't think they are marketed or even meant for the everyday consumer or students whereas the MBP and MBA, although they are more expensive, are still within a relative range with their competitors (and I feel that the extra $300 price is worth it for the better trackpads, Mac OS X, a much better design, hard to beat battery life, etc.).

 

Not the same specs. The MBA has a 1400x900 screen. Out of all the ultrabooks, only two so far have screens with better than 1366x768 resolution. The Asus Zenbook costs $1100 and lacks a backlit keyboard, and the Envy 14 Spectre (the only ultraportable besides a MBA 13 that has both a 900p screen and a backlit keyboard) costs $1400. The $899-$999 ultrabooks aren't cheaper because they lack an "Apple tax"; they're cheaper because they're cheaper machines.

For the record, while I singled out the MBP 17 as the worst offender in my mind, I think it applies to the other MBPs as well (the MBP 15 being dramatically more expensive than a Vaio SE or Envy 15, and the MBP 13 being 50% more expensive than a similarly-equipped ThinkPad T420...though 50% more expensive than $800 is a lot easier to swallow than 100% more expensive than $1200).

See, what I find so odd is not the concept of an "Apple tax," but the inconsistent way it's applied across Apple's model lines. I don't have any objection to the principle of paying 20% more to subsidize better tech support, to pay for the OS, pay for development of industry-leading trackpad drivers, etc. But not all Apple owners are doing that. Just the MacBook Pro owners. They're subsidizing every other Apple owner. An iMac buyer doesn't pay an "Apple tax" (it's cheaper than an equivalent Sony and comparably priced to an equivalent HP) yet still gets the same tech support and OS. An MBA owner pays less than a Spectre owner does, yet still gets the same tech support and OS and trackpad drivers as a MBP owner does.

Three model lines receive the benefits the "Apple tax" subsidizes, but only one model line actually pays an Apple tax. If I had to assign numbers, I'd say that the MBA and iMac lines have a 0% Apple tax, the MBP 13 has a 50% Apple tax, the MBP 15 has a 50-75% Apple tax, and the MBP 17 has got a 75% Apple tax. That just seems odd/inequitable/etc to me, and I'm surprised that the MBP 15 and MBP 17 owners, whose high purchase prices are subsidizing competitively-priced MBA and iMac sales, aren't screaming bloody murder.

 

Yeah but have you been reading about all of the quality issues with the envy? I personally seek out the 1900x1200 when I can, I code and need the extra vert.

 

Display resolution aside, they pretty much have the same specs. I don't think Apple is commanding a $300 higher price for the extra pixels. They aren't the only ones doing it (higher end Sony notebooks often carry higher prices too) but you see what I am getting at.

I wouldn't say MBP owners are the only ones paying it. MBA owners do too with some extent (10-30%), Mac Mini owners are definitely paying it (30%), iMac owners are shelling out some (Asus has a new all-in-one that undercuts the 27" iMac by a considerable amount so I would give that one a 40% markup), etc. I do agree that there is an inconsistency as to the amount that each line has to pay but it is there across the board. Even something as simple as a $100 AppleTV or $70 wireless mouse is $20-$30 higher than the competition with similar features.

So no, the MBP line isn't the only one shelling out a higher cost for Apple products but it appears that the "Apple Tax" is more skewed for the larger display MBP models (not so much for the 13" by the time you find another notebook with the same screen size, dimensions, battery life, aluminum casing, etc.)

 

I would sort of agree with this, but when I tried to find a 17" laptop with 1920x1200 and the same specs that my MBP 17 has, I always ended up around the same price as the MBP, if not higher (see precision m6500/6600 or elitebooks), and almost every one of those were at least 1lb heavier if not 3-4lbs heavier. IN addition they had a power supply that weighed in at 3lbs to top it off . I think the newer Envy 17 is the closest I've seen to the MBP 17 for a lot less money....yet I see all sorts of quality issues coming out in the threads here.

Is this a case of "you get what you pay for" ? I won't lie, I'm considering the Envy 17 to replace my MBP and save $1000, but there are a few things holding me back that I've been reading about, quality being the main issue.

When I compare 17" notebooks to the MBP, I typically try to compare the business line notebooks from other brands as they seem to be the only line that get quality control done right.

 

Coder here and I appreciate the extra vertical pixels. My 2008 MBP 17 cost about $2,700 and I've added about $400 worth of upgrades. My approach to buying Apple stuff is to make the money trading their stock and then buying what I want so the equipment is essentially free. The high price of Apple's product increases their profits which increases their stock price.

My native work environment is Linux and it's nice to have a native X client on your PC. On Windows PCs, I have to run an Ubuntu virtual machine - it's not terrible but it would be nice to have an X client right in the OS.

 

Not if you are buying from dell outlet which has the same 3 year warranty. My outlet dell m6500 with 2920xm and 1 ssd, 1 750gb hdd and 16gb ram (aftermarket but cheap as it has 4 slots) + rgbled screen cost me < $1500
(with upgraded ram). The performance of the machine is very good. Runs quite cool and quiet. On the downside it is not as sleek as MBP 17 and weighs more. Also the battery is more like a UPS (lasts 90mins now). However for a desktop replacement it is quite good and will outperform MBPs (using the same gen processor).

Apple should allow for 4 ram slots on the 17inch MBP. At the price premium they charge for the 17 inch .. that is necessary. And maybe some better cooling.

 

you are really going to compare prices of new machines to used (aka refurbished)?

 

A refurbished 17" MBP with the matte screen is $2,200. You'd also need to spend an additional $200-300 on AppleCare to match the Dell's standard warranty.

 

So we are now comparing refurbished rubbish from dell to apple either new or used. I hardly think we are comparing apples to apples here...no pun intended.

I've owned both the m6400 and m6500, the quality is no where near a MBP, and the comment about the UPS is spot on especially with the RGB screen, what a joke. I buy a laptop and expect to get minimum of 3hrs battery life anymore, if I can't get that, then it's not a laptop.

Maybe we should compare an imac to the m6500, it's about the same weight and has pretty close to the same life when not plugged in

edit: another downside....I think the power supply in the m6400 and 6500 was about 13lbs ....I didn't weigh it but I'm pretty sure it was at least as heavy as most 2yr old kids. I guess a lot of people just don't pack their laptops around much...but it frustrates me that these companies can't do the simple things that matter to most people.

 

I'm not the one who initially brought up the Dell. All I did was post the price of a refurbished MBP 17.

 

I forgot to bring my power adapter today (I'm working remotely) so I just ran to the Apple Store and bought another one and will leave it in the car. I have one at home and one in the office so I usually don't carry a power adapter with me but I'm working remotely for the day and my MBP is an older model that doesn't have integrated graphics so there's about 2:15 of battery life.

If I had a Dell laptop, my battery would be dead by now because I can't run to the store to get another power adapter.

Pricing is a function of marketing - what do you price a product at to maximize profit. Price it high and you have higher margins but lower volume. Price it low and you have higher volume but lower margins. My guess is that Apple did the market analysis and priced it where they did to maximize profits.

For a lot of people, $3,000 is not a problem for a nice laptop.

 

BTW, my next laptop will also be a 17 inch MacBook Pro or Air (if they exist then) unless they come out with 1920x1200 (or better) resolution on the 15 inch MacBook Pro or MacBook Air. The one major thing that I'd like on my current MBP is longer battery life - everything else is fine on this four-year-old machine.

 

There is no difference between a refurb Dell and a new Dell - esp the precision or latitude. They have the same 3 year warranty. Many refurbs are actually new. Same with apple.
However Dell discounts their outlet a lot and so is an excellent place to buy if one wants to save $$$. And even on new machines 20-30% discounts are available.

Apple refurbs are also good as new. But are definitely discounted less.

 

m6500 has a new power supply which is quite flat. It is much smaller and much less heavy than the usual "slim" power supply.
However the machine is engineered very well. Given the processing it does.. the cooling system is very good and temps are always under control.

But yes .. the machine is not meant to be carried around too much.

MBP has a sleek body but from what I have read its cooling is not as good.

If apple really releases a 2800x1800 or whatever display for the MBP 17 ... it will look awesome. But they will need a good graphics card to drive that thing .. and hence more heat. Maybe they will change the body style this year.

 

Yeah I think the new envy 17 is really the only option in my opinion (for me) to replace a MBP right now. It's less expensive and it's not too much bigger/heavier, although 16:9 drives me nuts. Also it appears it will get around 4-5hrs battery which isn't bad.

It will be interesting to see what apple tries to do with the MBP line, I can't imagine they will just keep pumping them out and trying to sell them for the higher price they do without creating some differentiator like screen rez, size or something else. They aren't selling as good as they used to.

 

Correction. It actually starts at $1999. It comes in and out of stock every week or so. I know because I bought one.

 

Actually, you wouldn't need a serious GPU unless you wanted to render at high-res. Drawing OS windows wouldn't be hard.

 

Hence why I said with the matte screen, which is not standard on the 17-inch MBP. The standard screen on the Dell is matte, and the 1080p option is matte as well.

 

???
That is with the matte screen (like I said, I have it). The base glossy starts at $1949.

 

OK, I know where the issue is. If you go to the Apple site and navigate to the refurbed 17-inch MBPs, it only shows items that are in stock. What you linked to is out of stock.

 

I think I mentioned that in my original post
The models with matte screens are in high demand and usually come back in stock every week or so (and stay in stock for a few hours to a couple of days max).

 

If Apple does double resolution in both directions, then a 13 or 15 inch would be fine with me. 1920x1200 in 17 or 15.4 inches is fine for what I do.

BTW, I do have a 15.4 inch Dell laptop with 1920x1200. It would be perfect with a Penryn or better but alas, it has a Pentium 4 in it and runs about 25 minutes before overheating and shutting down unless I use it with a big fan. It also weighs a ton and it's quite thick.

The integrated graphics in the upcoming Ivy Bridge chips will support 4096x4096 pixels and I'd be fine with integrated graphics. I don't know what resolutions discrete graphics support but I'd expect at least 2550x1440 that you get on the 27 inch iMacs.

BTW, if Apple did offer 2550x1440, I'd upgrade.

 

And thats somehow a valid reason to overpay for a laptop?

In my last experience with apple support, my dad had a new Iphone and wanted to know why the screen was not switching from its horizontal view. after 10 min on the phone, I did it for him as the apple customer tech was not able to help him.

 

I was referring to in-store tech support, where you can talk face-to-face with a technician just like you do when you've bought a car, and in many cases, drop it off for maintenance and pick it up that day or the next day (after having talked face-to-face with the tech who worked on it). That's a pretty unique benefit. I wasn't talking about Apple telephone support compared to other company's telephone support. What I meant is, if you have a problem with an HP Envy, you can't talk face-to-face with someone, then have a part switched out while you go have lunch. You can if you have a MBP.

On the other hand, now that I live three hours from the nearest Apple store, that's not a benefit to me, even though it's a major benefit to other people I know (like my parents, who frequently use in-store tech support).