Apple Flash buying clout will give it the ultrabook edge
MacBook Airs set to be CHEAPER than rival kit
Apple may well have the price advantage when so-called "ultrabooks" debut later this year.
Intel announced the ultrabook notion - a very, very skinny laptop based on its chip tech - in June. Computer makers were quick to say they'll be delivering such machines later this year.
They will arrive effectively a year after Apple revamped its MacBook Air line with svelte 11.6in and 13.3in models, both as near as darnit ultrabooks.
But with their SSDs and Sandy Bridge chips - added earlier this month - the Apples will be among the priciest of the crop?
Not necessarily. For a start, even Asus is saying it won't be able to charge under $1000 if it goes for Core i5 and i7 CPUs as Apple has done, the Taipei Times reports.
With higher-end CPUs and big SSDs, prices could hit $2000, the company added.
Not only that, we'd add, but Apple is one of the world's biggest consumers of Flash chips, primarily for iPhones, iPods and iPads, but no doubt increasingly for laptop SSDs. It can use volume purchasing to get low, low prices other manufacturers can't match.
No Airs have hard drive options, and the anticipated 15in and 17in ultra-slimline MacBooks are expected to be SSD-based too.
Bottom line: Apple is in a stronger position than most other computer vendors to spread SSDs throughout its product range and keep the price down - not too far, mind; Apple doesn't want to lose its laptops 'premium' status - the better to compete with rival products that will look a lot like its Air family. ®
I think you may want to examine the facts..
I have always bought premium brand laptops - an upper range Sony VAIO doesn't set you back for less than a MacBook and to me it delivers a heck of a lot more.
The next thing you tell me is that I have to pay for everything on a Mac. True, most comes at a charge, but again, if you look at what you get it's reasonable and I rather pay £10 for something that is of genuine use to me than be a cheapskate and expect the guy at home to do it for free because I'm to cheap to donate (although I would prefer to pay directly instead of handing 30% off to Apple).
I just bought the new OS for less than £30. I can't remember a Micrsoft Windows update that cheap, sorry - especially since that ONE (1, single, uno) purchase allows me to install it any Mac under my control. I also have Office 2008 on the machine (only retained via an update - it won't re-install on Lion). Guess what? It actually comes with THREE licenses. Yes, that is MICROSOFT being so desperate to retain a grip on the market that it offers a 3 for one. Not that I use it much, I prefer OpenOffice (mainly because I find it less resource hungry, which tells you something about the MS product), but it's there. So, on the software side I can get on with less money, yet be completely legal. How is that more expensive?
On top of that, I have a well built, stable machine that is safer from malware (not 100% safe as some people allege, but easier to keep clean), and I have a Unix (BSD) command line available which gives me all the other fun I need, although I'm not sure I'll install any Darwin ports. But I can if I so choose. Try that on a Windows box.
I bought the Airport Extreme WiFi access point, which has a USB port (being me I stuck a hub on that so it offers me printing and disk storage). Well, I can't call what that costs expensive either, especially if you see what the thing actually does for the money.
About the only thing I miss is the fancy graphics that a decent Linux desktop has. I very much like the cube approach to multiple desktops, and that just isn't there for OSX (between you and me, it stinks of "not invented here" syndrome). But I can live with that. And if I can't, well, the machine also has VirtualBox installed too although it would be a bit wasteful to install a whole Ubuntu setup just for fancy graphics) :-).
In conclusion, you may want to lose that illusion of "expensive". You do actually get what you pay for.
try READING the article before posting
If you read the article, it is saying that the other manufacturers won't be able to meet Apple's current prices.
Apple don't need to cut their costs, they keep them where they are at the moment, and they'll still be cheaper than the competition.
Apple have bought Flash? From Adobe?