Hacker News Reader

Comment by tootie | Hacker News Reader

Nearly universal praise for the M1 versus it's predecessor but I don't see how this really changes Apple's position the way he implies. Their machines are still far more expensive than Windows and can't use high-powered GPUs like AMD/Nvidia. The people who choose PC, still have the same incentives to do so. For most users, the faster performance will probably not be very noticeable. The reduced power consumption is the biggest draw in my eyes.

View on HN

Far more expensive than Windows laptops? I haven’t looked in a year or so, but last I checked, to get a Windows laptop with a good screen and build quality, you would also need to spend close to (or likely more) than 1,000 USD.

Yeah that's the reality. It's true that Apple hardware is expensive, but the reality really is that you can buy less expensive and also cheaper products than Apple sells. But if you want to buy something of the same quality as an Apple product, you're paying Apple-like prices.

There are cheaper Android phones than the cheapest iPhone, but if you want iPhone-like specs and vendor support and build quality, you're paying $600-$1000 just like Apple charges. You can buy $200 Windows laptops or Chromebooks but if you want the MacBook-like performance and vendor support and build quality, you're paying $1000-$2000. Compare the excellent Galaxy S to an iPhone, or the excellent Dell XPS (or X1 Carbon or Surface etc) to a Macbook and you'll find similar excellent performance and similar excellent build quality for a similarly expensive price.

The reality is that Apple only competes in the higher end of the markets. There are cheaper options but anything that's directly comparable to an Apple product is going to be priced similarly to an Apple product.

> iPhone-like specs

iPhone-like performance at least - an iPhone will feel at least as snappy and performant as a flagship Android, but typically with 1/3 of the RAM (flagship androids have up to 12GB of RAM).

> Their machines are still far more expensive than Windows

Previous criticism was that you could get an equivalently powerful Windows device for cheaper from other manufacturers - This likely tips the scale and means that these Macbooks are very competitively priced considering their performance.

Then on top of that, you get battery life and build quality that runs circles around the closest competitor - so it does represent a really compelling offer on paper.

As far as price competitiveness, the MacBook Air is now so far ahead that the “high” price is almost irrelevant.

There is no such thing as a fanless PC laptop with anything close to the same performance or battery life. It literally doesn’t exist at any price.

I mean, people are going to be buying this thing on the education store for $899. This isn’t a $2000 machine we are talking about here. This is college student territory.

“I don’t see how this changes Apple’s position,” I’m having a good laugh at that!

Given the build quality, screen, performance, and battery life- Apple isn't really premium pricing anymore.

The Dell XPS 13 starts at 999, the Lenovo X1 carbon starts at 949- at equivalent pricing- and the new Air outperforms both of those.

HP x360 13 with Ryzen - 799 and you have a 2-in-1 that you can use at work and play recent games at home. Install Docker and run Linux if you like that option.

That's a 1080p display and only $200 difference... still very comparable value propositions IMO.

> Their machines are still far more expensive than Windows

Which $1000 Windows laptop has this performance?

> and can't use high-powered GPUs like AMD/Nvidia.

Not relevant to all markets (particularly ultra bookish laptops, which never have discrete GPUs, but more broadly many people just don't need one).

I don't think it changes anything much immediately, but it's extremely bad news for Intel in the long run.

Do people actually care about GPUs in their laptops? It seems like any semi-serious gamer would have strong incentives to have a desktop (modular, the prestige of building you own rig). And anyone using GPUs for compute is just going to remote into some server.

The difference is that you can buy something specced to your needs. Most users and even most developers won't be bottlenecked by even an i5. Getting a quad-core Windows/Intel laptop with a 1080 screen, 16GB and upgrade slots for RAM or disk, plus all the output ports for an external monitor is easily under $1000 for even a name brand. My $800 Acer does fine and has an onboard ethernet port because my most resource-intensive application that I use daily is Zoom. And it has an entry-level Nvidia card.

Can we not drag the standard trolling points into another thread? Anyone who’s done the numbers for real knows that “far more expensive” hasn’t been accurate since the 2000s and, well, the AMD GPUs in many Macs would suggest that you’re not very interested in making an accurate comparison.

Most people have multiple factors in their buying decisions. This means that Apple is able to avoid giving a negative on performance for people who value battery life and heat, and the competition will, as it always has, benefit everyone by punishing Intel for the mismanagement which has left everyone getting less for their money.

>Nearly universal praise for the M1 versus it's predecessor but I don't see how this really changes Apple's position the way he implies. Their machines are still far more expensive than Windows

It was never about being cheaper or the best bang for the buck.

Mac was always playing at the expensive end of the market, for people who want/appreciate (most of) what they get (macOS, the hardware/software integration, the ecosystem, the design choices, the better components at various levels - screen, trackpad, the sturdy unibody construction, the sound, the battery life, etc), including some compromises (e.g. lighter and more battery over more powerful graphics cards, simplified product line vs endless configurations and decision fatigue, etc), plus the ability to run commercial apps like FCPX, Adobe Suite, MS Office, and (for those few that care) a UNIX underneath.

Now the Mac has all that, plus a very fact CPU, it can customize for the OS even further, build extra coprocessors and SOC goodies, have crazy battery life at great performance, and even lower cost or higher margins.

Maybe I'm a hater, but I absolutely hate the mac trackpads. Physical left and right-click are so much more comfortable for me. That being said, 90% of PC manufactures are imitating Apple on that note. I also think things like unibody construction and the general design aesthetic are nice, but it's a luxury. And it's not really that valuable of a differentiator when they look the same. By contrast I have a 6 year old white plastic chromebook that my kids have dropped a dozen times and the chassis has multiple cracks held together with tape and it still runs fine. Cost $140 brand new in 2014. Software compatibility is slipping away as a differentiator as well. Web design in particular has shifted away from Adobe and Sketch to products like Figma that are web-based. Ditto for office software like G Suite/O365. The value of mac-only software is shrinking.

> Their machines are still far more expensive than Windows

Are they? I just checked now for US prices:

13‑inch MacBook Pro (Intel Core i5) 32GB = $2059

13-inch Dell XPS (Intel Core i7) 32GB = $2099

These are both the cheapest options available for my desired configuration (32GB RAM and 13-inch screen), and MacBook has far superior build quality, trackpad and OS.

Probably for different specs MacBooks are comparatively more expensive (if you need powerful CPU or GPU) but for a "developer" use (where my main constraint is RAM, i.e. the number of apps I can have open at once) Apple isn't actually that expensive.

The XPS line is the high-end of Dell, their most expensive one. So basically you're showing that the Macbooks are on par with the most expensive PCs.

That's correct, but that's also the point. They're expensive machines.

OP's point is that if you want to get the same quality , it will cost you the same with PCs.

_Of_course_ you can find a cheap PC that costs less but that's not the discussion.

The discussion is with regards to the same build quality.

You're comparing an i5 to an i7. Processor speed is also pretty important for dev use.

I run a 15" Macbook Pro and a 15" Dell XPS. The Mac is definitely not "far superior".

The existing M1 devices only come with 8 or 16GB of RAM, so it can only reasonably be compared to similarly-configured Windows laptops.

The performance per dollar has improved (for some applications, anyway) while it hasn’t for Windows. Perhaps that will drive some transition from Windows but even if it doesn’t, it will incentivize existing Mac users to upgrade. Note also that applications will probably become more bloated and sluggish as happens every time hardware improves, which will make those applications even worse on Windows and older Macs, thus incentivizing adoption of newer macs.

I agree this doesn't really change Apple positioning and won't immediately impact the desktop market. That said, I think its a big kick in the ass to Microsoft and certainly Intel, and hopefully it forces them to compete. Its certainly making me take a closer look at Rasberry Pi and other ARM compute module boards for my homelab. Apple is going to drive ARM software and compiler support as well as broad adoption among developers. Exciting times.

Uh, can you point out a Windows laptop in the same spec range as the MacBook Air/Pro for a significantly cheaper price?

For Apple, it‘s not about attracting new customers but about reducing costs (on the software side and also in licensing costs for the CPU) to increase profits.

Profits are a factor but Apple has always thought more long term: Intel has been preventing them from shipping things on-time (sometimes year+ delays) and they’re limited to what Intel implements in many areas. It’s not as bad but similar to the way that the Android watch market dried up when Qualcomm chose to keep shipping 2014 chips which ruled out most of what designers might want to build.

This gives Apple complete control of their product direction and especially the ability to build unique features which aren’t easy to match - Dell’s design is limited to the combinations which Intel offers unless they pony up a large amount of R&D and get Microsoft on-board but Apple can customize their integrated chips for the exact thermal/size/power characteristics they need.

That’s a big commitment but it’s something they’ve been very successful at in the mobile space so I wouldn’t bet against them.

They can use a high-powered GPU -- the M1.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com