ASUS was shocked by Apple’s $599 MacBook Neo
Time to lower the price, then?
ASUS, company better known for high prices and limited understanding what MSRP should mean is now saying that they were shocked by recent Apple annoucement of budget laptop. ASUS says Apple’s new MacBook Neo has changed the discussion for low-cost laptops. During an earnings call on March 10, co-CEO S.Y. Hsu said the $599 starting price is a “shock” to the PC industry, adding that Microsoft, Intel, AMD, and PC vendors are already discussing how to respond. I mean, it’s not like this device was rumored to launch for months, so about time?
Apple introduced MacBook Neo on March 4 with a $599 US starting price and March 11 availability. The system uses the A18 Pro chip and ships with 8GB unified memory in the base configuration, putting it below the MacBook Air in both price and hardware positioning.
But users can’t upgrade the 8GB RAM
Hsu also argued that MacBook Neo may have narrower appeal than its price suggests. He pointed to the fixed 8GB memory configuration and described the device as closer to a content consumption system than a mainstream notebook built for heavier productivity workloads. And he is probably right, 8GB RAM is hardly a good choice for a modern system, but he seems to forget that Apple has its own operating system that arguably performs better than Windows with limited resources.
ASUS said memory prices have risen by more than 100% quarter over quarter, and the company may need to review pricing again once current supply runs out. That lines up with other industry warnings. HP has also said memory and storage now account for a much larger share of PC build costs, notes PC Mag.
Alternative from ASUS
For now, Apple has established a price tier that Windows notebook vendors can no longer ignore. There are still no current-generation Windows laptops widely available at this level, but some systems based on older platforms, usually two or three generations behind, as well as first-generation Qualcomm Snapdragon X models, can now be found in the same range.
That also raises a broader question. Why has the baseline RAM requirement moved higher, and how much of that is tied to changes in Windows itself?
Sources: PCMag
