The Shrine

As mobile future looms, Apple milks iMac margins

I believe we were having this argument about Apple and their pricing. Here's the answer:

TFA wrote:The average selling price of a Mac desktop in the U.S. over the last six months was $1,503, while the average selling price of a Mac notebook was $1,493. Windows customers paid an average of $545 for their desktops over the last six months, while they paid $637 for their notebooks.

So, to answer your question, Kupek, it's $907. The "Apple Tax" is $907, on average.

Sorry, Sine, but it's only a valid comparison if you try to equal out the specs. Macs only have five models: iMac, Macbook, Macbook Pro, Mini, Power Mac. If you go to Dell's website there are more than five models of laptops alone - and the cheapest ones will be cheaper than the cheapest Macbook, but the specs won't match.

Kupek wrote:Sorry, Sine, but it's only a valid comparison if you try to equal out the specs. Macs only have five models: iMac, Macbook, Macbook Pro, Mini, Power Mac. If you go to Dell's website there are more than five models of laptops alone - and the cheapest ones will be cheaper than the cheapest Macbook, but the specs won't match.

I don't agree with your point on the grounds that the average consumer only needs the lower end models. Most consumers want to be able to a) view web pages and b) send/receive e-mail. When they can do it for under $600 on a Windows computer, why spend more for an Apple? I would be willing to bet that most people spend the premium on Apple products because they do not understand what they need and are swayed by advertising and sales people. Just from skimming the Apple Store, the cheapest apple computer is $599 for the Mac mini and that doesn't include a monitor. My Dad just bought my Mom a Compaq laptop for her birthday from Best Buy for $349 and it does everything she needs.

It's a well known fact that Apple overcharges for their hardware... why do you think they're flipping shit over Psystar selling PC's with OS-X on them? OUR MONOPOLY IS SLIPPING OH NOES!

are we posting silly things about macs and pretending they are fact and that apple is bad?I wanna join too!

I don't think that people are necessairly always buying the macs for their specs. Show me an apple customer who goes "I want this slightly better version of the same laptop that I bought months ago.... and it has NOTHING to do with the aesthetics of the machine".

(bovine's unbackupable quoteable of the day) Macs are selling something that PCs do not have: a pleasant operating system (once you learn it) and an eye pleasing design. Also, it goes great with your skinny jeans, and pompous attitude.

Did you get all that Andrew?

LoL ok before the flaming starts... I don't hate on Apple, I just was stating the fact that there hardware is more expensive.

This isn't an "I hate apple" thread, it's just discussing the "tax" for buying one

Funny thing. I have never actually seen this mythical pompous Apple fan people are talking about. All I see are annoying anti-Apple nerds who are WAY too concerned about what other people are buying; never ceasing to go on and on and on and on about it. It's on the same level as congratulating yourselves for shopping at Walmart, never ceasing to bash people who shop elsewhere.

Seeker's List wrote:Funny thing. I have never actually seen this mythical pompous Apple fan people are talking about.

I was unaware you didn't own a mirror.

Tessian wrote:I was unaware you didn't own a mirror.

Damn guy is like a broken record, isn't he?

Also, I agree with what Louis says. The average consumer does not know what specs are what with a laptop or desktop. They see a pretty computer and all of the cool kids have it, so it must be worth the price.

What are you going to be doing on a computer? Surfing the internet, checking email, writing Word docs, etc. This stuff does not require Cray hardware. Hell, you could get away with Pentium-1 stuff for this still.

Are you going to be video editing? Fine, go get a Mac. (Even then, there is still good video editing software out there for the PC.) Otherwise, you don't need the power. The only other use for the power would be gaming, and gaming on a Mac is a joke in itself.

Louis wrote:I don't agree with your point on the grounds that the average consumer only needs the lower end models.

Then the average consumer shouldn't buy a Mac. Done.

Macs are for me, and many other Computer Scientists/programmers/researchers I know, everything I wanted out of a Linux desktop but could never get.

Tessian wrote:

Seeker's List wrote:Funny thing. I have never actually seen this mythical pompous Apple fan people are talking about.

I was unaware you didn't own a mirror.

I don't even own a mac. I am an observer pointing out the irony. You can't even post about any apple product without the same 5 or 6 clowns writing some sort of negative response; even though it's clear they don't know what they're talking about. In fact, as this thread demonstrates, the clwon squad will come out anyway, even if no one is talking about an apple product; have some sort of statistic, work in flawed logic for no other purpose but to bash apple. Seriously, it's like Apple sexually molested you through your childhood the way you go on all the time. When is the Suicide bombing for Holy Windows going to start?

LoL you're too easy Seek....

Oh well, like I said I am not bashing the product, I was only agreeing and showing additional evidence as to how it's overpriced (in comparison).

I mean hell, if Apple really wanted to take off they'd encourage companies like Psystar to sell their OS too. As long as it's fully compatible hardware and a licensed copy of the OS who the hell cares? It's more $$ for them and more OS-X apple users out there.

When I made my statement above, I wasn't bashing Apple. They produce quality products. I'm just not willing to shell out the premium price and its not what I'm familiar with. Unless Apple comes up with something ground breaking that I would like to have, I probably won't be changing anytime soon.

Seeker's List wrote:Funny thing. I have never actually seen this mythical pompous Apple fan people are talking about. All I see are annoying anti-Apple nerds who are WAY too concerned about what other people are buying; never ceasing to go on and on and on and on about it. It's on the same level as congratulating yourselves for shopping at Walmart, never ceasing to bash people who shop elsewhere.

If you buy a 16GB iPoD for $300 over the equivalent Creative (or whatever) one that is $150 because it looks good and it has the Apple name, that's who we're referring to.

For instance, this week at Canadian Tire is a knock-off 2GB Shuffle that's $15 instead of the $69 for the equivalent Apple one (proof of the difference):

Go to the second last page
http://canadiantire.shoplocal.com/canad ... Zip=n2a2t5

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/prodde ... &langid=EN

The Apple fan would say something like "but the Apple one is better because it has iTunes" or "it's better quality" without researching it. Same functionality but tons of people wouldn't "touch it". They want the status of owning an iPoD instead of a cheap knockoff It's very simple: blind brand loyalty to the point of being illogical.

This isn't some mystical, magical consumer, I have family members and ex co-workers who have said those exact things and when pressed, basically it came down to a bias with no logical reasoning

Okay...

I went to college as a graphic design major. The majority of my peers had Macs only a small margin of us used PCs. Our design teachers would constantly spout out Mac propaganda and tell us how inferior PCs are for designing.

I spent $500 on a Dell Laptop I got off SlickDeals
They probably spent $1200 to $1800 on their Mac laptops

I could photoshop, edit video and do everything they could do and had enough money left over to build a more powerful Desktop.

A Mac is a stupid investment. But if you're dumb enough to be lured by pretty packaging and well done marketing campaigns go to the Mac Camp. (Yes I realize the same argument can be used for cars, but my computer is not my status symbol)

I suppose it's impossible for someone to prefer a Mac to all of the alternatives because of its own merits?

Kupek wrote:I suppose it's impossible for someone to prefer a Mac to all of the alternatives because of its own merits?

And those are?

Interface. A desktop environment is all about it's interface, and I think OSX is the best out there. I've used Windows, Linux (both KDE and Gnome) and OSX extensively. For me, OSX wins soundly. The integration of applications and the environment is on a level the Linux desktop hasn't been able to achieve, and the ease of use and consistency is better than in Windows.

Note I said nothing about it being "intuitive." I don't require that I be able to sit down and intuitively know how to do things I've never done before. I spend a lot of time in front a computer, and I'm willing to invest the time to learn how to do something. My editor of choice is vi, which is one of the least intuitive editors still in wide use. But what it lacks in intuitiveness, it makes up for in efficiency once you invest the time to learn it.

Having my personal computer be Unix based is not a requirement, but it's a big plus. Cygwin is neat, but the illusion breaks easily. I've used Linux for years as my work environment, but I won't tolerate it at home.

So from your standpoint the only merit is the OS?

Is there any redeeming quality in the hardware? Because this goes back to just making a Hackintosh, and yes I remember you don't want to piece together a computer

I would agree that the OS is a large part of the decision into what computer you buy, but OS UI is mostly a person's opinion on what they find important and how much they like it / are used to it. Kupe prefers the Mac UI for his purpsoes/reasons, I prefer the Windows Vista/7 UI for my purposes/reasons, and everyone else has their own.

Just because it's an overpriced computer doesn't mean you can't buy it for the right reasons. I would assume that Kupek finds the extra cost justifiable while many others of us do not. I personally would love to mess around with OS X but I refuse to buy a separate computer for that (already have 3) and Apple are douchebags about being able to virtualize their OS. So until I can run OS X on hardware of my choosing (even if just in a virtual environment) they won't see any money from me.

If by "hardware" you mean the physical design, then I consider that a nice bonus. I think the Macbooks have the best design of any that I've seen on the market. Part of the point in having a Mac, for me, is shit just works. So even if someone else were to put together a non-Apple computer for me with OSX, I wouldn't have confidence it would work as seamlessly as an Apple computer.

My point in bringing up the interface was to put to rest the silly notion that people who buy Apple have necessarily fallen for their marketing.

Also, if you read my first post in the thread Sine linked, I priced comparable models to my Macbook, and the price differences were +$186, +%$306 and -$79.

Zeus wrote:They want the status of owning an iPoD instead of a cheap knockoff It's very simple: blind brand loyalty to the point of being illogical.

This isn't some mystical, magical consumer, I have family members and ex co-workers who have said those exact things and when pressed, basically it came down to a bias with no logical reasoning

This is how Apple works to a tee, and they are experts at marketing in this way. This is why I hate them as a company.

I -AM- biased. I'm not going to dance around that, like others have. I will Apple bash because Apple deserves bashing. No company should rely on slick marketing and pretty colors to milk the consumer with all they are worth. Honestly, I think Apple zealots are so "zealoty" because they have to justify the $600 they spent on an iPhone, or the $1500 they spent on the Mac laptop, or the $1200 they spent on a "high quality" LCD monitor.

They are no better than Microsoft, but unlike MS, they have done a really good job at keeping their image clean.

Kupek wrote:If by "hardware" you mean the physical design, then I consider that a nice bonus. I think the Macbooks have the best design of any that I've seen on the market. Part of the point in having a Mac, for me, is shit just works. So even if someone else were to put together a non-Apple computer for me with OSX, I wouldn't have confidence it would work as seamlessly as an Apple computer.

My point in bringing up the interface was to put to rest the silly notion that people who buy Apple have necessarily fallen for their marketing.

Also, if you read my first post in the thread Sine linked, I priced comparable models to my Macbook, and the price differences were +$186, +%$306 and -$79.

A grand majority of Apple buyers are not computer-saavy like you. Therefore, they are getting ripped off into buying a high-priced computer when they just need something simple. The model is so effective that the PC world has started doing it with Windows and PCs. You don't need an OS that uses up shittons of memory, and a CPU that could power the sun. However, the new model has been to bloat the OS and PC vendors use their own marketing to try to justify more than is required. Any junker PC I have in my computer room will work for 99% of what consumers need.

The whole thing is a racket, and the fucking madness needs to stop. We're reaching a point where the technology has surpassed the requirements ceiling. Having terabyte HDs is fucking pointless. Quad-core processors for surfing the web is fucking pointless. Applications that no longer care about memory leaks or plain ol' bloat because memory is cheap, anyway. (Google's browser solution is to fix the fucking SYMPTOM, not the cause!)

Kupek wrote:I suppose it's impossible for someone to prefer a Mac to all of the alternatives because of its own merits?

Not at all. The problem lies when you start to question people why they like the Mac. Not to attack them but to find out why. They will say "because I can do video editing, etc". You point out that there's tons of software that does the same or more with as simple a GUI as the Mac one. Then they say "because it's more stable". Well, that was a definite valid point back in the day (I almost got a Mac 'cause of that a decade ago) but nowadays, no difference (unless you're doing crazy stuff on your PC with programs that ain't compatible on the Mac). You go through this song and dance and go through a huge list of things and point out that the PC does EXACTLY the same, if not more, than the Mac with the same relative ease or that the hardware can easily work just as well if properly designed. When they have nothing else, many of these people will say "well, I just like it". Yeah, that's a valid reason to pay 2x (or more) for half the computer, just because "you like it" when it's rather obvious you haven't even considered the alternatives. That's the problem.

All I'm saying is, find me a valid reason to pay twice the price for half the computer while eliminating compatibility with the majority of programs out there (unless you run a Windows partition on a Mac which, to me, defeats the purpose). Not once have I ever heard a logical, sensical reason as to why Macs are better since Winblows (I ain't no M$ lover as ya'll well know) stopped crashing every time you moved your mouse. Or why any Apple product is better for that matter. At least with Sony's TVs, the videophiles (I ain't one) can justify the extra cost for the unnoticable difference. With Apple product, I've heard nothing but aesthetics or marketing regurgitation that doesn't stand up to any scrunity.

Give me a good reason and I may even consider switching myself. I almost did once already.

SineSwiper wrote:Having terabyte HDs is fucking pointless. Quad-core processors for surfing the web is fucking pointless. Applications that no longer care about memory leaks or plain ol' bloat because memory is cheap, anyway. (Google's browser solution is to fix the fucking SYMPTOM, not the cause!)

You obviously don't download much. A TB HDD is a Godsend

No, but surfing while converting and burning a movie was helped out TREMENDOUSLY by the additional cores

Yeah, the memory hog this is ridiculous. Programmers are getting lazy for sure, particularly ones that work in the Redmond, WA area :-)

Quad core processors are useless for the vast majority of users... most applications have barely started to make use of two. I know most people are starting to look at a future of many cored processors instead of higher ghz but that's still going to require programmers to rethink how to design applications first. Hard drives are so cheap that 1TB is decent to have.

Hardware has outpaced software, it's just now companies are better capable of taking advantage. Like the companies that sell you 4GB of ram for a 32-bit OS

Tessian wrote:Quad core processors are useless for the vast majority of users... most applications have barely started to make use of two. I know most people are starting to look at a future of many cored processors instead of higher ghz but that's still going to require programmers to rethink how to design applications first.

It's not that simple. If you're running a modern desktop OS, even if every application is single threaded, multiple cores can still improve overall system performance. Even though the applications might not be aware of multiple cores, the OS is, and it can schedule processes accordingly.

Man, you guys enjoy wailing on the average Apple buyer straw man: that handily generic, deep-pocketed but foolish and easily manipulated dude that only buys Apple for not knowing any better.

Who typically argues for Apple products in these threads? Me and Kupek (and Seeker, but Seeker is an enigma). Are you going to argue that the both of us don't know any better? Kupek writes threading libraries for fun, and I split my time between developing on Windows and Debian machines at work, and a Mac and a PC running Windows 7 at home. We are two dudes at least that would know better.

Fea wrote:Man, you guys enjoy wailing on the average Apple buyer straw man: that handily generic, deep-pocketed but foolish and easily manipulated dude that only buys Apple for not knowing any better.

Who typically argues for Apple products in these threads? Me and Kupek (and Seeker, but Seeker is an enigma). Are you going to argue that the both of us don't know any better? Kupek's writes threading libraries for fun, and I split my time between developing on Windows and Debian machines at work, and a Mac and a PC running Windows 7 at home. We are two dudes at least that would know better.

No, we're arguing that you're exceptions that make the rule. Seeker on the other hand is a perfect example of the rule

Then every person I know who owns a Mac is an exception to the rule.

Also, it's compilers for the Cell processor these days.

Macs are fine, fine machines. They are also expensive.

Kupek wrote:Then every person I know who owns a Mac is an exception to the rule.

Also, it's compilers for the Cell processor these days.

30 out of many millions? Sure, I'll go along with the fact that there's a small subset of people who actually buy the products due to real merits (I haven't met any yet myself and still don't understand why you'd pay more for the exact same functionality and durability, but at least you have SOMETHING). But you pale in comparison to the majority of the Apple consumer, barely are a blip on the radar.

This thread has jumped the shark.

Windows machines are wonderful computers.

So are Macs.

They both let you explore the universe from the comfort of your home, play games, do research, connect with other people, produce and edit fine digital photos and videos, compose music, and just generally take the world into the next age of humanity.

That solves every relevant part of this debate. "Expensive" is in the eye of the wallet-holder, so let's quit fighting about that.

Did I hear a call for a moratorium on any more system wars here, ever? I think maybe I did. Did anyone else hear one?

If I am the rule; then the average Mac user doesn't actually own a mac and has bought one Apple product (and only in the last year); and uses a desktop PC with Vista. My argument is that you guys are WAY too concerned about what other people are buying; and it comes up every single time someone discusses Apple, and even when people aren't.

For Zeus, I am wondering actual figures on Mac consumers. It would be interesting to see. I don't know many Mac owners/fans myself, but the ones I do know are exceptions to this "rule" as well.

(A double then a quadruple post, WTF?)

Kupek wrote:(A double then a quadruple post, WTF?)

If that was me, I'm sorry. I was posting from the middle of a crowded mall on lunch hour, and my post took about 5-7 minutes to actually post once hitting submit

Seeker's List wrote:

Kupek wrote:(A double then a quadruple post, WTF?)

If that was me, I'm sorry. I was posting from the middle of a crowded mall on lunch hour, and my post took about 5-7 minutes to actually post once hitting submit

You were trying to reply to this thread during your lunch hour in a crowded mall via phone and you say WE are the ones too concerned about other people? Hahaha Wow...

Does being a hypocrite just come naturally to you, or do you have to work at it?

Well considering my post specificly says that you are too concerned about what other people are buying; I don't see how responding to a message at lunch, when I'm not busy, makes me a hypocrite. What's your logical connection?

I honestly don't even know what you two are arguing about and I've read the entire thread.

Kupek wrote:Then every person I know who owns a Mac is an exception to the rule.

Also, it's compilers for the Cell processor these days.

You work in a college. Every person you know is smarter than the average bear.

Replay wrote:Did I hear a call for a moratorium on any more system wars here, ever? I think maybe I did. Did anyone else hear one?

No. Life would be uninteresting then.