What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
556 Comments
- Topher06, on 01/06/2009, -52/+219Again with the car analogy.
This was true about Mac's 10 years ago, you know, when they came with proprietary hardware that could be argued was better then a WinTel box.
But its not true today.
ALL components in a Mac are found in a PC, a Mac is really a PC running OS X. Honestly, I know you Mac fanboys don't know much about computer hardware, but since Apple switched to Intel processors, they use OFF THE SHELF components which are the same as you find in Dell's or HP's or your homegrown PC. Same CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, motherboard chipset, etc.
So the REALITY is these days you are ONLY paying extra for running OS X on an Apple designed box.
This also means the quality argument isn't valid as Mac products have been affected by the same quality issues as any other PC brand. Bad batteries, bad GPU's, bad case design and cooling products have all plagued Mac's since they switched to Intel, largely because Apple is buying bulk components with lower marginal costs which ultimately mean a higher percentage of them fail. This was different when Apple bought proprietary components made in smaller batches with a higher overhead costs (i.e. Apple paid for quality assurance back then). BTW this also means that the profit margin on Mac's is much higher these days, Apple is now doubly screwing over their customers by double dipping on their profit margins.
The reality these days is Apple wants you to think you are buying a BMW or Merc, when in fact they are using the same engine and transmission and have the same feature set as a Corolla or Civic, but Apple still insists on charging up to 200% more for a product just because it has different badging.
Please, think before you start making analogies because the car analogy for Mac's is no longer appropriate. - branndon, on 01/06/2009, -3/+155What a crappy jpg.... they should have made it larger and used a PNG.
- AndrewWiggin, on 01/07/2009, -31/+111I've noticed that the only people upset with Apple's high prices are Windows users. Go figure.
- Chirp08, on 01/06/2009, -73/+146Why can't people shut up about this. Look at the car industry, some cars come with more features for the same price as others they compete with, but that doesn't stop them from selling. Buying a Mac vs. buying a PC is like buying a Camaro vs. Challenger, or a Neon vs. Cobalt, at the end of the day you buy what YOU want to use and want to pay for.
- philippbock, on 01/07/2009, -6/+71Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.
— Publilius Syrus - gluesniffined, on 01/07/2009, -16/+76Mac=OSX and nothing more. The Mac hardware is dreadfully overpriced and is no more than commodity PC hardware in a fancy case.
I can get a much faster and much more capable PC system (laptop and desktop) for the same price as a Mac. But you know what, barring any of the available and nefarious hacks I can't get OSX on that PC. I absolutely love OSX and would be an OSX user in a heartbeat, money permitting. Unfortunately, my $750.00 Dell laptop is comparably equipped (hardware wise) to the shiny new $2000.00 Macbook Pro and I refuse to pay $1250.00 for an operating system.
......and you guys thought Vista was expensive.
My Tiger equipped freebie G4 tower is a bit long in the tooth these days and I'll definitely miss my OSX. - franklymister, on 01/07/2009, -3/+61Hi, I just arrived from 1986!
Man, was it crazy back then, there was this ridiculous "Apple ][ vs. IBM PC-compatible" flame war that started back in '82, kind of an extension of the "Apple/Commodore" flame wars.
Somehow, when the Macintosh was released, it just kept going and turned into a "Macintosh vs. IBM-PC" thing, and then that little company that makes DOS released "Windows," so the flame war was getting even more ridiculous as these fools were fighting over which is better - an Apple Macintosh or a PC-compatible running Windows!
I couldn't take it! Had to freeze myself for a couple of decades or so and thaw out when the war was over.
So, what are we all talking about today...? - inactive, on 01/07/2009, -18/+72I've noticed that the only people upset about Scientology are the non-Scientologists. What exactly is your point?
- thebloodvayne, on 01/07/2009, -11/+60I have experienced, as long-time Mac users have confirmed, that the build quality of Macs have gone downhill since their switch to Intel. There is no difference between the build quality of Macs currently with other PC vendors and manufacturers since they use the same parts. Everyone keeps saying that these Macs are worth the "premium" (aka profit margin) because they are supposedly reliable, but in reality it's not. The ONLY reason why people would choose Mac, IMO, is for OSX and the "style factor". If you want to look "cool" while using your computer, go right ahead, but don't justify it by pretending it's the best thing out there.
- solidus636, on 01/07/2009, -13/+55@Andrewwiggin - "the hardware in my opinion is permium".
Did you not read the post you just replied to? Macs have the exact same hardware that PCs do, so they aren't exactly premium compared to PCs.
Also, spell better. - Topher06, on 01/06/2009, -6/+48Haven't paid for tech support on Windows, ever.
- Topher06, on 01/06/2009, -87/+127Ignorance is bliss, and Mac users are bright shining examples of bliss.
- aDJsavedmylife, on 01/07/2009, -14/+52I'm going to preface this by saying: I don't give a ***** what anyone else uses, it's personal preference and the fact we have many great operating systems to choose from is a good thing in my opinion.
I use a mac, I am a web developer. OS X comes with SVN, Ruby on Rails, Apache, PHP, SSH, BASH, KSH all built in, that suits me...If I buy a PC and save £300 and i spent 10 hours configuring all these things (and no doubt fixing them in the future because Windows doesn't play nice with them) then I've already lost the money I've saved (at a modest freelance rate of £30 per hour).
Where I work we bought our new designer a cheap PC to save money (£500), I said spend £300 more on an iMac..but everyone else knew best. Anyway we had to uninstall Vista because CS3 crashed everytime it started up and that took the best part of a day to fix: we charge £75 per hour for developers, so 75*8 for an 8 hour day is £600, we infact LOST money by owning a mac.
If you're not a developer or you like like gaming, playing with hardware, Office, developing for Windows or just LOVE Windows, then Windows is best for you...again personal preference.
I just like a machine that I buy, it switches on, works for what I use it for (Photoshop and Coda) and that's that, I don't have time to play with hardware and I don't enjoy it but I know enthusiasts do. It's horses for courses as we say in England. - tnoy, on 01/07/2009, -12/+46So, what you're saying is, you didn't get what you wanted and you paid extra?
Win? - brainflakes, on 01/07/2009, -2/+35Cost of upgrading from 2 to 4 gigs of ram in a new Mac Pro: £313
Cost of 2 gig identical spec ram from Dabs.com: £51.15
Cost of a whole 4 gig unbuffered ram from Dabs.com: £30.
Cost of adding an extra 500gb harddrive to a Mac Pro: £117
Same hard drive on Dabs: £40
Does Apple take us for a bunch of ******* chumps or something? - zhenkel, on 01/07/2009, -6/+37While I believe their prices are higher than they should be, Apple does not use all "off the shelf" parts-- slapping together a run of the mill product. Processors, memory, graphics chips--- yes they usually use something common-- who doesn't? But case design, innovations like Magsafe, Multitouch trackpads, backlit keyboards, unibody, and now the claim of an 8 hour battery which runs a 1000 cycles-- those aren't your average features.
The main thing is, until a few years ago (and technically still today) you needed their hardware to run their software and OS-- which to me is their strong point. - Kyderdog, on 01/06/2009, -30/+59What about the included price of windows with every PC isn't that a tax?
- RudolfDiesel, on 01/07/2009, -2/+30terrible comparison, the models aren't really even similar - they compare a Core 2 Quad to the Mac Pro Xeon. Give me a break.
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -1/+27Just go to Macrumors and see all the problems people are having with their Macs. Windows machines aren't perfect. But Macs aren't either by any means.
- inactive, on 01/06/2009, -10/+35No, because you're paying for windows. It would only be a tax if you still had to pay even for a machine without windows.
- alpha88, on 01/07/2009, -14/+39The car analogy is still very valid. Luxury cars provide the same functionality and use many of the same parts as other cars. Some luxury cars are even based directly on the same platform as other cars because they share manufacturers. But the quality upholstery, the nav system, the better styling, and better reliability is why people still desire luxury cars.
The same people who scoff at those who choose to buy a Lexus over a Toyota, or an Acura over a Honda, or an Audi over a Volkswagen, are the same people who scoff at those who choose to buy a Mac over a PC.
I use a mac because I prefer Unix over Windows, it's more secure by design because it hasn't been developed to include backwards compatibility. I also much prefer Mac OS X in terms of looks, speed, and reliability/stability. And although the hardware shares much in common with Windows PCs, there is no other company that has mastered industrial design like Apple has.
(If you don't like the car analogy btw, we could use a hooker analogy. A cheap hooker will do most of the same things as a more expensive hooker, but the more expensive hooker is more attractive, has no STDs, and will last longer.) - Auzy, on 01/07/2009, -5/+28Oh god.. Its by Mary J Foley... Sorry, I really don't think her opinion means much..
She went to the WWDC conference and wrote an article about it (can't find it now), but it was totally wrong (she thought Core animation was an application for starters). I don't think I am going to read another of her Apple articles again. In fact, I don't believe I have seen any Apple articles from her which I'd say are front page worthy. Why this is front page, who knows?
That and the chart she has included cant be read even once zoomed in because its such poor quality!
-1 - Chrysalii, on 01/07/2009, -1/+23you mean the $0 I've spent on it.
- Topher06, on 01/06/2009, -12/+33Included price of Windows and its sticker on a PC is far less then the premium cost of OS X and an Apple logo.which can exceed $1000.
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -3/+24@anon4031: If MS bundled Office with Windows, I am sure you'd be the first to scream anti trust!
- LeviTheSmith, on 01/07/2009, -5/+25OMG PEOPLE HAVE MORE MONEY AND PAY MORE FOR THINGS THAN I DO!!
RAAAAAAAGEEEE!!!! - anon4031, on 01/07/2009, -8/+27you picked the crappiest cars for that analogy.
- timusca, on 01/07/2009, -21/+40@thebloodvayne
It has nothing to do with "looking cool" because of my laptop... fact of the matter is, buying a Mac is the ONLY legal way to run OS X, and the OS is everything in a computer. It is all we interact with. I don't give a damn about the hardware. Yes, it is a definite plus that Macs look nicer, but the real reason I buy a Mac is because I despise Windows, Linux, etc. Mac OS X is easily superior, IN MY OPINION, to any other OS on the market.
So yes, I am willing to pay more for it.
Oh, and the car analogy works fine. They all use just about the same parts as the cheaper cars do... the only difference is the way they are DESIGNED and the way they FEEL when interacting with it. - inactive, on 01/07/2009, -9/+28yeah, damn - i'm such a retard for buying products that I prefer over other products.
- pikelet, on 01/07/2009, -21/+39I...don't care? I like my Macs. Honestly, I paid about $200 more for my MacBook than the Dell I was going to buy and it didn't really matter to me. The only features the Dell had that the MacBook didn't is a) it was purple (***** I really wanted a purple computer, it was AWESOME, grgrgrggr), b) some useless crap like dual headphone jacks to omg, share music with your friends and c) it had a backlit keyboard. God damn I wanted that backlit keyboard, but I can live without it.
I do wish they were cheaper, why wouldn't you? It doesn't keep me awake at night because I paid an extra $200 and didn't get my purple computer. Well, maybe the last part.
..Dell was out of stock of the purple casing anyway : | - rimbaud, on 01/07/2009, -7/+24Buried for using PC to mean computers with Windows. Linux runs on PCs and so does Mac OS X
- SaintStryfe, on 01/07/2009, -3/+20I work very hard. When I choose to spend my money on a computer, I'll use the one I perfer. I prefer the Mac because I feel it keeps me working more efficiently, and I enjoy working it more. I don't waste computer cycles running 3 different spy ware and virus scans. I don't have mysterious crashes. I don't have to defrag because of Mac OS X's disk technologies. If I do have a problem, Apple is a phone call away. If I need service, I just jump on the 3 train, go over to 14th Street Apple Store, and I've got a real human being to look at it, and deal with the service if needed. I have my reasons why I prefer Apple, and why I suggest it to anyone buying a new computer who isn't better served by a PC.
- aussieNickuss, on 01/07/2009, -9/+26People who buy a computer based solely on its price tag are the ignorant ones. I don't care about the "Apple tax" because I like USING a Mac....much more than I do Windows. It's not about whether I can get a PC with a 15-in-one card reader or TV tuner for so many $$ less than a stock Mac....it's about what I enjoy using and what value I find (as a whole...ie. hardware, software AND usability) in a computer.
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -6/+22The only reason OSX is not as popular is because it's tied down to overpriced, underpowered hardware. You can blame Apple for that. The day they open it for all hardware, their market share is going to orbit.
- Scanner, on 01/07/2009, -5/+19The real problem here is you have know nothing web devs attempting to play IT guy. All those "apps" you listed are open source and work on windows with very little config, and are included in every linux distro out there as well. Your labor figure is stupid. Just because it takes YOU 10 hours to config them doesn't mean it takes 10 hours for someone who knows what they are doing to do the same. Again if you had done more than 5 minutes of homework you would have located a PC that came with XP (still available) and saved the Vista problem.
Since you didn't bother to try and fix the issue between CS3 and Vista I don't think you can fairly say it was Vista's problem. Perhaps CS3 was the culprit there, you'll never know; but it is fun to slam Vista isn't it?
The core problem here is that the Windows environment requires SOME user knowledge of computers and software. OS X has been specifically designed for those with little understanding. - haentz, on 01/07/2009, -9/+21The car analogy IS right. For example the VW Golf and the Audi TT share the EXACT same platform and some motors. Still they are quite different to drive and styled... And priced, of course...
- brimg87, on 01/07/2009, -1/+13I personally love OSX, but it really irks me when Apple goes such a long time without updating the available hardware in their systems. See Mac Mini, Mac Pro and even the Imac now. There is no excuse to be selling year+ old hardware for the same price as it was a year ago.
I feel like Apple is taking advantage of people in a big way. My girlfriends Gateway laptop has four USB ports on it; my professional Macbook Pro has two. A sacrifice I make to use OSX. I'm willing to pay slightly more for a better OS and sleeker case design, but its ridiculous when a comparable PC model has 6Gb of memory compared to 1Gb in an Imac or something.
Apple needs to update the available hardware at each price point every 3-6 months. It doesn't need a big announcement, just do it. - jason210, on 01/07/2009, -0/+12yes norman619 it is bundled into the price. its the only difference from a PC counterpart except the box it's in and it makes the system cost 1000 dollars more. you are paying 1000$ for OSX and your box being pretty.
- balthisar, on 01/07/2009, -5/+16I'm not a fanboi, just a long time user and owner, since 1989 (System 6, Mac SE). I also have owned Windows boxes, current have and use a Linux box, and use Windows most days as work. I can get my work done on *any* operating system.
So. I still choose to purchase and use Macs for home use. To answer your question ("If i offered you a i7, latest and greatest graphics, 1tb hard drive etc or a Mac mini, both for the same price. Would you take the mac mini for the sole reason it has OSX?"), I'd probably not take either (maybe the Mini to replace one of my XBMC Xboxes). Most likely, I'd spend a little bit more for an iMac or a Mac Pro, because if I were in the market for a new computer, it'd be (1) a Mac, and (2) something more powerful than a Mini.
How do I justify it? I don't need to. Up to a certain point, money is no object (after that point, money is a big object). If I want something and can afford it, then I get it. If I can't, then I don't. There's no reason to settle for something less simply because it's cheaper. I'm not going to scrimp and save for a new car, only to delete the moon roof at the last minute to save a few dollars. I'll get the car I want. - inactive, on 01/07/2009, -13/+24I would switch back to primarily PC, but it would take a lot more than price.
I am much more satisfied with my mac vs my PC.
Not ignorant, nor blind, just happy with my computer. - jason210, on 01/07/2009, -9/+20I can run Unix on a PC. I can run Linux on a PC. I can buy a $1000 case when I build my own PC. I can customize a PC anyway I want. And I can play PC games when they come out. Any premium you pay for is tech support/the ability to use OSX. The premium you pay is too high considering what you can't do.
- reverendshort, on 01/07/2009, -0/+11The problem is until recent years there has never been an OS that would be even remotely comparable. Windows was the first out of the gate. When Apple came out they would never let anyone create computers with their software and still won't do it. People have always had the option not to use windows but, people accepted it more and more. It was a demand for it that created the environment the PC is in. Microsoft still works and is still accepted. Mac on the other hand keeps similar hardware but, refuses to let anyone else use there software. They have even gone as far as to threaten legal action against those that created Mac clones.
The fact is you can't choose OSX over Vista on a PC. Remeber too that OSX had just as many flaws when it came out as any other OS that is newly release. Also, even when there are choices people choose Windows. Maybe, not because they absolutely want it but, because they are familiar with it. The other products are not normal for mainstream users.
I don't outright hate Apple computers. I think they have there place but, I also don't like the excuse that Microsoft is the "evil empire". A lot of people switch to Apple because of style and the fact that Microsoft is too hard to use or people hate what Microsoft has done. The fact is...Apple is creating the same empire. The difference is Mac is becoming more of a cult like following.
People save money though because, the availability for other products is there. You don't get that with Apple. - norman619, on 01/07/2009, -0/+10mrtherapist:
I have a STRONG feeling the problem isn't your friend's computer. The problem is your friend. 99% of the PC issues I have addresses both in my professional life and in private for friends have been USER caused issues. I have been using PC's for over 20 years and only once in that time did I ever have to call MS for support. Oh, and that one time I did call MS for support it was 100% free and it was a 2 week process with them to help figure out what was making my system unstable. In the end it wasn't a MS issue it was my fav antivirus pp which was causing all my problems. Again, they never charged me anything for their help. - AzzX, on 01/07/2009, -1/+11Warranty?????
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -1/+11yawn at all of you
- techdever, on 01/07/2009, -1/+11The mac pro vs hp comparison is not fair. 2 quad core cpus vs 1 quad core cpu: Of course u save more with the HP. Try comparing the mac pro to a similar spec pc and it won't turn out to be so pricey ( except if you are an idiot and actually buy the ram from apple )
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -4/+14Totally different. Many people think that Apple devices contain proprietary hardware needed to run their OS. When in reality, That aesthetically awesome Macbook Pro, has the same critical guts that your buddy's comperable "***** Windows" $1,100 laptop.
However, when you forked out $5,500 for a "fully -loaded", 17- inch Macbook Pro (requires an additional $149 for the ability to connect to an external VGA or HD display), your buddy spent the same for a 19 (or spent less for a 17) inch Dell and got:
Intel Core 2- Quad Extreme
19 inch display
16 GB RAM (yes 16)
1 TERABYTE hard-drive
1GB VRAM
Quadro FX graphics card
Bluray DVD burner
Full-sized, backlit keyboard
Supports dual 30 inch displays out of the box (Mac requires an adapter and will only support one).
Imagine running Final Cut in OSX on a machine with these specs! You can actually buy a copy of OSX and do it, but Apple won't support it and if enough people do it, they will start filing charges.
So, when comparing "Apples" to apples, doesn't it piss you off that you are paying the same price or less (if you don't buy from Dell), for 35 percent of the performance and features, all because of a paragraph in Apple's software licensing agreement?
While Apple's OS and editing software may be preferred over Windows for some people, it definitely does not merit the insulting price difference that Apple charges by *****-blocking us from using 3rd party hardware. - phoomp, on 01/07/2009, -7/+16Wrong. The people who are upset with Apple's high prices are lost Apple customers.
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -3/+12whoa whoa apache, php, ssh, bash, ksh?????? If only someone could develop some oh I don't know some free unixy clone of some sort or BSD derivative so I could shell script in a proper environment. I guess I'm getting a mac until then....
- brundlefly76, on 01/07/2009, -1/+10It certainly isnt a charity, as Steve Jobs is one of the wealthiest businessmen in the world with no significant public record of philanthropy, and when interviewed about it once, he admitted to slacking on it and said he hoped he would work harder on that in the future.
Meanwhile - The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is that largest private philanthropy in the world. -
Show 51 - 100 of 565 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is