Originally Posted by Dunks
The real story here is why anyone would ever be willing to pay $1500 or more for a laptop with integrated graphics.
I've done it for years. I was quite happy to get rid of my 12" PB with a discrete GPU for a 13" MB with an integrated GPU, then 2 more MBs, and 2 13" MBPs all with iGPUs. The real story here is why anyone would say that the GPUs Apple uses aren't decent
. They aren't powerhouses. They aren't for any intense graphics that a gamer or video editor might use but when did "not being exactly what I want" become "it's not decent"? Clearly there are a lot of happy people who buy a lot more of their sub-15" machines than their 15" or greater machines.
Now I wouldn't have a problem with Apple offering a better GPU (and I would have likely bought such a model if there were overwhelming negative affects to my usage type) but I don't see why that has to automatically be a dGPU. As previously noted the dGPU in my PB was worse than the iGPU of my MB. If it's about performance then you shouldn't make the argument about whether it's integrated or separate.
Finally, have considered what would happen if Apple stuck a dGPU in the MBAs or 13" MBP? Have you considered that would likely mean reducing the battery volume? Have you considered a larger or faster fan and more space for cooling the GPU that would likely reduce the battery even more? Have you considered the increased power costs the GPU and the fan would have on this battery that is not even smaller than before? The 15" RMBP goes from 7 hours to 5 hours with ≈30% larger battery. 95W v 74W. I can only imagine that the dGPU in much smaller battery would affect that divide even more radically, now consider the additional battery chipping I mentioned earlier. It's not good.
Now you can say "Apple doesn't need to make their machines so thin" but that what they do, just as making their battery life last within a certain range, and it's what every Mac user should expect. They work to make the overall
product the best (according to their standards) which means they have to sacrifice power eating performance at times. We don't have to like it but we do have to accept it.
Originally Posted by wizard69
For the most part I don't think people understand the economics involved. AppleCare isn't cheap though it certainly can be of value to certain types of users. This is why I suggest people think long and hard about AppleCare.
Applecare can be of significant value to someone that has one and only one computer and that computer is critical to the, A common example here would be a college student. For many of us though AppleCare is a waste of money. It effectively increase the purchase cost while eliminating the possibility of that money earning income for the owner.
I also suggest people don't buy AppleCare right away. You have up to a year of your purchase date (not received date if it was shipped) to purchase it.
For the iPhone I do suggest AC+ at purchase. You technically have 30 days but it's easier to purchase it then and if anything happens, like accidental damage, you can screw yourself. With as much use as a smartphone gets and where it gets used I think it's a good investment for nearly all users.Edited by SolipsismX - 2/14/13 at 8:15pm