No one ever made the argument. Isn't it funny how the Mac-bashers have to make things up?
*Hand waves. iMac owner. Don't have to make up the fact that I had to buy 'last year's' model a year ago (which makes mine two year old...) That it had a core duo in it when it should have been a quad core. And I didn't buy the 'upgraded' iMac at the time because it was a side grade with a Radeon 4850 in the very top end only with a massive price hike. Or the fact that you have to spend £1500 (about) to get a quad core system with with the same gpu that was on the previous generation when 6 core systems are under a grand NOW on the PC side...with a 'choice' of gpu cards that each have 1 gig of vram.
You don't have to 'make things up.'
There are flakey PCs. But Windows is better than ever. And I don't see my friend's rig falling over. The cases are better and the OS is better than ever.
Sure, Apple has the edge. But not in terms of desktop parts they don't.
Their lead is consigned to the OS and the design. That's it.
WTF is right. Apple's international pricing has always been stupid at best. I am sure by the time they release it in India it will be close to 1000USD. The rest of the desktop and laptop manufacturers don't have this disconnect with US pricing.
WTF is right. Apple's international pricing has always been stupid at best. I am sure by the time they release it in India it will be close to 1000USD. The rest of the desktop and laptop manufacturers don't have this disconnect with US pricing.
I love how you people just grab the sale price, maybe to a conversion to same currency, but then don't factor a single thing into the additional charges one country might impose over another. No Eco 101 these days?
Of course you want to end the discussion because clearly you don't have a clue what I am talking about. If you did then you could put up a solid debate, which clearly you can't.
There are many tier 2 and tier 3 vendors that have far better reliability then Apple. At a lower cost.
Apple in 2008 and 2009 still scored the highest with a 9.2, 16% of their hardware needed repairs on average. Companies like Asus had an 8.8 rating, hardly a bad rating. Asus while getting a lower score then Apple had only an 6% product repair, Sony was right next to Apple with 18%. Toshiba had a 13% repair ratio.
So blind loyality to Apple doesn't equal better numbers. They just simply have a cult like following.
You can't use repair ratios to determine reliability of disparate product categories.
Look at it this way, people who are buying a $400 computer are less likely to have it repaired than someone who dropped $2000 on a computer. Between Apple and other vendors Apple makes it easy to get a repair completed for free and easily so I'm very quick to recommend to users or myself to call up Apple and send my Mac in if needed or go to an Apple Store.
If you have to spend money to ship it to the vendor and the turn around in 6 weeks (I wish that were only hyperbole) then you are less likely to send it in.
On top of that, better products with a longer life cycle are more likely need repair (which include routine maintenance under the guise of repair) than one whose useful life cycle is short, like when you have a $400 notebook v. $2k notebook.
A sub category of the last point is the usage factor within a set timeframe which may be increased. I see more people with iPhones than any other phone yet I know "other" phones exist on the market. People tend to find them more useful for more things so they are using them more than the dumb phones sitting in pockets or purses.
Sure, we're talking about PCs not mobile phones, but I've seen the same trend with PC-to-Mac switchers. The "I don't use my computer much" and "i only check my email and look up stuff on the internet" argument tends to dissolve rather quickly after someone gets their first Mac. I think this also holds true for being a good PC over a cheap PC.
- 250GB Seagate Barracuda hard drive gives a solid and reliable storage capacity.
- 4GB of 1333MHz DDR3 RAM allows for snappy and precise processes to be made.
- HIS ATI Radeon HD 4850 iCooler IV 1024MB GDDR3 offers superb gaming performance.
From Overclockers.co.uk
£429.99 inc VAT (minus the OS. Pick your flavour...of Windows...)
Note the inclusion of a 'cheap ass' card that Apple only deems worthy of inclusion on a 'high end' iMac.
And there's '6 core' systems for less than a grand and not much more than a mini.
Yeah. And some people complain about 'anything.' Anything. Apple could have thrown in a Radeon 4850, 2 gigs more ram and a quad core cpu and still made a profit over the old mini price of less than 400.
But they won't/don't because they're greedy.
Lemon Bon Bon.
That is a nice machine, actually. 1333mhz RAM, and the 4850 1GB can handle all the latest games at almost-highest settings with about 2x or 4x antialiasing at 1920x1080p. Everything else being kept equal, bump the 250 to 320GB of hard disk and drop in a ATI 5850 1GB and you've got a solid gaming beast.
But don't expect a powerful GPU from Apple. Gaming on the Mac? Well, at least Valve is trying. But the Source engine is pretty efficient and not as demanding as the newer titles.
I shan't say more because apparently my recent post history shows I'm anti-Apple now. Apparently, Lemon, you've become *more* anti-Apple. I understand your frustration. I find it a bit weird, but I'm leaning towards understanding more of what you and extremeskater are saying even though 1 year ago I would have argued against it.
BUT THOSE DAMNED PC CASES ARE SO BLOODY UGLY... GEEZ. Also, no great new games that tickle my fancy, not after the epic that was Mass Effect 2 I finished a few months ago.
You're also making the same mistake. You're assuming that all Hitachi hard drives are created equal and that all Samsung memory is created equal. And that all video cards with the same GPU are identical.
That isn't even close to being true. For example, some time ago, there was a problem with third party memory used in Macs. Even when the memory allegedly met the same specs, it didn't work - because Apple used tighter tolerances. Same thing with capacitors a decade before. It is absolutely insane to think that you can state that two systems are identical simply because they both use DDR3 RAM, Core 2 Duo processor and Nvidia graphics.
Bottom line is that, your alleged experience aside, Macs have far greater reliability and customer satisfaction than anything from Dell - or any other vendor, for that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
Are you kidding me? Show me anything that would defend the arguement that Apple somehow gets some magical supply of Hitachi hard drives or Samsung memory.
As for video cards while ATI and Nvidia supply the chipset many of the vendors create the entire card around the chipset.
I am not making a mistake about anything I have been building my own computers since I was 19.
If you were talking about things like CPU codiing which gamers like myself often pick for better overclocking then you would have a point but things like Samsung memory is nothing more then Samsung memory.
Apple would have to use at least a difference in CAS Latency for better performance which they don't because I have tested it.
You say I am making a mistake, when I talk about CPU coding like a C1 compared to an E0 or memory CL do you even know what I am talking about?
While I enjoy my Apple systems, with Apple you get what you get good or bad, when I build my own systems I get what I want.
Also in regards to GPU's Apple seems to have issues at times seeing the last two times they put out first gen iMacs they have to supply firmware updates due to GPU hangs. Which in both cases took several months to resolve.
The fairy tale of Apple getting better components has to end. Sure, it's sad when we learn there's no Santa Claus...
Their lead is consigned to the OS and the design. That's it.
Those two minor areas... oh, wait¡
So is your recommendation that Apple use anti-competitive measures to keep other vendors from getting new components, who sell much less volume than Apple for a given moderate to high-end model?
I can't imagine what other alternative Apple has based on their current business model. They can't get a first batches of a new CPU like Dell and HP can and then advertise a brand new or update BTO model. They dominate the upper-teir of the market. That means they need to have sufficient product for their machines and they can't do that when Intel et al. haven't geared up production. The argument that Dell and HP sell a lot more product than Apple is irrelevant because almost all of them are with old tech that is high volume.
Are you in the camp that Apple should have gone with Core-i3 and Intel HD in all their current C2D models?
I love how you people just grab the sale price, maybe to a conversion to same currency, but then don't factor a single thing into the additional charges one country might impose over another. No Eco 101 these days?
You mean like the fact that a number of countries have good consumer protection laws and Apple must increase the price to cater for the additional costs that they must handle to repair items for free outside the normal warranty?
You mean like the fact that a number of countries have good consumer protection laws and Apple must increase the price to cater for the additional costs that they must handle to repair items for free outside the normal warranty?
MANY additional costs.
- As you've indicated, warranty costs are higher due to different laws
- VAT included
- Import duties
- Higher employee costs in most European countries
- Higher overhead costs due to taxes, etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
Skater has a point. 'Blind loyalty' to Apple because they do 'some' things well doesn't negate criticism of their desktop policy. Which is and has been crrrrrrrrrrrrrap for some time. Nicely designed boxes with underperforming parts.
The rest of their hardware in laptops and phones/pads is ok. But their desktop line up is retarded, as are the prices, as are the gpus, as are the vram amounts as are the prices (I said that once, yeah?)
You can go to overclockers and get a six core system for under a k. You just know that such a system from Apple is going to start at 2k for their 'pro' because, apparently, it's a 'wooooo' 'workstation'. (But without any of the workstation parts, yeah? Oh. The Xeon. A quad core. For 2k. Yeah. Bad ass workstation part...along with the bad ass consumer gpu and flacid penile ram.)
Apple. Like the iPhone 4. The laptops are decent.
The dekstops and the price hikes over the last year or so in recession smack of arrogance and greed.
Then don't friggin' buy one.
I'm glad you're happy buying bucket shop computers. It's not the same thing by ANY stretch of the imagination. I bet you'd say a Yugo is identical BMW because it has the same number of doors, seats the same number of people, and both have one steering wheel, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
Of course you want to end the discussion because clearly you don't have a clue what I am talking about. If you did then you could put up a solid debate, which clearly you can't.
There are many tier 2 and tier 3 vendors that have far better reliability then Apple. At a lower cost.
Apple in 2008 and 2009 still scored the highest with a 9.2, 16% of their hardware needed repairs on average. Companies like Asus had an 8.8 rating, hardly a bad rating. Asus while getting a lower score then Apple had only an 6% product repair, Sony was right next to Apple with 18%. Toshiba had a 13% repair ratio.
So blind loyality to Apple doesn't equal better numbers. They just simply have a cult like following.
Not that mindless survey again.
1. It was done by a warranty company and has no validity outside their customer base.
2. If you had a problem with a $300 Asus netbook and a $2500 MacBook Pro, which one are you more likely to take the time to have repaired?
Asus' rating was so high because a huge percentage of their computers were so cheap that people throw them out if they're more than 6 months old and have a problem. It's really sad that people like you are still considering that to have any meaning at all.
Why not look at the surveys done by groups that actually measure REAL reliability?
- As you've indicated, warranty costs are higher due to different laws
- VAT included
- Import duties
- Higher employee costs in most European countries
- Higher overhead costs due to taxes, etc
Why do you guys go on and on about the VAT, people know this is included, why you you think still people complain about the price after taxes are taken off.
And why do you always concentrate on Europe when people complain about the price differences.
I don't live in Europe, and before sales taxes the mini is US$100 more expensive.
No import duties here for computers
Apple has no local sales staff at all here, yet the Mini costs the same from Apple as it does from a local reseller
And no additional taxes for Apple to handle, all their online sales are handled from a neighbouring country, they will pay taxes on importing the item, but as they are a business they are able to claim them back.
The shipping costs will be very minimal, so the only thing left for that US$100 is to protect themselves from product failure cases that can be claimed for 3-5 years after purchase.
They have no local staff so that must mean they don't offer any warranty or have no warranty costs¡
I'm not surprised you never considered that they have to pay more for the warranty because they are outsourcing all repairs to a 3rd-party in a country that does very low volume compared to, say, that country you love to despise.
Of course you want to end the discussion because clearly you don't have a clue what I am talking about. If you did then you could put up a solid debate, which clearly you can't.
...
So blind loyality to Apple doesn't equal better numbers. They just simply have a cult like following.
Well, I see you're up to your old tricks again. Let's review:
1. You're always wrong.
2. You're not as smart as you think you are.
3. See 1.
Others having reduced your argument to a tiny heap of rubble, nothing more needs to be said.
... so the only thing left for that US$100 is to protect themselves from product failure cases that can be claimed for 3-5 years after purchase.
Well, that's entirely possible. AppleCare for the Mini is $149, which includes 2 additional years of hardware warranty, plus an addition 2.75 years of technical support. If local laws require specific hardware warranty policy then that has to be built into the price. Not sure why that would generate outrage or surprise.
They have local staff so that must mean they don't offer any warranty¡
I'm not surprised you never considered that they have to pay more for warranty cost because they are outsourcing all repairs to a 3rd-party in a country that does very low volume compared to, say, that country you love to despise.
When have I brought France up? Or is this one of your usual tricks where you just make things up again?
Yes they out source the repairs, but that also means they are not doing them themselves, ie the cost goes from having to pay an Apple employee to do something, to paying someone else to do it, and the reason you outsource is because it has a benefit, usually financial.
Well, that's entirely possible. AppleCare for the Mini is $149, which includes 2 additional years of hardware warranty, plus an addition 2.75 years of technical support. If local laws require specific hardware warranty policy then that has to be built into the price. Not sure why that would generate outrage or surprise.
I'm not suprised, and I'm not outraged, I was just asking why someone was generalising, and giving the same tired excuse for pricing differences.
Comments
No one ever made the argument. Isn't it funny how the Mac-bashers have to make things up?
*Hand waves. iMac owner. Don't have to make up the fact that I had to buy 'last year's' model a year ago (which makes mine two year old...) That it had a core duo in it when it should have been a quad core. And I didn't buy the 'upgraded' iMac at the time because it was a side grade with a Radeon 4850 in the very top end only with a massive price hike. Or the fact that you have to spend £1500 (about) to get a quad core system with with the same gpu that was on the previous generation when 6 core systems are under a grand NOW on the PC side...with a 'choice' of gpu cards that each have 1 gig of vram.
You don't have to 'make things up.'
There are flakey PCs. But Windows is better than ever. And I don't see my friend's rig falling over. The cases are better and the OS is better than ever.
Sure, Apple has the edge. But not in terms of desktop parts they don't.
Their lead is consigned to the OS and the design. That's it.
They don't lead in ram, cpus or gpus.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Lemon Bon Bon.
http://store.apple.com/de Eur 809
? Wait a minute. WTF?
http://store.apple.com/us $ 699
http://store.apple.com/de Eur 809
? Wait a minute. WTF?
WTF is right. Apple's international pricing has always been stupid at best. I am sure by the time they release it in India it will be close to 1000USD. The rest of the desktop and laptop manufacturers don't have this disconnect with US pricing.
http://store.apple.com/us $ 699
http://store.apple.com/de Eur 809
? Wait a minute. WTF?
WTF is right. Apple's international pricing has always been stupid at best. I am sure by the time they release it in India it will be close to 1000USD. The rest of the desktop and laptop manufacturers don't have this disconnect with US pricing.
I love how you people just grab the sale price, maybe to a conversion to same currency, but then don't factor a single thing into the additional charges one country might impose over another. No Eco 101 these days?
Of course you want to end the discussion because clearly you don't have a clue what I am talking about. If you did then you could put up a solid debate, which clearly you can't.
There are many tier 2 and tier 3 vendors that have far better reliability then Apple. At a lower cost.
Apple in 2008 and 2009 still scored the highest with a 9.2, 16% of their hardware needed repairs on average. Companies like Asus had an 8.8 rating, hardly a bad rating. Asus while getting a lower score then Apple had only an 6% product repair, Sony was right next to Apple with 18%. Toshiba had a 13% repair ratio.
So blind loyality to Apple doesn't equal better numbers. They just simply have a cult like following.
You can't use repair ratios to determine reliability of disparate product categories.
Look at it this way, people who are buying a $400 computer are less likely to have it repaired than someone who dropped $2000 on a computer. Between Apple and other vendors Apple makes it easy to get a repair completed for free and easily so I'm very quick to recommend to users or myself to call up Apple and send my Mac in if needed or go to an Apple Store.
If you have to spend money to ship it to the vendor and the turn around in 6 weeks (I wish that were only hyperbole) then you are less likely to send it in.
On top of that, better products with a longer life cycle are more likely need repair (which include routine maintenance under the guise of repair) than one whose useful life cycle is short, like when you have a $400 notebook v. $2k notebook.
A sub category of the last point is the usage factor within a set timeframe which may be increased. I see more people with iPhones than any other phone yet I know "other" phones exist on the market. People tend to find them more useful for more things so they are using them more than the dumb phones sitting in pockets or purses.
Sure, we're talking about PCs not mobile phones, but I've seen the same trend with PC-to-Mac switchers. The "I don't use my computer much" and "i only check my email and look up stuff on the internet" argument tends to dissolve rather quickly after someone gets their first Mac. I think this also holds true for being a good PC over a cheap PC.
Why You Should Buy This System?
- AMD Athlon II X2 Dual Core 250 2.90GHz (Socket AM3) offers multitasking performance.
- 250GB Seagate Barracuda hard drive gives a solid and reliable storage capacity.
- 4GB of 1333MHz DDR3 RAM allows for snappy and precise processes to be made.
- HIS ATI Radeon HD 4850 iCooler IV 1024MB GDDR3 offers superb gaming performance.
From Overclockers.co.uk
£429.99 inc VAT (minus the OS. Pick your flavour...of Windows...)
Note the inclusion of a 'cheap ass' card that Apple only deems worthy of inclusion on a 'high end' iMac.
And there's '6 core' systems for less than a grand and not much more than a mini.
Yeah. And some people complain about 'anything.' Anything. Apple could have thrown in a Radeon 4850, 2 gigs more ram and a quad core cpu and still made a profit over the old mini price of less than 400.
But they won't/don't because they're greedy.
Lemon Bon Bon.
That is a nice machine, actually. 1333mhz RAM, and the 4850 1GB can handle all the latest games at almost-highest settings with about 2x or 4x antialiasing at 1920x1080p. Everything else being kept equal, bump the 250 to 320GB of hard disk and drop in a ATI 5850 1GB and you've got a solid gaming beast.
But don't expect a powerful GPU from Apple. Gaming on the Mac? Well, at least Valve is trying. But the Source engine is pretty efficient and not as demanding as the newer titles.
I shan't say more because apparently my recent post history shows I'm anti-Apple now. Apparently, Lemon, you've become *more* anti-Apple. I understand your frustration. I find it a bit weird, but I'm leaning towards understanding more of what you and extremeskater are saying even though 1 year ago I would have argued against it.
BUT THOSE DAMNED PC CASES ARE SO BLOODY UGLY... GEEZ. Also, no great new games that tickle my fancy, not after the epic that was Mass Effect 2 I finished a few months ago.
You're also making the same mistake. You're assuming that all Hitachi hard drives are created equal and that all Samsung memory is created equal. And that all video cards with the same GPU are identical.
That isn't even close to being true. For example, some time ago, there was a problem with third party memory used in Macs. Even when the memory allegedly met the same specs, it didn't work - because Apple used tighter tolerances. Same thing with capacitors a decade before. It is absolutely insane to think that you can state that two systems are identical simply because they both use DDR3 RAM, Core 2 Duo processor and Nvidia graphics.
Bottom line is that, your alleged experience aside, Macs have far greater reliability and customer satisfaction than anything from Dell - or any other vendor, for that matter.
Are you kidding me? Show me anything that would defend the arguement that Apple somehow gets some magical supply of Hitachi hard drives or Samsung memory.
As for video cards while ATI and Nvidia supply the chipset many of the vendors create the entire card around the chipset.
I am not making a mistake about anything I have been building my own computers since I was 19.
If you were talking about things like CPU codiing which gamers like myself often pick for better overclocking then you would have a point but things like Samsung memory is nothing more then Samsung memory.
Apple would have to use at least a difference in CAS Latency for better performance which they don't because I have tested it.
You say I am making a mistake, when I talk about CPU coding like a C1 compared to an E0 or memory CL do you even know what I am talking about?
While I enjoy my Apple systems, with Apple you get what you get good or bad, when I build my own systems I get what I want.
Also in regards to GPU's Apple seems to have issues at times seeing the last two times they put out first gen iMacs they have to supply firmware updates due to GPU hangs. Which in both cases took several months to resolve.
The fairy tale of Apple getting better components has to end. Sure, it's sad when we learn there's no Santa Claus...
Their lead is consigned to the OS and the design. That's it.
Those two minor areas... oh, wait¡
So is your recommendation that Apple use anti-competitive measures to keep other vendors from getting new components, who sell much less volume than Apple for a given moderate to high-end model?
I can't imagine what other alternative Apple has based on their current business model. They can't get a first batches of a new CPU like Dell and HP can and then advertise a brand new or update BTO model. They dominate the upper-teir of the market. That means they need to have sufficient product for their machines and they can't do that when Intel et al. haven't geared up production. The argument that Dell and HP sell a lot more product than Apple is irrelevant because almost all of them are with old tech that is high volume.
Are you in the camp that Apple should have gone with Core-i3 and Intel HD in all their current C2D models?
I love how you people just grab the sale price, maybe to a conversion to same currency, but then don't factor a single thing into the additional charges one country might impose over another. No Eco 101 these days?
You mean like the fact that a number of countries have good consumer protection laws and Apple must increase the price to cater for the additional costs that they must handle to repair items for free outside the normal warranty?
You mean like the fact that a number of countries have good consumer protection laws and Apple must increase the price to cater for the additional costs that they must handle to repair items for free outside the normal warranty?
MANY additional costs.
- As you've indicated, warranty costs are higher due to different laws
- VAT included
- Import duties
- Higher employee costs in most European countries
- Higher overhead costs due to taxes, etc
Skater has a point. 'Blind loyalty' to Apple because they do 'some' things well doesn't negate criticism of their desktop policy. Which is and has been crrrrrrrrrrrrrap for some time. Nicely designed boxes with underperforming parts.
The rest of their hardware in laptops and phones/pads is ok. But their desktop line up is retarded, as are the prices, as are the gpus, as are the vram amounts as are the prices (I said that once, yeah?)
You can go to overclockers and get a six core system for under a k. You just know that such a system from Apple is going to start at 2k for their 'pro' because, apparently, it's a 'wooooo' 'workstation'. (But without any of the workstation parts, yeah? Oh. The Xeon. A quad core. For 2k. Yeah. Bad ass workstation part...along with the bad ass consumer gpu and flacid penile ram.)
Apple. Like the iPhone 4. The laptops are decent.
The dekstops and the price hikes over the last year or so in recession smack of arrogance and greed.
Then don't friggin' buy one.
I'm glad you're happy buying bucket shop computers. It's not the same thing by ANY stretch of the imagination. I bet you'd say a Yugo is identical BMW because it has the same number of doors, seats the same number of people, and both have one steering wheel, too.
Of course you want to end the discussion because clearly you don't have a clue what I am talking about. If you did then you could put up a solid debate, which clearly you can't.
There are many tier 2 and tier 3 vendors that have far better reliability then Apple. At a lower cost.
Apple in 2008 and 2009 still scored the highest with a 9.2, 16% of their hardware needed repairs on average. Companies like Asus had an 8.8 rating, hardly a bad rating. Asus while getting a lower score then Apple had only an 6% product repair, Sony was right next to Apple with 18%. Toshiba had a 13% repair ratio.
So blind loyality to Apple doesn't equal better numbers. They just simply have a cult like following.
Not that mindless survey again.
1. It was done by a warranty company and has no validity outside their customer base.
2. If you had a problem with a $300 Asus netbook and a $2500 MacBook Pro, which one are you more likely to take the time to have repaired?
Asus' rating was so high because a huge percentage of their computers were so cheap that people throw them out if they're more than 6 months old and have a problem. It's really sad that people like you are still considering that to have any meaning at all.
Why not look at the surveys done by groups that actually measure REAL reliability?
http://store.apple.com/us $ 699
http://store.apple.com/de Eur 809
? Wait a minute. WTF?
US: Does not include sales tax.
EU: Includes VAT.
MANY additional costs.
- As you've indicated, warranty costs are higher due to different laws
- VAT included
- Import duties
- Higher employee costs in most European countries
- Higher overhead costs due to taxes, etc
Why do you guys go on and on about the VAT, people know this is included, why you you think still people complain about the price after taxes are taken off.
And why do you always concentrate on Europe when people complain about the price differences.
I don't live in Europe, and before sales taxes the mini is US$100 more expensive.
No import duties here for computers
Apple has no local sales staff at all here, yet the Mini costs the same from Apple as it does from a local reseller
And no additional taxes for Apple to handle, all their online sales are handled from a neighbouring country, they will pay taxes on importing the item, but as they are a business they are able to claim them back.
The shipping costs will be very minimal, so the only thing left for that US$100 is to protect themselves from product failure cases that can be claimed for 3-5 years after purchase.
Apple has no local sales staff at all here
They have no local staff so that must mean they don't offer any warranty or have no warranty costs¡
I'm not surprised you never considered that they have to pay more for the warranty because they are outsourcing all repairs to a 3rd-party in a country that does very low volume compared to, say, that country you love to despise.
Of course you want to end the discussion because clearly you don't have a clue what I am talking about. If you did then you could put up a solid debate, which clearly you can't.
...
So blind loyality to Apple doesn't equal better numbers. They just simply have a cult like following.
Well, I see you're up to your old tricks again. Let's review:
1. You're always wrong.
2. You're not as smart as you think you are.
3. See 1.
Others having reduced your argument to a tiny heap of rubble, nothing more needs to be said.
... so the only thing left for that US$100 is to protect themselves from product failure cases that can be claimed for 3-5 years after purchase.
Well, that's entirely possible. AppleCare for the Mini is $149, which includes 2 additional years of hardware warranty, plus an addition 2.75 years of technical support. If local laws require specific hardware warranty policy then that has to be built into the price. Not sure why that would generate outrage or surprise.
They have local staff so that must mean they don't offer any warranty¡
I'm not surprised you never considered that they have to pay more for warranty cost because they are outsourcing all repairs to a 3rd-party in a country that does very low volume compared to, say, that country you love to despise.
When have I brought France up? Or is this one of your usual tricks where you just make things up again?
Yes they out source the repairs, but that also means they are not doing them themselves, ie the cost goes from having to pay an Apple employee to do something, to paying someone else to do it, and the reason you outsource is because it has a benefit, usually financial.
Well, that's entirely possible. AppleCare for the Mini is $149, which includes 2 additional years of hardware warranty, plus an addition 2.75 years of technical support. If local laws require specific hardware warranty policy then that has to be built into the price. Not sure why that would generate outrage or surprise.
I'm not suprised, and I'm not outraged, I was just asking why someone was generalising, and giving the same tired excuse for pricing differences.
I'm not suprised, and I'm not outraged, I was just asking why someone was generalising, and giving the same tired excuse for pricing differences.
So are we all agreed now that it's not some evil plot by Apple to screw the rest of the world?
So are we all agreed now that it's not some evil plot by Apple to screw the rest of the world?
Sorry, I can't speak for the rest of the world...
But I think the new Mac Mini is much better value for money than the 1.42GHz PPC one that I got when they first come out.