Next time don’t ask for an answer if you don’t want one. You refuse to do any work on your own, you ask idiotic questions and expect them to be answered, and you have no knowledge or stake in the argument in the first place. Yes, shut up.
Using a 6-core i7 alone wouldn't be any cheaper. The price issue with the Mac Pro seems to come from Apple putting higher margins on it due to the target audience. They try to aim for as high gross margins as they can get away with.
If you take rough parts cost (not retail prices) of the 6-core Mac Pro:
E5-1650v2 = $583
12GB RAM = $200
256GB SSD = $200
dual D300 = $300
motherboard = $300
power supply = $200
chassis, box, software etc = $200
= $1983
with 40% gross margins, you end up with about $3305. Their price is $3499.
The quad-core i7 iMac:
i7-4771 = $314
8GB RAM (non-ECC) = $100
256GB SSD = $200
780M = $100
motherboard = $150
power supply = $100
display = $500
keyboard/mouse = $50
chassis, box, software etc = $200
= $1714
with 30% gross margins, you end up with $2448. Their price is $2549.
If Apple used cheaper parts and lower margins, they could build a cheaper headless Mac but there isn't a high volume of users at this price range anyway. The PC desktop crowd has an average selling price of $500. HP's workstations average around $1600. So all that happens with cheaper options is the people who would have spent $3000, end up spending $2500.
Apple's been at this game a long time, they know how to price things to maintain their premium audience. I think this is why so many Windows and Android users hate them. If Apple didn't make products worth the premium, they'd be ignored and they'd have to lower their prices. This isn't the case. They set out to do a good job and they want healthy margins in return. It's PC manufacturers that have it all wrong. They operate with under 5% net margins. Apple's net margins are around 25% so when you look at an Apple price tag, only 1/4 of it is what they get to keep after paying all the costs to put the product there. PC manufacturers keep 1/20 of it.
The way consumers react to pricing is a bit strange when you consider the relative values of things. If you run a business based on computer technology, you still generally have an expectation that a car should cost about 10x more than a laptop. However, the laptop is what you use to earn money to pay for the car and your home, food, utilities etc. So really, the laptop is far more valuable to you than everything else because it pays for everything else.
The prices get determined by the majority though. The majority doesn't place much value on computers because they are seen as appliances or consumption products. For technology companies to stay profitable, this has to create a divide between low-end machines and high-end. Server companies pay loads for equipment because their business depends on it. Intel can therefore charge loads for the tech because the target audience sustains the premium.
Thank you, that's very informative! A couple of comments:
Apple has has always had a 10% educational discount, which they had never verified credentials for. (they used to have a deeper developer discount, but that seems to have gone away forever). I assume (though I have never checked) that for multi-unit corporate orders they have a similar discount. So, the point is that their real margins are actually a little under the 40%/30% you suggest.
Secondly, defining the apple target audience is a little subtle (which is why the Apple marketing department is well-paid, I suppose), since even when they sell to corporations they sell directly to the end users (so, they have zero presence in the server farm market). Certainly, for me paying an extra $2K to have no muss and no fuss and the machine working right out of the box is well worth it, but if I ran a company with an IT department, that department would be paid for dealing with the muss and fuss. So, I am guessing the apple (Mac, not iDevice) market tends to be smaller shops.
As for the low prices of computers vs cars, I have wondered about this, and I suppose that the fact that a car COULD literally blow up killing everyone inside makes the ones that do not worth more. Put it differently, computers are essential for most of our livelihoods, but they do not directly protect or endanger life.
The Mac Pro is still not a good value, because most users, even professional users, don't need two GPUs, so why pay for hardware you don't want or need? Apple also forces you to use SSD, which may be unnecessary for many users. I'd like to see you repeat this exercise starting with the LEAST expensive Mac Pro configuration.
The Mac Pro is still not a good value, because most users, even professional users, don't need two GPUs, so why pay for hardware you don't want or need? Apple also forces you to use SSD, which may be unnecessary for many users. I'd like to see you repeat this exercise starting with the LEAST expensive Mac Pro configuration.
1) If you knew more about the Mac Pro you wouldn't be saying that.
2) Why is an SSD unnecessary when drive performance has been the weakest link in the chain for a decades?
3) The results still favor the Mac Pro at any configuration because of the CPU and GPUs involved, which doesn't even take into consideration the innumerable aspects that can't easily be quantified.
>1) If you knew more about the Mac Pro you wouldn't be saying that.
Care to fill me in? Look, what I want is a "big brother" to the Mac Mini. For under $2000. The Mac Pro is ridiculously expensive. OK, great, so if you price out the individual components of the most expensive configuration Apple is delivering some value, but on the other hand Apple has been ripping us off on storage for years. And this is really no different. They've made an impressive machine that has components that most users don't need or want. Why can't I configure a Mac Pro with only one GPU? Why can't I pick a less expensive video card if that's not really what I need? Lame.
Care to fill me in? Look, what I want is a "big brother" to the Mac Mini. For under $2000. The Mac Pro is ridiculously expensive. OK, great, so if you price out the individual components of the most expensive configuration Apple is delivering some value, but on the other hand Apple has been ripping us off on storage for years. And this is really no different. They've made an impressive machine that has components that most users don't need or want. Why can't I configure a Mac Pro with only one GPU? Why can't I pick a less expensive video card if that's not really what I need? Lame.
1) Again, actually read up on the Mac Pro before you comment. Here's a hint: OpenCL.
2) It's perfectly acceptable for a product not to suit your specific needs (pretty much nothing man made in this world ever will). It's also perfectly reasonable to wish a product was made or priced a different way to suit your needs better. What isn't reasonable to think your desire is proof that a company is doing it wrong and take it a personal attack for them not knocking on your door and asking you create the next Homer Car.
3) I have been ripped off by very few vendors in my life and never once was it Apple. I have always bought products from Apple with a complete awareness of what I was buying and never once have they ripped me off by selling a product that wasn't as advertised or not abiding by the warranty agreement if something did happen to break. If you didn't like how much storage you got from an Apple product at a particular price point (which is pretty stupid considering it doesn't take anything else into consideration) then you had the choice to not buy their products. It's that simple!
4) You keep asking these foolish questions as to why Apple doesn't let you choose from different components and lower price points that suit your needs but you don't seem to realize it's NOT YOUR FUCKING PRODUCT. If it doesn't suit your needs then don't buy it. Apple doesn't try to cater to everyone which is especially true for the professional market the Mac Pro is designed for.
>1) If you knew more about the Mac Pro you wouldn't be saying that.
Care to fill me in? Look, what I want is a "big brother" to the Mac Mini. For under $2000. The Mac Pro is ridiculously expensive. OK, great, so if you price out the individual components of the most expensive configuration Apple is delivering some value, but on the other hand Apple has been ripping us off on storage for years. And this is really no different. They've made an impressive machine that has components that most users don't need or want. Why can't I configure a Mac Pro with only one GPU? Why can't I pick a less expensive video card if that's not really what I need? Lame.
Actually, in this case, you can get your RAM from OWC (they even give you money back for the stick you send in), and, as discussed above, the SSD is at or below market price (you need to get the 1TB version for "below"). Your argument about "why can't you configure..." is like saying: Why can't I configure a Mercedes S class with a four-cylinder 100bhp engine? That's all I need!
Calm down. I'm not personally attacking you, and Apple isn't a person, so I can't personally attack them. On the other hand, I am a software engineer, and have been writing applications for Apple computers for over 20 years, and as such I can tell you the actual utility of OpenCL is limited. Not all algorithms are suitable for OpenCL, and at best a application needs to be reworked in order to take advantage of it. So, for most people one of those GPUs is going to sit there doing nothing. Waste of money.
If you walked into a car dealership, and they said, you could either buy a cheap underpowered two-door coupe, or a very expensive sports car, but that's all they had to offer, it might make you scratch your head. Looking at Apple's lineup, just in terms of desktop Macs without built-in screens, there's a huge gap in the middle of the price range. My point is, if you need a little more than a Mac mini, your next stop is the Mac Pro, and for many users that is going to be giving them stuff they don't need.
Apple systematically and eternally shafts their customers on the price of storage. This is obvious and well known. For example the difference between an iPhone 5s 16 GB and 32 GB is $100. Apple charges users $100 for 16 GB of flash storage. You can buy a 16 GB SD card for $10. $90 is Apple's 'up yours' charge. This is true no matter what Apple product you price out. Another example, buy a Mac Mini and upgrade it from 4GB of memory to 8GB of memory. Apple will charge you $100. You can buy 4GB of RAM for $25. Apple's 'up yours' charge is $75. Absolutely disgusting price gouging. It's always much cheaper to buy an Apple product, throw away whatever storage it came with, buy new storage and install it yourself. This is why Apple is now gluing everything closed so you can't spoil their party.
Calm down. I'm not personally attacking you, and Apple isn't a person, so I can't personally attack them. On the other hand, I am a software engineer, and have been writing applications for Apple computers for over 20 years, and as such I can tell you the actual utility of OpenCL is limited. Not all algorithms are suitable for OpenCL, and at best a application needs to be reworked in order to take advantage of it. So, for most people one of those GPUs is going to sit there doing nothing. Waste of money.
If you walked into a car dealership, and they said, you could either buy a cheap underpowered two-door coupe, or a very expensive sports car, but that's all they had to offer, it might make you scratch your head. Looking at Apple's lineup, just in terms of desktop Macs without built-in screens, there's a huge gap in the middle of the price range. My point is, if you need a little more than a Mac mini, your next stop is the Mac Pro, and for many users that is going to be giving them stuff they don't need.
Apple systematically and eternally shafts their customers on the price of storage. This is obvious and well known. For example the difference between an iPhone 5s 16 GB and 32 GB is $100. Apple charges users $100 for 16 GB of flash storage. You can buy a 16 GB SD card for $10. $90 is Apple's 'up yours' charge. This is true no matter what Apple product you price out. Another example, buy a Mac Mini and upgrade it from 4GB of memory to 8GB of memory. Apple will charge you $100. You can buy 4GB of RAM for $25. Apple's 'up yours' charge is $75. Absolutely disgusting price gouging. It's always much cheaper to buy an Apple product, throw away whatever storage it came with, buy new storage and install it yourself. This is why Apple is now gluing everything closed so you can't spoil their party.
Assuming you are responding to my message (apologies if you are not), I am well aware of the historical apple memory price mark-up, but as many have pointed out, no one is holding a gun to your head. Apple has a marketing department, which has figured out a successful (as their P&L shows) pricing strategy, some of which can be easily explained: for example, the price of a phone contract with phone and data and all the bells and whistles is around $3K so an extra $100 is just not that big a deal for the consumer. For the macs, it is similar: yes, you can save $75, but you have to order it, wait to get it, install it, figure out what to do with the old DIMMs, worry that it might not work -- who needs the hassle? Apple has figure out that their target market does not. The word "gouging" seems to imply that someone is the victim, but the relationship is purely voluntary on both sides. And I really don't take it personally, to each his/her own. Oh, as for Apple "gluing everything closed" -- as long as things work for a couple of years, what does it matter? In three years you will have obsolete hardware, glued or not. Again, this is my perspective, I know you have your own...
For example the difference between an iPhone 5s 16 GB and 32 GB is $100. Apple charges users $100 for 16 GB of flash storage. You can buy a 16 GB SD card for $10. $90 is Apple's 'up yours' charge. This is true no matter what Apple product you price out. Another example, buy a Mac Mini and upgrade it from 4GB of memory to 8GB of memory. Apple will charge you $100. You can buy 4GB of RAM for $25. Apple's 'up yours' charge is $75. Absolutely disgusting price gouging. It's always much cheaper to buy an Apple product, throw away whatever storage it came with, buy new storage and install it yourself. This is why Apple is now gluing everything closed so you can't spoil their party.
When you pick the cheapest possible RAM or NAND you make yourself look stupid.
You haven't once considered what why there are bargain prices on certain components from certain vendors from time to time. You haven't considered either the technical or economic aspects of why they would charge you a price they can't profit from.
You also haven't considered how Apple could change $10 for doubling NAND in an iDevice and expect to make the same profit margin as do now because you're coming it from the standpoint of the lowest capacity device being what Apple wants to make and everything else being gravy, when the reality is it's split up and balanced across the entire product line to find the ideal price points.
Your example: Apple charges only $10 more for each doubling of the iPad. With a $499 starting price you then have the 32GB for $509, 64GB for $519, and 128GB for $529. So for $30 more you can get 108GB more. So how many of the other capacities are they going to sell? Not many except to really ignorant buyers and/or when they run out of 128GB NAND chips. The latter being the more likely because Apple is selling the full product well below what it's worth -and- because they are now pricing their devices so close together.
Let's remember is still the largest buyer of NAND and they run into supply issues constantly yet you want them to ignore all that and instead lose profit because they aren't exactly having trouble selling all the iPads they can make.
A more realistic, but still silly, example: Apple charges only $10 more for each doubling of the iPad but this time wants to maintain their profit margin for the product segment so they price the $10 difference from the top end to make it work.. The 128GB is $799, with the 64GB, 32GB, and 32GB being $789, $779, and $779 respectively. Now you have same situation as before where people will spend $30 more to get an additional 108GB but you now have significantly fewer buyers due to the high entry price. So now Apple doesn't need as many NAND chips and will surely lose control of the market as well as have reduced margins simply because economics of scale are now most defunct.
So why again would you want this? Oh, that's right, Apple charging you for more capacity means that people who don't need as much as capacity are getting a better deal on their iPad which upsets you.
When you pick the cheapest possible RAM or NAND you make yourself look stupid.
You haven't once considered what why there are bargain prices on certain components from certain vendors from time to time. You haven't considered either the technical or economic aspects of why they would charge you a price they can't profit from.
You also haven't considered how Apple could change $10 for doubling NAND in an iDevice and expect to make the same profit margin as do now because you're coming it from the standpoint of the lowest capacity device being what Apple wants to make and everything else being gravy, when the reality is it's split up and balanced across the entire product line to find the ideal price points.
Your example: Apple charges only $10 more for each doubling of the iPad. With a $499 starting price you then have the 32GB for $509, 64GB for $519, and 128GB for $529. So for $30 more you can get 108GB more. So how many of the other capacities are they going to sell? Not many except to really ignorant buyers and/or when they run out of 128GB NAND chips. The latter being the more likely because Apple is selling the full product well below what it's worth -and- because they are now pricing their devices so close together.
Let's remember is still the largest buyer of NAND and they run into supply issues constantly yet you want them to ignore all that and instead lose profit because they aren't exactly having trouble selling all the iPads they can make.
A more realistic, but still silly, example: Apple charges only $10 more for each doubling of the iPad but this time wants to maintain their profit margin for the product segment so they price the $10 difference from the top end to make it work.. The 128GB is $799, with the 64GB, 32GB, and 32GB being $789, $779, and $779 respectively. Now you have same situation as before where people will spend $30 more to get an additional 108GB but you now have significantly fewer buyers due to the high entry price. So now Apple doesn't need as many NAND chips and will surely lose control of the market as well as have reduced margins simply because economics of scale are now most defunct.
So why again would you want this? Oh, that's right, Apple charging you for more capacity means that people who don't need as much as capacity are getting a better deal on their iPad which upsets you.
Why do you choose to attack me personally? It makes you seem a little defensive, which is weird, because I'm not in any way insulting you. I like Apple, and have bought their products for years, but there are places where their offerings fail me, and things they do that annoy me.
Storage is simply a bad way to differentiate products. It pushes Apple towards making their widgets completely closed. Closed widgets have shorter life-spans, and by definition are less amenable to DIY repairs and enhancements. For example, I've expanded the memory, replaced the keyboard, replaced the wi-fi board and upgraded the hard drive of my wife's 2008 MacBook Pro. I don't think I could have done any of that, except maybe the keyboard, in the latest crop of MacBooks. This makes me sad. I don't buy computers that have no expandability.
Apple always makes a profit on its devices. Apple's cheapest devices are always at a premium above the competition. Your argument about the costs being split across the line would only make sense if the lower end devices were being sold at near-loss. This is simply not true. If you hadn't noticed, Apple has made a huge amount of money in the last few years. Unfortunately from my perspective, a lot of this is due to end-user-stupidity and laziness rather than Apple's merits.
Assuming you are responding to my message (apologies if you are not), I am well aware of the historical apple memory price mark-up, but as many have pointed out, no one is holding a gun to your head. Apple has a marketing department, which has figured out a successful (as their P&L shows) pricing strategy, some of which can be easily explained: for example, the price of a phone contract with phone and data and all the bells and whistles is around $3K so an extra $100 is just not that big a deal for the consumer. For the macs, it is similar: yes, you can save $75, but you have to order it, wait to get it, install it, figure out what to do with the old DIMMs, worry that it might not work -- who needs the hassle? Apple has figure out that their target market does not. The word "gouging" seems to imply that someone is the victim, but the relationship is purely voluntary on both sides. And I really don't take it personally, to each his/her own. Oh, as for Apple "gluing everything closed" -- as long as things work for a couple of years, what does it matter? In three years you will have obsolete hardware, glued or not. Again, this is my perspective, I know you have your own...
I wasn't responding to you, but I will address a couple of points here:
Yes, no one is holding a gun to my head. That is why I haven't bought an Apple product in several years, and why I don't often recommend their products to my friends anymore. Apple has left me behind, and I don't really much like the company they are becoming.
Who needs the hassle? Excuse me, but $75 is a lot for some people. Maybe you've heard of this thing called "the great recession?" Apple is increasingly becoming the "brand of the 1%." I even heard the gold iPhone 5s was internally called the "Kardashian phone" at Apple. I don't own a small dog with a diamond encrusted collar, so, I'll pass.
This same point applies to your blasé attitude towards obsolescence. People on a budget want their stuff to last. Apple computers used to be really great in this regard. You could say "Sure, they cost more up front, but they last much longer than the competition." Now, not so much.
Why do you choose to attack me personally? It makes you seem a little defensive, which is weird, because I'm not in any way insulting you. I like Apple, and have bought their products for years, but there are places where their offerings fail me, and things they do that annoy me.
Storage is simply a bad way to differentiate products. It pushes Apple towards making their widgets completely closed. Closed widgets have shorter life-spans, and by definition are less amenable to DIY repairs and enhancements. For example, I've expanded the memory, replaced the keyboard, replaced the wi-fi board and upgraded the hard drive of my wife's 2008 MacBook Pro. I don't think I could have done any of that, except maybe the keyboard, in the latest crop of MacBooks. This makes me sad. I don't buy computers that have no expandability.
Apple always makes a profit on its devices. Apple's cheapest devices are always at a premium above the competition. Your argument about the costs being split across the line would only make sense if the lower end devices were being sold at near-loss. This is simply not true. If you hadn't noticed, Apple has made a huge amount of money in the last few years. Unfortunately from my perspective, a lot of this is due to end-user-stupidity and laziness rather than Apple's merits.
1) Where did I attack YOU personally?
2) If they fail you then buy from another company. Apple fails me every time I use a kitchen appliance but you don't see me bitching and moaning about how Apple doesn't care for the cullinarists.
3) You can say it's a bad way to differentiate products but they are clearly succeeding. If you have a better idea then you would have been better off by making an argument as how they could better maximize sales and profits by differentiating their products in other ways instead of making foolish comments about how it costs only $10 for 16GB of NAND because I say a non-name company try selling off a bunch of SD cards for an unknown reason.
4) Funny how these short-lifespan, closed widgets hold their value much better than those large, devices with removable batteries and snap-fit plastic cases. Perhaps you need to consider how design, construction, and materials play a role in longevity and desirability. You might also consider how many buyers of consumer products actually want to upgrade every single fucking component in their devices.
5) Your logic on their entry-level models being sold at near-loss is foolish. There simply isn't enough information to make such a determination without at least knowing what the spread is for a giving product segment. For example, if 99% of their new iPhones were 16GB and 1% comprised the 32B and 64GB models wouldn't you think the 16GB NAND chip as well as specific manufacture of the logic board that contains them to be less per unit than the others by virtue of economics of scale? And what about any window evaluation for a more reasonable spread of unit sales across models (which is why Apple prices how they do)? For example, why assume it would be near-loss as opposed to being a 5% difference? You need to run numbers before you can make such an assessment, but I'll tell you that there are many, many companies whose models is to sell at a loss and make it up on the back-end. Freemium app developers and pretty much anything Google does comes to mind (of course Google isn't really a true example because I'm referring to us, the product, as the customer).
6) So the end-user is stupid and lazy because they don't want to tinker with their tools. Do you also do all your own car repairs? Did you build your house? I'll never understand why people like you claim that people must be stupid or lazy to want a tool to work for them instead of them working for it. It's perfectly fine that you want a DIY smartphone but it's foolish to think that your wish should be everyone's wish and if they don't want it they are stupid and/or lazy.
2) If they fail you then buy from another company. Apple fails me every time I use a kitchen appliance but you don't see me bitching and moaning about how Apple doesn't care for the cullinarists.
3) You can say it's a bad way to differentiate products but they are clearly succeeding. If you have a better idea then you would have been better off by making an argument as how they could better maximize sales and profits by differentiating their products in other ways instead of making foolish comments about how it costs only $10 for 16GB of NAND because I say a non-name company try selling off a bunch of SD cards for an unknown reason.
4) Funny how these short-lifespan, closed widgets hold their value much better than those large, devices with removable batteries and snap-fit plastic cases. Perhaps you need to consider how design, construction, and materials play a role in longevity and desirability. You might also consider how many buyers of consumer products actually want to upgrade every single fucking component in their devices.
5) Your logic on their entry-level models being sold at near-loss is foolish. There simply isn't enough information to make such a determination without at least knowing what the spread is for a giving product segment. For example, if 99% of their new iPhones were 16GB and 1% comprised the 32B and 64GB models wouldn't you think the 16GB NAND chip as well as specific manufacture of the logic board that contains them to be less per unit than the others by virtue of economics of scale? And what about any window evaluation for a more reasonable spread of unit sales across models (which is why Apple prices how they do)? For example, why assume it would be near-loss as opposed to being a 5% difference? You need to run numbers before you can make such an assessment, but I'll tell you that there are many, many companies whose models is to sell at a loss and make it up on the back-end. Freemium app developers and pretty much anything Google does comes to mind (of course Google isn't really a true example because I'm referring to us, the product, as the customer).
6) So the end-user is stupid and lazy because they don't want to tinker with their tools. Do you also do all your own car repairs? Did you build your house? I'll never understand why people like you claim that people must be stupid or lazy to want a tool to work for them instead of them working for it. It's perfectly fine that you want a DIY smartphone but it's foolish to think that your wish should be everyone's wish and if they don't want it they are stupid and/or lazy.
You called me stupid in your last post, and foolish in this post, and you have resorted to swearing and using capital letters. Please be careful or you may get high blood pressure.
I have a right to post my comments as much as you do. I work in this industry, and I am not a casual bystander. Do you think the only people who have any reason to post here are those who fawningly praise everything that Apple does?
I am not interested in thinking about how Apple should maximize their profits. They are obviously doing very well at that. My criticisms of their strategy are about why I think what they are doing is less than ideal for me, and others with similar interests.
It is pretty clear that Apple makes huge profits on all of their models. I can infer this a couple of ways: first of all, Apple products are always more expensive when compared to similar products in their class. Secondly, Apple consistently is above the standard multipliers applied to the difference between the bill-of-materials and end-user price. There is an "Apple tax" that applies to all their products. Now, personally, I think OS X, at least up through Snow Leopard, is a great operating system, and I don't mind paying a premium in order to have a computer that runs it. However, when Apple wants to charge me 3 or 4 times the going rate for RAM, I cry fowl. It's insulting. It makes me feel like Apple has no respect for me. Apple, I'm willing to pay your tax, just don't treat me like a chump.
No, I don't do all my own car repairs, but I do fill my own wiper fluid. Apple seals the wiper fluid container shut, asks you to decide how much fluid you want when you buy the car, and charges you $100 a gallon.
You called me stupid in your last post, and foolish in this post
No, I didn't. I clearly stated what you were writing was stupid and foolish.
and you have resorted to swearing and using capital letters.
Yep! If you have a problem with swearing I suggest you get over it as it's an important part of language.
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
I have a right to post my comments as much as you do. I work in this industry, and I am not a casual bystander. Do you think the only people who have any reason to post here are those who fawningly praise everything that Apple does?
1) Who said you didn't have a right to post comments?
2) You think working in "this industry" — whatever the hell that means — gives you more right to comment more than one whom you don't think works in "this industry"?
3) Again, who said you don't have the right to post here? You're the one accusing me of making ad hominem attacks and using the words most taboo which suggests you don't want me to honestly answer your foolish comments.
4) I don't know of anyone on this site or elsewhere that ever praised everything Apple does. Somehow when I wrote "if a product doesn't suit your needs then don't buy it" you read "buy everything from Apple."
I am not interested in thinking about how Apple should maximize their profits. They are obviously doing very well at that. My criticisms of their strategy are about why I think what they are doing is less than ideal for me, and others with similar interests.
That's your problem. If you don't wish to understand how a "machine" works then you won't figure out why it does what it does. What was that you said about people being stupid and lazy?
It is pretty clear that Apple makes huge profits on all of their models. I can infer this a couple of ways: first of all, Apple products are always more expensive when compared to similar products in their class. Secondly, Apple consistently is above the standard multipliers applied to the difference between the bill-of-materials and end-user price. There is an "Apple tax" that applies to all their products. Now, personally, I think OS X, at least up through Snow Leopard, is a great operating system, and I don't mind paying a premium in order to have a computer that runs it. However, when Apple wants charge me 3 or 4 times the going rate for RAM, I cry fowl. It's insulting. It makes me feel like Apple has no respect for me. Apple, I'm willing to pay your tax, just don't treat me like a chump.
Not once did you mention Apple's sourcing of materials, their ability to spread design, component sourcing, engineering, etc. across multiple product lines, their economics of scale for a particular product, their long term investments, their resale value or customer loyalty et al. as reasons for the prices they charge and profits they make. You really aren't looking at this objectively. Not in the slightest. :no:
No, I don't do all my own car repairs, but I do fill my own wiper fluid. Apple seals the wiper fluid container shut, asks you to decide how much fluid you want when you buy the car, and charges you $100 a gallon.
If you're planning to buy a pro, buy it now. It's the best value when it comes out. Don't wait for 6 months when the prices of all components come down and Apple will still charge the same price for the same pro. Then wait for the next refresh instead.
Who said you didn't have a right to post comments?
You're "Cuisinart" comment basically boiled down to "If I don't like Apple I should just go away" Well no actually. I make my livelihood writing software for Apple operating systems, as I mentioned in a previous post.
That's your problem. If you don't wish to understand how a "machine" works then you won't figure out why it does what it does.
I understand things from Apple's perspective. Why would I want to voice their perspective? I am voicing my own perspective.
What was that you said about people being stupid and lazy?
Again with the personal attacks.
Not once did you mention Apple's sourcing of materials, their ability to spread design, component sourcing, engineering, etc. across multiple product lines, their economics of scale for a particular product, their long term investments, their resale value or customer loyalty et al. as reasons for the prices they charge and profits they make.
And other companies don't have these costs? Apple is special. Especially profitable. Otherwise, why would they build a doughnut spaceship that can't fly, or create a map of the entire Earth from scratch just because they have a petty feud with Google? Apple has more money than brains at this point. And they have a lot of brains.
Wow! You just buried the needle on the WTFometer.
Apple inhibits the ability for end users to service their devices, and charges ridiculous premiums for basic components that should be able to be installed by the end user. While RAM is not a "consumable," otherwise the analogy is completely valid. Apple would charge me for the electricity I use to power their machines if they could.
Comments
ECC RAM. Shut up.
No, just trying to get you to teach yourself something. Not gonna hold everyone’s hand.
Hey, look, it worked. You taught yourself something. I win.
"Shut up"? You must have a debating background. Yes, I have learned that I should block you. Thanks!
Next time don’t ask for an answer if you don’t want one. You refuse to do any work on your own, you ask idiotic questions and expect them to be answered, and you have no knowledge or stake in the argument in the first place. Yes, shut up.
Intel actually prices the 6-core Xeon and 6-core i7 the same. A 6-core i7-4930K is $583 and the Mac Pro's 6-core E5-1650v2 is $583:
http://ark.intel.com/products/77780
http://ark.intel.com/products/75780/
Using a 6-core i7 alone wouldn't be any cheaper. The price issue with the Mac Pro seems to come from Apple putting higher margins on it due to the target audience. They try to aim for as high gross margins as they can get away with.
If you take rough parts cost (not retail prices) of the 6-core Mac Pro:
E5-1650v2 = $583
12GB RAM = $200
256GB SSD = $200
dual D300 = $300
motherboard = $300
power supply = $200
chassis, box, software etc = $200
= $1983
with 40% gross margins, you end up with about $3305. Their price is $3499.
The quad-core i7 iMac:
i7-4771 = $314
8GB RAM (non-ECC) = $100
256GB SSD = $200
780M = $100
motherboard = $150
power supply = $100
display = $500
keyboard/mouse = $50
chassis, box, software etc = $200
= $1714
with 30% gross margins, you end up with $2448. Their price is $2549.
If Apple used cheaper parts and lower margins, they could build a cheaper headless Mac but there isn't a high volume of users at this price range anyway. The PC desktop crowd has an average selling price of $500. HP's workstations average around $1600. So all that happens with cheaper options is the people who would have spent $3000, end up spending $2500.
Apple's been at this game a long time, they know how to price things to maintain their premium audience. I think this is why so many Windows and Android users hate them. If Apple didn't make products worth the premium, they'd be ignored and they'd have to lower their prices. This isn't the case. They set out to do a good job and they want healthy margins in return. It's PC manufacturers that have it all wrong. They operate with under 5% net margins. Apple's net margins are around 25% so when you look at an Apple price tag, only 1/4 of it is what they get to keep after paying all the costs to put the product there. PC manufacturers keep 1/20 of it.
The way consumers react to pricing is a bit strange when you consider the relative values of things. If you run a business based on computer technology, you still generally have an expectation that a car should cost about 10x more than a laptop. However, the laptop is what you use to earn money to pay for the car and your home, food, utilities etc. So really, the laptop is far more valuable to you than everything else because it pays for everything else.
The prices get determined by the majority though. The majority doesn't place much value on computers because they are seen as appliances or consumption products. For technology companies to stay profitable, this has to create a divide between low-end machines and high-end. Server companies pay loads for equipment because their business depends on it. Intel can therefore charge loads for the tech because the target audience sustains the premium.
Thank you, that's very informative! A couple of comments:
Apple has has always had a 10% educational discount, which they had never verified credentials for. (they used to have a deeper developer discount, but that seems to have gone away forever). I assume (though I have never checked) that for multi-unit corporate orders they have a similar discount. So, the point is that their real margins are actually a little under the 40%/30% you suggest.
Secondly, defining the apple target audience is a little subtle (which is why the Apple marketing department is well-paid, I suppose), since even when they sell to corporations they sell directly to the end users (so, they have zero presence in the server farm market). Certainly, for me paying an extra $2K to have no muss and no fuss and the machine working right out of the box is well worth it, but if I ran a company with an IT department, that department would be paid for dealing with the muss and fuss. So, I am guessing the apple (Mac, not iDevice) market tends to be smaller shops.
As for the low prices of computers vs cars, I have wondered about this, and I suppose that the fact that a car COULD literally blow up killing everyone inside makes the ones that do not worth more. Put it differently, computers are essential for most of our livelihoods, but they do not directly protect or endanger life.
`
1) If you knew more about the Mac Pro you wouldn't be saying that.
2) Why is an SSD unnecessary when drive performance has been the weakest link in the chain for a decades?
3) The results still favor the Mac Pro at any configuration because of the CPU and GPUs involved, which doesn't even take into consideration the innumerable aspects that can't easily be quantified.
>1) If you knew more about the Mac Pro you wouldn't be saying that.
Care to fill me in? Look, what I want is a "big brother" to the Mac Mini. For under $2000. The Mac Pro is ridiculously expensive. OK, great, so if you price out the individual components of the most expensive configuration Apple is delivering some value, but on the other hand Apple has been ripping us off on storage for years. And this is really no different. They've made an impressive machine that has components that most users don't need or want. Why can't I configure a Mac Pro with only one GPU? Why can't I pick a less expensive video card if that's not really what I need? Lame.
1) Again, actually read up on the Mac Pro before you comment. Here's a hint: OpenCL.
2) It's perfectly acceptable for a product not to suit your specific needs (pretty much nothing man made in this world ever will). It's also perfectly reasonable to wish a product was made or priced a different way to suit your needs better. What isn't reasonable to think your desire is proof that a company is doing it wrong and take it a personal attack for them not knocking on your door and asking you create the next Homer Car.
3) I have been ripped off by very few vendors in my life and never once was it Apple. I have always bought products from Apple with a complete awareness of what I was buying and never once have they ripped me off by selling a product that wasn't as advertised or not abiding by the warranty agreement if something did happen to break. If you didn't like how much storage you got from an Apple product at a particular price point (which is pretty stupid considering it doesn't take anything else into consideration) then you had the choice to not buy their products. It's that simple!
4) You keep asking these foolish questions as to why Apple doesn't let you choose from different components and lower price points that suit your needs but you don't seem to realize it's NOT YOUR FUCKING PRODUCT. If it doesn't suit your needs then don't buy it. Apple doesn't try to cater to everyone which is especially true for the professional market the Mac Pro is designed for.
>1) If you knew more about the Mac Pro you wouldn't be saying that.
Care to fill me in? Look, what I want is a "big brother" to the Mac Mini. For under $2000. The Mac Pro is ridiculously expensive. OK, great, so if you price out the individual components of the most expensive configuration Apple is delivering some value, but on the other hand Apple has been ripping us off on storage for years. And this is really no different. They've made an impressive machine that has components that most users don't need or want. Why can't I configure a Mac Pro with only one GPU? Why can't I pick a less expensive video card if that's not really what I need? Lame.
Actually, in this case, you can get your RAM from OWC (they even give you money back for the stick you send in), and, as discussed above, the SSD is at or below market price (you need to get the 1TB version for "below"). Your argument about "why can't you configure..." is like saying: Why can't I configure a Mercedes S class with a four-cylinder 100bhp engine? That's all I need!
Calm down. I'm not personally attacking you, and Apple isn't a person, so I can't personally attack them. On the other hand, I am a software engineer, and have been writing applications for Apple computers for over 20 years, and as such I can tell you the actual utility of OpenCL is limited. Not all algorithms are suitable for OpenCL, and at best a application needs to be reworked in order to take advantage of it. So, for most people one of those GPUs is going to sit there doing nothing. Waste of money.
If you walked into a car dealership, and they said, you could either buy a cheap underpowered two-door coupe, or a very expensive sports car, but that's all they had to offer, it might make you scratch your head. Looking at Apple's lineup, just in terms of desktop Macs without built-in screens, there's a huge gap in the middle of the price range. My point is, if you need a little more than a Mac mini, your next stop is the Mac Pro, and for many users that is going to be giving them stuff they don't need.
Apple systematically and eternally shafts their customers on the price of storage. This is obvious and well known. For example the difference between an iPhone 5s 16 GB and 32 GB is $100. Apple charges users $100 for 16 GB of flash storage. You can buy a 16 GB SD card for $10. $90 is Apple's 'up yours' charge. This is true no matter what Apple product you price out. Another example, buy a Mac Mini and upgrade it from 4GB of memory to 8GB of memory. Apple will charge you $100. You can buy 4GB of RAM for $25. Apple's 'up yours' charge is $75. Absolutely disgusting price gouging. It's always much cheaper to buy an Apple product, throw away whatever storage it came with, buy new storage and install it yourself. This is why Apple is now gluing everything closed so you can't spoil their party.
Calm down. I'm not personally attacking you, and Apple isn't a person, so I can't personally attack them. On the other hand, I am a software engineer, and have been writing applications for Apple computers for over 20 years, and as such I can tell you the actual utility of OpenCL is limited. Not all algorithms are suitable for OpenCL, and at best a application needs to be reworked in order to take advantage of it. So, for most people one of those GPUs is going to sit there doing nothing. Waste of money.
If you walked into a car dealership, and they said, you could either buy a cheap underpowered two-door coupe, or a very expensive sports car, but that's all they had to offer, it might make you scratch your head. Looking at Apple's lineup, just in terms of desktop Macs without built-in screens, there's a huge gap in the middle of the price range. My point is, if you need a little more than a Mac mini, your next stop is the Mac Pro, and for many users that is going to be giving them stuff they don't need.
Apple systematically and eternally shafts their customers on the price of storage. This is obvious and well known. For example the difference between an iPhone 5s 16 GB and 32 GB is $100. Apple charges users $100 for 16 GB of flash storage. You can buy a 16 GB SD card for $10. $90 is Apple's 'up yours' charge. This is true no matter what Apple product you price out. Another example, buy a Mac Mini and upgrade it from 4GB of memory to 8GB of memory. Apple will charge you $100. You can buy 4GB of RAM for $25. Apple's 'up yours' charge is $75. Absolutely disgusting price gouging. It's always much cheaper to buy an Apple product, throw away whatever storage it came with, buy new storage and install it yourself. This is why Apple is now gluing everything closed so you can't spoil their party.
Assuming you are responding to my message (apologies if you are not), I am well aware of the historical apple memory price mark-up, but as many have pointed out, no one is holding a gun to your head. Apple has a marketing department, which has figured out a successful (as their P&L shows) pricing strategy, some of which can be easily explained: for example, the price of a phone contract with phone and data and all the bells and whistles is around $3K so an extra $100 is just not that big a deal for the consumer. For the macs, it is similar: yes, you can save $75, but you have to order it, wait to get it, install it, figure out what to do with the old DIMMs, worry that it might not work -- who needs the hassle? Apple has figure out that their target market does not. The word "gouging" seems to imply that someone is the victim, but the relationship is purely voluntary on both sides. And I really don't take it personally, to each his/her own. Oh, as for Apple "gluing everything closed" -- as long as things work for a couple of years, what does it matter? In three years you will have obsolete hardware, glued or not. Again, this is my perspective, I know you have your own...
When you pick the cheapest possible RAM or NAND you make yourself look stupid.
You haven't once considered what why there are bargain prices on certain components from certain vendors from time to time. You haven't considered either the technical or economic aspects of why they would charge you a price they can't profit from.
You also haven't considered how Apple could change $10 for doubling NAND in an iDevice and expect to make the same profit margin as do now because you're coming it from the standpoint of the lowest capacity device being what Apple wants to make and everything else being gravy, when the reality is it's split up and balanced across the entire product line to find the ideal price points.
Your example: Apple charges only $10 more for each doubling of the iPad. With a $499 starting price you then have the 32GB for $509, 64GB for $519, and 128GB for $529. So for $30 more you can get 108GB more. So how many of the other capacities are they going to sell? Not many except to really ignorant buyers and/or when they run out of 128GB NAND chips. The latter being the more likely because Apple is selling the full product well below what it's worth -and- because they are now pricing their devices so close together.
Let's remember is still the largest buyer of NAND and they run into supply issues constantly yet you want them to ignore all that and instead lose profit because they aren't exactly having trouble selling all the iPads they can make.
A more realistic, but still silly, example: Apple charges only $10 more for each doubling of the iPad but this time wants to maintain their profit margin for the product segment so they price the $10 difference from the top end to make it work.. The 128GB is $799, with the 64GB, 32GB, and 32GB being $789, $779, and $779 respectively. Now you have same situation as before where people will spend $30 more to get an additional 108GB but you now have significantly fewer buyers due to the high entry price. So now Apple doesn't need as many NAND chips and will surely lose control of the market as well as have reduced margins simply because economics of scale are now most defunct.
So why again would you want this? Oh, that's right, Apple charging you for more capacity means that people who don't need as much as capacity are getting a better deal on their iPad which upsets you.
When you pick the cheapest possible RAM or NAND you make yourself look stupid.
You haven't once considered what why there are bargain prices on certain components from certain vendors from time to time. You haven't considered either the technical or economic aspects of why they would charge you a price they can't profit from.
You also haven't considered how Apple could change $10 for doubling NAND in an iDevice and expect to make the same profit margin as do now because you're coming it from the standpoint of the lowest capacity device being what Apple wants to make and everything else being gravy, when the reality is it's split up and balanced across the entire product line to find the ideal price points.
Your example: Apple charges only $10 more for each doubling of the iPad. With a $499 starting price you then have the 32GB for $509, 64GB for $519, and 128GB for $529. So for $30 more you can get 108GB more. So how many of the other capacities are they going to sell? Not many except to really ignorant buyers and/or when they run out of 128GB NAND chips. The latter being the more likely because Apple is selling the full product well below what it's worth -and- because they are now pricing their devices so close together.
Let's remember is still the largest buyer of NAND and they run into supply issues constantly yet you want them to ignore all that and instead lose profit because they aren't exactly having trouble selling all the iPads they can make.
A more realistic, but still silly, example: Apple charges only $10 more for each doubling of the iPad but this time wants to maintain their profit margin for the product segment so they price the $10 difference from the top end to make it work.. The 128GB is $799, with the 64GB, 32GB, and 32GB being $789, $779, and $779 respectively. Now you have same situation as before where people will spend $30 more to get an additional 108GB but you now have significantly fewer buyers due to the high entry price. So now Apple doesn't need as many NAND chips and will surely lose control of the market as well as have reduced margins simply because economics of scale are now most defunct.
So why again would you want this? Oh, that's right, Apple charging you for more capacity means that people who don't need as much as capacity are getting a better deal on their iPad which upsets you.
Why do you choose to attack me personally? It makes you seem a little defensive, which is weird, because I'm not in any way insulting you. I like Apple, and have bought their products for years, but there are places where their offerings fail me, and things they do that annoy me.
Storage is simply a bad way to differentiate products. It pushes Apple towards making their widgets completely closed. Closed widgets have shorter life-spans, and by definition are less amenable to DIY repairs and enhancements. For example, I've expanded the memory, replaced the keyboard, replaced the wi-fi board and upgraded the hard drive of my wife's 2008 MacBook Pro. I don't think I could have done any of that, except maybe the keyboard, in the latest crop of MacBooks. This makes me sad. I don't buy computers that have no expandability.
Apple always makes a profit on its devices. Apple's cheapest devices are always at a premium above the competition. Your argument about the costs being split across the line would only make sense if the lower end devices were being sold at near-loss. This is simply not true. If you hadn't noticed, Apple has made a huge amount of money in the last few years. Unfortunately from my perspective, a lot of this is due to end-user-stupidity and laziness rather than Apple's merits.
Assuming you are responding to my message (apologies if you are not), I am well aware of the historical apple memory price mark-up, but as many have pointed out, no one is holding a gun to your head. Apple has a marketing department, which has figured out a successful (as their P&L shows) pricing strategy, some of which can be easily explained: for example, the price of a phone contract with phone and data and all the bells and whistles is around $3K so an extra $100 is just not that big a deal for the consumer. For the macs, it is similar: yes, you can save $75, but you have to order it, wait to get it, install it, figure out what to do with the old DIMMs, worry that it might not work -- who needs the hassle? Apple has figure out that their target market does not. The word "gouging" seems to imply that someone is the victim, but the relationship is purely voluntary on both sides. And I really don't take it personally, to each his/her own. Oh, as for Apple "gluing everything closed" -- as long as things work for a couple of years, what does it matter? In three years you will have obsolete hardware, glued or not. Again, this is my perspective, I know you have your own...
I wasn't responding to you, but I will address a couple of points here:
Yes, no one is holding a gun to my head. That is why I haven't bought an Apple product in several years, and why I don't often recommend their products to my friends anymore. Apple has left me behind, and I don't really much like the company they are becoming.
Who needs the hassle? Excuse me, but $75 is a lot for some people. Maybe you've heard of this thing called "the great recession?" Apple is increasingly becoming the "brand of the 1%." I even heard the gold iPhone 5s was internally called the "Kardashian phone" at Apple. I don't own a small dog with a diamond encrusted collar, so, I'll pass.
This same point applies to your blasé attitude towards obsolescence. People on a budget want their stuff to last. Apple computers used to be really great in this regard. You could say "Sure, they cost more up front, but they last much longer than the competition." Now, not so much.
1) Where did I attack YOU personally?
2) If they fail you then buy from another company. Apple fails me every time I use a kitchen appliance but you don't see me bitching and moaning about how Apple doesn't care for the cullinarists.
3) You can say it's a bad way to differentiate products but they are clearly succeeding. If you have a better idea then you would have been better off by making an argument as how they could better maximize sales and profits by differentiating their products in other ways instead of making foolish comments about how it costs only $10 for 16GB of NAND because I say a non-name company try selling off a bunch of SD cards for an unknown reason.
4) Funny how these short-lifespan, closed widgets hold their value much better than those large, devices with removable batteries and snap-fit plastic cases. Perhaps you need to consider how design, construction, and materials play a role in longevity and desirability. You might also consider how many buyers of consumer products actually want to upgrade every single fucking component in their devices.
5) Your logic on their entry-level models being sold at near-loss is foolish. There simply isn't enough information to make such a determination without at least knowing what the spread is for a giving product segment. For example, if 99% of their new iPhones were 16GB and 1% comprised the 32B and 64GB models wouldn't you think the 16GB NAND chip as well as specific manufacture of the logic board that contains them to be less per unit than the others by virtue of economics of scale? And what about any window evaluation for a more reasonable spread of unit sales across models (which is why Apple prices how they do)? For example, why assume it would be near-loss as opposed to being a 5% difference? You need to run numbers before you can make such an assessment, but I'll tell you that there are many, many companies whose models is to sell at a loss and make it up on the back-end. Freemium app developers and pretty much anything Google does comes to mind (of course Google isn't really a true example because I'm referring to us, the product, as the customer).
6) So the end-user is stupid and lazy because they don't want to tinker with their tools. Do you also do all your own car repairs? Did you build your house? I'll never understand why people like you claim that people must be stupid or lazy to want a tool to work for them instead of them working for it. It's perfectly fine that you want a DIY smartphone but it's foolish to think that your wish should be everyone's wish and if they don't want it they are stupid and/or lazy.
$1 is a lot for some people. What's your point?
1) Where did I attack YOU personally?
2) If they fail you then buy from another company. Apple fails me every time I use a kitchen appliance but you don't see me bitching and moaning about how Apple doesn't care for the cullinarists.
3) You can say it's a bad way to differentiate products but they are clearly succeeding. If you have a better idea then you would have been better off by making an argument as how they could better maximize sales and profits by differentiating their products in other ways instead of making foolish comments about how it costs only $10 for 16GB of NAND because I say a non-name company try selling off a bunch of SD cards for an unknown reason.
4) Funny how these short-lifespan, closed widgets hold their value much better than those large, devices with removable batteries and snap-fit plastic cases. Perhaps you need to consider how design, construction, and materials play a role in longevity and desirability. You might also consider how many buyers of consumer products actually want to upgrade every single fucking component in their devices.
5) Your logic on their entry-level models being sold at near-loss is foolish. There simply isn't enough information to make such a determination without at least knowing what the spread is for a giving product segment. For example, if 99% of their new iPhones were 16GB and 1% comprised the 32B and 64GB models wouldn't you think the 16GB NAND chip as well as specific manufacture of the logic board that contains them to be less per unit than the others by virtue of economics of scale? And what about any window evaluation for a more reasonable spread of unit sales across models (which is why Apple prices how they do)? For example, why assume it would be near-loss as opposed to being a 5% difference? You need to run numbers before you can make such an assessment, but I'll tell you that there are many, many companies whose models is to sell at a loss and make it up on the back-end. Freemium app developers and pretty much anything Google does comes to mind (of course Google isn't really a true example because I'm referring to us, the product, as the customer).
6) So the end-user is stupid and lazy because they don't want to tinker with their tools. Do you also do all your own car repairs? Did you build your house? I'll never understand why people like you claim that people must be stupid or lazy to want a tool to work for them instead of them working for it. It's perfectly fine that you want a DIY smartphone but it's foolish to think that your wish should be everyone's wish and if they don't want it they are stupid and/or lazy.
You called me stupid in your last post, and foolish in this post, and you have resorted to swearing and using capital letters. Please be careful or you may get high blood pressure.
I have a right to post my comments as much as you do. I work in this industry, and I am not a casual bystander. Do you think the only people who have any reason to post here are those who fawningly praise everything that Apple does?
I am not interested in thinking about how Apple should maximize their profits. They are obviously doing very well at that. My criticisms of their strategy are about why I think what they are doing is less than ideal for me, and others with similar interests.
It is pretty clear that Apple makes huge profits on all of their models. I can infer this a couple of ways: first of all, Apple products are always more expensive when compared to similar products in their class. Secondly, Apple consistently is above the standard multipliers applied to the difference between the bill-of-materials and end-user price. There is an "Apple tax" that applies to all their products. Now, personally, I think OS X, at least up through Snow Leopard, is a great operating system, and I don't mind paying a premium in order to have a computer that runs it. However, when Apple wants to charge me 3 or 4 times the going rate for RAM, I cry fowl. It's insulting. It makes me feel like Apple has no respect for me. Apple, I'm willing to pay your tax, just don't treat me like a chump.
No, I don't do all my own car repairs, but I do fill my own wiper fluid. Apple seals the wiper fluid container shut, asks you to decide how much fluid you want when you buy the car, and charges you $100 a gallon.
No, I didn't. I clearly stated what you were writing was stupid and foolish.
Yep! If you have a problem with swearing I suggest you get over it as it's an important part of language.
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
1) Who said you didn't have a right to post comments?
2) You think working in "this industry" — whatever the hell that means — gives you more right to comment more than one whom you don't think works in "this industry"?
3) Again, who said you don't have the right to post here? You're the one accusing me of making ad hominem attacks and using the words most taboo which suggests you don't want me to honestly answer your foolish comments.
4) I don't know of anyone on this site or elsewhere that ever praised everything Apple does. Somehow when I wrote "if a product doesn't suit your needs then don't buy it" you read "buy everything from Apple."
That's your problem. If you don't wish to understand how a "machine" works then you won't figure out why it does what it does. What was that you said about people being stupid and lazy?
Not once did you mention Apple's sourcing of materials, their ability to spread design, component sourcing, engineering, etc. across multiple product lines, their economics of scale for a particular product, their long term investments, their resale value or customer loyalty et al. as reasons for the prices they charge and profits they make. You really aren't looking at this objectively. Not in the slightest. :no:
Wow! You just buried the needle on the WTFometer.
If you're planning to buy a pro, buy it now. It's the best value when it comes out. Don't wait for 6 months when the prices of all components come down and Apple will still charge the same price for the same pro. Then wait for the next refresh instead.
Oh, Xeon chips…
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
You’re totally right otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Who said you didn't have a right to post comments?
You're "Cuisinart" comment basically boiled down to "If I don't like Apple I should just go away" Well no actually. I make my livelihood writing software for Apple operating systems, as I mentioned in a previous post.
That's your problem. If you don't wish to understand how a "machine" works then you won't figure out why it does what it does.
I understand things from Apple's perspective. Why would I want to voice their perspective? I am voicing my own perspective.
Again with the personal attacks.
Not once did you mention Apple's sourcing of materials, their ability to spread design, component sourcing, engineering, etc. across multiple product lines, their economics of scale for a particular product, their long term investments, their resale value or customer loyalty et al. as reasons for the prices they charge and profits they make.
And other companies don't have these costs? Apple is special. Especially profitable. Otherwise, why would they build a doughnut spaceship that can't fly, or create a map of the entire Earth from scratch just because they have a petty feud with Google? Apple has more money than brains at this point. And they have a lot of brains.
Apple inhibits the ability for end users to service their devices, and charges ridiculous premiums for basic components that should be able to be installed by the end user. While RAM is not a "consumable," otherwise the analogy is completely valid. Apple would charge me for the electricity I use to power their machines if they could.