Yeah, that's a good point - it would have been better to improve the plastic MacBook at the same time as introducing the newer ones (just two months ago). I didn't think of that part of it.
It was improved. Superdrive included for $300 less than before (with a minor speed reduction). All in all, it was a nice uptick in October and an even better one now.
im just sayin that it should have all been introdced at once
Care to explain why it should? What about the 17" MBP or the rest of the Mac line? Either Apple has has to release uncompleted HW revisions or hold back updates of other models to be sold while they wait for other products to finish. Neither of those sound like a smart business move. To expect that all products can magically be made in an instant or that all products are developed at the exact same rate makes no sense to me, but I'm willing to hear you out.
Well, others have already given examples but as you asked I'll add to those. There was a time that Apple shipped an iMac to the US market with double the VRAM of the exact same model in Europe. The Yikes machine was basically a G3 class Mac with a G4 in it. However, they dressed the thing up to look very much like a real Sawtooth. Prices in Europe were considerably higher than prices in the US for an unbelievably long time with no real justification. It wasn't until the dollar crashed that Apple put things more or less into order.
As you can see, it's better to thoroughly check through the specs and compare before buying any version of any Apple product.
Apple marketed the Performa 6xx line as running at 66Mhz. In truth the processor only ran at 66Mhz internally. It communcated with the rest of the system at 33Mhz.
Apple marketed PowerPC hardware for its faster performance for many years while enormous chunks of the OS were not native PPC. Apple marketed the 68K emulator as the solution to backwards compatibility on PPC but in the fine print revealed that the FPU wasn't emulated. Apple has established RAM specs on several occasions only NOT to enforce them from the outset. People bought macs, added memory that worked and then saw that memory stop working when Apple decided to finally enforce the specs more strictly through new (required) firmware updates. I can't think of a single valid reason as to why they didn't enforce RAM specs from the outset.
Obviously no one is suggesting that Phil Schiller and Johnny Ive are going to corner you, put a gun to your head and force you to buy a Macbook Pro.
But the simple fact remains that if you want certain basic features on a computer that runs OS X legally, you have to buy a grossly overbuilt system that may not fit your needs for a variety of reasons. One should not have to choose between expansion or portability. The only logical reason for excluding basic features is to force you to upgrade to machines with bigger margins if you really want them.
Obviously no one is suggesting that Phil Schiller and Johnny Ive are going to corner you, put a gun to your head and force you to buy a Macbook Pro.
But the simple fact remains that if you want certain basic features on a computer that runs OS X legally, you have to buy a grossly overbuilt system that may not fit your needs for a variety of reasons. One should not have to choose between expansion or portability. The only logical reason for excluding basic features is to force you to upgrade to machines with bigger margins if you really want them.
You can qualify anything to make such a point. Apple has a business plan and sells certain types of machines. To state that you are being forced to buy something that you don't want or to complain that they are grossly overbuilt is just silly.
And yes, one should have to choose between expandability and portability as these things are antitheses of each other in the physical world. A notebook will not be as powerful or as expandable as any tower. Just as no tower with tonnes of expandabilty will be very portable. Apple chosen a market direction long ago, they have stuck with that, that is it: either their products fit your needs better than other products or they don't.
PS: You don't have the infinite options among other OEMs that you mentioned earlier.
I'm not talking about a tower. I'm talking about no Apple notebooks but the Macbook Pros having an expresscard slot. It's been that way since the iBook came out. Sure, they are rarely used, but I'd like to have the option without having to carry a 15" notebook around.
Then go buy something that better suits your needs. Apple can't be everything to everyone...
I the "stupid conclusion" that was meant, was that this configuration was intentionally crippled by Apple.
Why do people always have to immediately assume Apple is "up to no good" when they have never shown any such indications throughout the entire life of the company? As far as corporations go, Apple is one of the most responsible and the most customer focussed, they have ridiculously high levels of customer service, excellent reviews by those same customers and are pretty good to their employees overall. I just don't understand why so many people's first reactions to something Apple has done is to assume some nefarious plot is in the works.
Yes, because always having a combo drive in the lowest end macbook must of actually been to keep the price down, and not intentionally crippling the machine .
I don't buy the premise that "business is business" or some such and not morally or ethically concerned. If you are in the business of making consumer products and actively trying to screw the consumers for the single reason of more cash, then (IMO) you are "up to no good" and not being very smart business-wise to boot. In other words I don't believe that the presence of capitalism makes moral or ethical behaviour irrelevant.
I don't buy the premise either, and I never said Apple was trying to "screw consumers." The satisfaction levels at and after buying with hardware, software and support - number one year after year in Consumer Reports, for example, don't paint a pic of people "feeling screwed."
Beyond that, they're making lots of efforts to create greener products. And their products have done much to empower the less technically adept among us. And they're simply the most interesting company in the world to follow with their history of innovation, design excellence, entertaining marketing, and even for some interesting failures and simply for being the best soap opera story in the last 50 years of the business world.
That's the very picture of an "ethical/moral" company: delivering most of what it promises (A, Inc products are excellent but not "perfect") at the price it advertises.
Quote:
I also have to disagree strongly that "Apple (does) it more than most hardware manufacturers." I've never seen any evidence of that, and have to assume this slight is in your own head, as opposed to anything objectively real.
Ever compared customization options between say on the one side Dell and HP and on the other Apple?
There is no comparison. You can - if you're willing to put up with Windows computing and its fragmented, multi-company infrastructure and outsourced support - fine tune your PC options to a very granular degree.
With Apple's new aluminum notebooks a FireWire port is now going to cost you hundreds of dollars by being bundled with a bigger, heavier machine with other options you may not need.
And only "pros" can buy a 15 "cher and pros can't buy a 13" computer. Etc., etc.
Can anyone who's not on drugs really dispute this?
The real question implied here is not about whether Apple sells "packs" as they absolutely, manifestly do, but rather about "business morality" and "morality/ethics" in general. And it's an irrelevant, oversimplified and overly pious argument.
Apple practices "line differentiation" as a strategy to compete against the WinTel "megagopoly" computer infrastructure as its management long ago decided it couldn't compete by trying to be all computer things to all computer-using people.
It's a practical, not a moral issue with many variables involved for a company that's been traditionally defined as a "niche" company, a "boutique" company, a "cutting edge design and function" company and a "premium product" company.
From a marketing point of view Apple creates coherent, easy to understand lines of products with memorable names. Go to most computer, music player or cell sites and you're bombarded with a huge number of numbingly numbered products whose specs and prices change sometimes daily -- sometimes (on price) hourly for that matter.
Go to the Apple store and you'll have the whole lay of the land in minutes, and in between new line announcements, it'll be almost the same line at the same price the next day, week and month, though some components are quietly updated, for several months.
From a manufacturing point of view, stability and a limited number of configs make it easier to focus on build quality, durability and more. Inventory and channel control benefit in a similar fashion. And fair trade pricing doesn't establish an expectation of wild fluctuation where customers wait for a sale or special rebate (except during back to school season and around Black Friday).
From a software design and maintenance point of view, the fewer number of processors, graphics chips, mobos, drives, screens, etc. that need to work optimally with the OS make it much easier to keep control of code.
From an R&D point of view Apple is more able to take a long term tack, as putting more effort into creating lines that will have a longer shelf life allows more of a focus on quality and design than constantly changing between the latest "good enough for now" options thrashed through by the WinTel manufacturers.
From a support point of view, too, it's vastly easier for Apple to understand the hugely smaller number of variables that can go wrong with its stable, limited number of parts.
And from a gross margins point of view, these are much easier to maintain with more standardized manufacturing, less frequent retooling of manufacturing line and a much smaller parts bin. And to be the David among Goliaths Apple has been (though less so now!), to produce the best hardware and best software with a much smaller unit volume than MS and friends, that development and marketing capital has been an absolute necessity.
So. Apple benefits from line differentiation in that it's enabled it to maintain the high levels of fit, finish, design, ease of use and functionality that have kept it profitable and relevant. And that means Apple customers, at least those for whom its products do meet their needs, benefit as well.
Nothing to do with good v. evil in the real economic world.
That it also means I'm stuck with useless FW drives and other peripherals is a side effect. My argument with Apple's "packs" is that I would've made different ones, e.g., a 13 and 15" MacBook and a 13 and 15" MacBook Pro, e.g.
Quote:
The business of a business, is not just to make money, it's to do the work or provide the service or product that it's in business for. Originally, most businesses had creeds or mandates attached to them by the founders expressly for the purpose of making sure that all the workers *knew* what they were in business for.
People who think business is "just about the money" are missing a very basic point, (and a great deal of life in general), and are doomed (eventually) to a life of waste, corruption and loneliness IMO.
So it's definitely not "just about the money" - but if anyone wants to tell you that making a profit is not the first necessity of any company, I have some shares of Stanley Steamer, Studebaker and Circuit City available. Cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1
I agree with much of what you wrote. The desire to make money doing something is not a differentiator. Anyone can want to make money. It's having a vision to do something better and a passion to carry it out is what makes one better than a competitor. Without doubt you want to make money doing it, too.
See above. You HAVE to want to make money "doing it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
Thanks. On reflection I might have got a bit high-handed in some of my remarks, but the basic point is that if business were just about money and ethics be damned, then every business person should be a crack dealer.
We all have ethical lines we don't cross, it's just a matter of where they are. In the case of the car dealer example, the dealer is okay with screwing people over on price and features, but probably wouldn't actually sell them a defective car (whereas others would).
For anyone who wants a model of how capitalism can function ethically in the modern world, I recommend researching former Brit PM Tony Blair's ideas on "stakeholder capitalism."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Packages tend to reduce production and distribution complexity.
As noted above, indeed they do, as well as the other intertwined benefits I mentioned.
Just remember that A, Inc. is first and foremost a business that provides a useful public function in a transparent way, not a useful public function that happens to be provided by a business.
I think the real question we should be asking is what this means for the forthcoming Mac Mini revision.
This macbook now as a decent gpu, 2g standard memory, and a 2 Ghz processor at a price of $1000
Compare that with the current Mac mini, which has a similar/same processor, only 1 G, and a much crappier gpu.
Basically, this macbook looks a lot like what the Mac Mini revision will probably be (although let's hope they go for a larger HD and faster memory). However, it only $200 dollars more than the current Mac mini. If I'm not mistaken, the macbook screen costs in the neighborhood of $150-200 to produce, which makes the $800 price point sound about right.
Absolutely.
The new Macbook now has a 1066 mHz bus and DDR3 RAM, leaving only the Mini with 667 mHz and DDR2. I've been looking at Mini's on eBay with upgraded RAM and HD, but they're still using the old bus.
I'd feel utterly gutted if, after waiting so long, the Mini went to Ion with is 533 mHz bus. That thing better go to 1066 and it better do it now.
This MacBook update was so logical, even though unexpected. I hope Apple does the logical thing with the Mac mini too and gives it the same specs. If not, I'll probably just buy one of the MacBooks in a couple of months. Its screen and keyboard will hardly be used though. I'd just as soon not pay for them.
Someone hasn't read the article or any of this thread.
The update to the white MacBook has delivered a 1066 FSB but the RAM is still DDR2-667.
Ugh, I was looking at Apple's website.
I had read the article and the first page, but it seemed so silly that it would still have DDR2 that I didn't remember, and checked Apple's website to verify. When you go to tech specs for the Macbook, it just bundles them all together.
They're probably waiting 18 months to do the same bullshit to the Mini. Sometimes I really fucking hate Apple.
I had read the article and the first page, but it seemed so silly that it would still have DDR2 that I didn't remember, and checked Apple's website to verify. When you go to tech specs for the Macbook, it just bundles them all together.
They're probably waiting 18 months to do the same bullshit to the Mini. Sometimes I really fucking hate Apple.
As I recall, DDR3 has less bang per clock than DDR2. The included DDR2 memory should still be more than fast enough to keep up with the processor. The bandwidth of a dual channel DDR2 667MHz memory system still exceeds that of the chip's FSB.
I think this is a good sign that Apple sees it needs to be more competitive with it's low-end models.
Hopefully we will see a well specd Mac mini for $499 or $599.
Nowhere in our economy is a higher quality product sold for the same amount or less than a lesser one. Where did this idea come from? Is our educational system this weak?
Computing power is available to everyone at every price point just as autos, furniture, houses, clothes and you name it. Equal PC to equal Mac with user's desired performance, similar price. Please, don't rant on the hardware .. that's a small part.
There seems to be a theory that we are entitled to what ever we want at what we want to pay.
Really???
The first Mac we purchased was March 1984, the 128: Cost $4,000. The first PC in August 1984, IBM 286 (6 Mhtz. upgraded to 25 a couple of months later): Cost $3,000. (no monitor or software)
Honda Civic doesn't cost the same as a Mercedes but does the same job.
A lot of really good posts, as always; but, the 'whines' about cost is not among them:
Comments
Yeah, that's a good point - it would have been better to improve the plastic MacBook at the same time as introducing the newer ones (just two months ago). I didn't think of that part of it.
It was improved. Superdrive included for $300 less than before (with a minor speed reduction). All in all, it was a nice uptick in October and an even better one now.
im just sayin that it should have all been introdced at once
Care to explain why it should? What about the 17" MBP or the rest of the Mac line? Either Apple has has to release uncompleted HW revisions or hold back updates of other models to be sold while they wait for other products to finish. Neither of those sound like a smart business move. To expect that all products can magically be made in an instant or that all products are developed at the exact same rate makes no sense to me, but I'm willing to hear you out.
...I'm just showing how they force people to pay for features they may not want...
They don't force you to buy anything.
Care to go into details????
Well, others have already given examples but as you asked I'll add to those. There was a time that Apple shipped an iMac to the US market with double the VRAM of the exact same model in Europe. The Yikes machine was basically a G3 class Mac with a G4 in it. However, they dressed the thing up to look very much like a real Sawtooth. Prices in Europe were considerably higher than prices in the US for an unbelievably long time with no real justification. It wasn't until the dollar crashed that Apple put things more or less into order.
As you can see, it's better to thoroughly check through the specs and compare before buying any version of any Apple product.
Apple marketed PowerPC hardware for its faster performance for many years while enormous chunks of the OS were not native PPC. Apple marketed the 68K emulator as the solution to backwards compatibility on PPC but in the fine print revealed that the FPU wasn't emulated. Apple has established RAM specs on several occasions only NOT to enforce them from the outset. People bought macs, added memory that worked and then saw that memory stop working when Apple decided to finally enforce the specs more strictly through new (required) firmware updates. I can't think of a single valid reason as to why they didn't enforce RAM specs from the outset.
They don't force you to buy anything.
Obviously no one is suggesting that Phil Schiller and Johnny Ive are going to corner you, put a gun to your head and force you to buy a Macbook Pro.
But the simple fact remains that if you want certain basic features on a computer that runs OS X legally, you have to buy a grossly overbuilt system that may not fit your needs for a variety of reasons. One should not have to choose between expansion or portability. The only logical reason for excluding basic features is to force you to upgrade to machines with bigger margins if you really want them.
Obviously no one is suggesting that Phil Schiller and Johnny Ive are going to corner you, put a gun to your head and force you to buy a Macbook Pro.
But the simple fact remains that if you want certain basic features on a computer that runs OS X legally, you have to buy a grossly overbuilt system that may not fit your needs for a variety of reasons. One should not have to choose between expansion or portability. The only logical reason for excluding basic features is to force you to upgrade to machines with bigger margins if you really want them.
You can qualify anything to make such a point. Apple has a business plan and sells certain types of machines. To state that you are being forced to buy something that you don't want or to complain that they are grossly overbuilt is just silly.
And yes, one should have to choose between expandability and portability as these things are antitheses of each other in the physical world. A notebook will not be as powerful or as expandable as any tower. Just as no tower with tonnes of expandabilty will be very portable. Apple chosen a market direction long ago, they have stuck with that, that is it: either their products fit your needs better than other products or they don't.
PS: You don't have the infinite options among other OEMs that you mentioned earlier.
I'm not talking about a tower. I'm talking about no Apple notebooks but the Macbook Pros having an expresscard slot. It's been that way since the iBook came out. Sure, they are rarely used, but I'd like to have the option without having to carry a 15" notebook around.
Then go buy something that better suits your needs. Apple can't be everything to everyone...
I the "stupid conclusion" that was meant, was that this configuration was intentionally crippled by Apple.
Why do people always have to immediately assume Apple is "up to no good" when they have never shown any such indications throughout the entire life of the company? As far as corporations go, Apple is one of the most responsible and the most customer focussed, they have ridiculously high levels of customer service, excellent reviews by those same customers and are pretty good to their employees overall. I just don't understand why so many people's first reactions to something Apple has done is to assume some nefarious plot is in the works.
Yes, because always having a combo drive in the lowest end macbook must of actually been to keep the price down, and not intentionally crippling the machine
We'll have to disagree on this one.
I don't buy the premise that "business is business" or some such and not morally or ethically concerned. If you are in the business of making consumer products and actively trying to screw the consumers for the single reason of more cash, then (IMO) you are "up to no good" and not being very smart business-wise to boot. In other words I don't believe that the presence of capitalism makes moral or ethical behaviour irrelevant.
I don't buy the premise either, and I never said Apple was trying to "screw consumers." The satisfaction levels at and after buying with hardware, software and support - number one year after year in Consumer Reports, for example, don't paint a pic of people "feeling screwed."
Beyond that, they're making lots of efforts to create greener products. And their products have done much to empower the less technically adept among us. And they're simply the most interesting company in the world to follow with their history of innovation, design excellence, entertaining marketing, and even for some interesting failures and simply for being the best soap opera story in the last 50 years of the business world.
That's the very picture of an "ethical/moral" company: delivering most of what it promises (A, Inc products are excellent but not "perfect") at the price it advertises.
I also have to disagree strongly that "Apple (does) it more than most hardware manufacturers." I've never seen any evidence of that, and have to assume this slight is in your own head, as opposed to anything objectively real.
Ever compared customization options between say on the one side Dell and HP and on the other Apple?
There is no comparison. You can - if you're willing to put up with Windows computing and its fragmented, multi-company infrastructure and outsourced support - fine tune your PC options to a very granular degree.
With Apple's new aluminum notebooks a FireWire port is now going to cost you hundreds of dollars by being bundled with a bigger, heavier machine with other options you may not need.
And only "pros" can buy a 15 "cher and pros can't buy a 13" computer. Etc., etc.
Can anyone who's not on drugs really dispute this?
The real question implied here is not about whether Apple sells "packs" as they absolutely, manifestly do, but rather about "business morality" and "morality/ethics" in general. And it's an irrelevant, oversimplified and overly pious argument.
Apple practices "line differentiation" as a strategy to compete against the WinTel "megagopoly" computer infrastructure as its management long ago decided it couldn't compete by trying to be all computer things to all computer-using people.
It's a practical, not a moral issue with many variables involved for a company that's been traditionally defined as a "niche" company, a "boutique" company, a "cutting edge design and function" company and a "premium product" company.
From a marketing point of view Apple creates coherent, easy to understand lines of products with memorable names. Go to most computer, music player or cell sites and you're bombarded with a huge number of numbingly numbered products whose specs and prices change sometimes daily -- sometimes (on price) hourly for that matter.
Go to the Apple store and you'll have the whole lay of the land in minutes, and in between new line announcements, it'll be almost the same line at the same price the next day, week and month, though some components are quietly updated, for several months.
From a manufacturing point of view, stability and a limited number of configs make it easier to focus on build quality, durability and more. Inventory and channel control benefit in a similar fashion. And fair trade pricing doesn't establish an expectation of wild fluctuation where customers wait for a sale or special rebate (except during back to school season and around Black Friday).
From a software design and maintenance point of view, the fewer number of processors, graphics chips, mobos, drives, screens, etc. that need to work optimally with the OS make it much easier to keep control of code.
From an R&D point of view Apple is more able to take a long term tack, as putting more effort into creating lines that will have a longer shelf life allows more of a focus on quality and design than constantly changing between the latest "good enough for now" options thrashed through by the WinTel manufacturers.
From a support point of view, too, it's vastly easier for Apple to understand the hugely smaller number of variables that can go wrong with its stable, limited number of parts.
And from a gross margins point of view, these are much easier to maintain with more standardized manufacturing, less frequent retooling of manufacturing line and a much smaller parts bin. And to be the David among Goliaths Apple has been (though less so now!), to produce the best hardware and best software with a much smaller unit volume than MS and friends, that development and marketing capital has been an absolute necessity.
So. Apple benefits from line differentiation in that it's enabled it to maintain the high levels of fit, finish, design, ease of use and functionality that have kept it profitable and relevant. And that means Apple customers, at least those for whom its products do meet their needs, benefit as well.
Nothing to do with good v. evil in the real economic world.
That it also means I'm stuck with useless FW drives and other peripherals is a side effect. My argument with Apple's "packs" is that I would've made different ones, e.g., a 13 and 15" MacBook and a 13 and 15" MacBook Pro, e.g.
The business of a business, is not just to make money, it's to do the work or provide the service or product that it's in business for. Originally, most businesses had creeds or mandates attached to them by the founders expressly for the purpose of making sure that all the workers *knew* what they were in business for.
People who think business is "just about the money" are missing a very basic point, (and a great deal of life in general), and are doomed (eventually) to a life of waste, corruption and loneliness IMO.
So it's definitely not "just about the money" - but if anyone wants to tell you that making a profit is not the first necessity of any company, I have some shares of Stanley Steamer, Studebaker and Circuit City available. Cheap.
I agree with much of what you wrote. The desire to make money doing something is not a differentiator. Anyone can want to make money. It's having a vision to do something better and a passion to carry it out is what makes one better than a competitor. Without doubt you want to make money doing it, too.
See above. You HAVE to want to make money "doing it."
Thanks. On reflection I might have got a bit high-handed in some of my remarks, but the basic point is that if business were just about money and ethics be damned, then every business person should be a crack dealer.
We all have ethical lines we don't cross, it's just a matter of where they are. In the case of the car dealer example, the dealer is okay with screwing people over on price and features, but probably wouldn't actually sell them a defective car (whereas others would).
For anyone who wants a model of how capitalism can function ethically in the modern world, I recommend researching former Brit PM Tony Blair's ideas on "stakeholder capitalism."
Packages tend to reduce production and distribution complexity.
As noted above, indeed they do, as well as the other intertwined benefits I mentioned.
Just remember that A, Inc. is first and foremost a business that provides a useful public function in a transparent way, not a useful public function that happens to be provided by a business.
I think the real question we should be asking is what this means for the forthcoming Mac Mini revision.
This macbook now as a decent gpu, 2g standard memory, and a 2 Ghz processor at a price of $1000
Compare that with the current Mac mini, which has a similar/same processor, only 1 G, and a much crappier gpu.
Basically, this macbook looks a lot like what the Mac Mini revision will probably be (although let's hope they go for a larger HD and faster memory). However, it only $200 dollars more than the current Mac mini. If I'm not mistaken, the macbook screen costs in the neighborhood of $150-200 to produce, which makes the $800 price point sound about right.
Absolutely.
The new Macbook now has a 1066 mHz bus and DDR3 RAM, leaving only the Mini with 667 mHz and DDR2. I've been looking at Mini's on eBay with upgraded RAM and HD, but they're still using the old bus.
I'd feel utterly gutted if, after waiting so long, the Mini went to Ion with is 533 mHz bus. That thing better go to 1066 and it better do it now.
The new Macbook now has a 1066 mHz bus and DDR3 RAM, leaving only the Mini with 667 mHz and DDR2
Someone hasn't read the article or any of this thread.
The update to the white MacBook has delivered a 1066 FSB but the RAM is still DDR2-667.
Someone hasn't read the article or any of this thread.
The update to the white MacBook has delivered a 1066 FSB but the RAM is still DDR2-667.
Ugh, I was looking at Apple's website.
I had read the article and the first page, but it seemed so silly that it would still have DDR2 that I didn't remember, and checked Apple's website to verify. When you go to tech specs for the Macbook, it just bundles them all together.
They're probably waiting 18 months to do the same bullshit to the Mini. Sometimes I really fucking hate Apple.
Ugh, I was looking at Apple's website.
I had read the article and the first page, but it seemed so silly that it would still have DDR2 that I didn't remember, and checked Apple's website to verify. When you go to tech specs for the Macbook, it just bundles them all together.
They're probably waiting 18 months to do the same bullshit to the Mini. Sometimes I really fucking hate Apple.
As I recall, DDR3 has less bang per clock than DDR2. The included DDR2 memory should still be more than fast enough to keep up with the processor. The bandwidth of a dual channel DDR2 667MHz memory system still exceeds that of the chip's FSB.
I think this is a good sign that Apple sees it needs to be more competitive with it's low-end models.
Hopefully we will see a well specd Mac mini for $499 or $599.
Nowhere in our economy is a higher quality product sold for the same amount or less than a lesser one. Where did this idea come from? Is our educational system this weak?
Computing power is available to everyone at every price point just as autos, furniture, houses, clothes and you name it. Equal PC to equal Mac with user's desired performance, similar price. Please, don't rant on the hardware .. that's a small part.
There seems to be a theory that we are entitled to what ever we want at what we want to pay.
Really???
The first Mac we purchased was March 1984, the 128: Cost $4,000. The first PC in August 1984, IBM 286 (6 Mhtz. upgraded to 25 a couple of months later): Cost $3,000. (no monitor or software)
Honda Civic doesn't cost the same as a Mercedes but does the same job.
A lot of really good posts, as always; but, the 'whines' about cost is not among them: