Dude, the $499 is not a "computer" in the sense that it DOES NOT have a screen or keyboard. Add a screen and keyboard, and it's not $499. I guess the only person here who is lying is you, or you lack the ability to think logically.
So lets back this up. Someone posts a price comparison between a Mini and a PC. In response you state that since Apple uses laptop parts to make the mini we should expect higher price and lower performance. Q.E.D. I point out that I'd rather have the lower cost and higher performance. You then claim this criticism is misguided and unfair.
This is why fanboys are infuriating. I don't think this is that hard. For better or worse, the Mini is the one product Apple has to offer in the budget desktop market. So then, many potential mini buyers shop the mini against budget desktop PCs instead of against Small Form Factor (SFF) PCs. Insisting this comparison is perforce invalid because Apple decided to use higher cost and lower performance components is a non-sequitur.
To be certain, against other SFF PCs, the mini is less overpriced and underpowered. However I have not seen any data that the budget and switcher markets desire a SFF over a minitower form factor. Apple is still run by mortals. In this case I think they are making a mistake.
Evidently it is hard because folks still don't seem to grok the concept that Apple doesn't want to compete in the budget desktop market. In fact, Apple has zero traditional desktop computers in it's lineup and certainly nothing in the budget market.
Mini - Small Form Factor, iMac - AIO, Mac Pro - Workstation.
Even if a mythical xMac were to appear it would be horridly overpriced in comparison to a typical budget tower because it would be yet another small form factor computer, much like the cube. Which failed pretty miserably.
The mini is an entry level machine for Apple, not a budget machine. Which is like saying this TV is the entry level TV for the Sony Bravia line. It's still $300 more expensive than the Vizio or Sceptre or whatever budget brand you can get from Costco or Best Buy.
Low end offerings in premium lines are typically so-so bang for the buck items. Cars, TVs, computers, food, clothes, whatever. You pay a brand penalty without much of the corresponding performance/style benefits. Which usually are not good bang for the buck improvements anyway even when you DO get them.
In this case, the mini isn't so bad for what you get. The only real weakness in the intell Mini was graphics. Which the update should address.
Anyone in the market for bang for the buck shouldn't be looking at Apple's line up even if the least expensive machine is in their price range.
The argument you have is that Apple's doesn't make the elusive xMac to suit your specific needs. Outside of that there is no debate because comparing a machine with laptop-grade part to a machine with desktop-grade parts just to say that the Mini is woefully overpriced is inane because you are not comparing components accurately.
So if the Mac Minis case was solid gold would it be inane to compare its price with a machine without a solid gold case?
Being able to explain why something is more costly is not the same as proving it should be more costly.
So if the Mac Minis case was solid gold would it be inane to compare its price with a machine without a solid gold case?
Yes, it would be stupid to compare the price of such machine.
Quote:
Being able to explain why something is more costly is not the same as proving it should be more costly.
Explaining why it is more costly proves why it more costly. Don't confuse cost with value! If you continue to do the most rudimentary of comparisons then their would be no reason why anyone should ever have you buy more than a $300 PC desktop.
So if the Mac Minis case was solid gold would it be inane to compare its price with a machine without a solid gold case?
Yes. For the same reason it is inane to compare the gold plated Nokia Gold Arte, gold Samsung or Vertu against the iPhone and say the iPhone is better because it does more stuff and is cheaper. No kidding. It isn't covered with gold.
Comparing the Goldstriker 24K gold iPhone to those phones would make somewhat more sense. The point however, is that folks that buy exensive phones do not rank saving money as a particularly high criteria.
Neither do folks that buy a Mac over a HP or Dell. They value other aspects of the total cost of ownership and user experience.
Explaining why it is more costly proves why it more costly. Don't confuse cost with value! If you continue to do the most rudimentary of comparisons then their would be no reason why anyone should ever have you buy more than a $300 PC desktop.
Explanation isn't proof, but the problem is that proof is often too tall of a request in an informal discussion.
The proof is generally in the explanation. Their are clear reasons why the Mac mini costs more than a budget Dell PC. Software/ component costs are one factor. Business models are another factor.
Whether its value is worth the cost can be up to individual debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Explanation isn't proof, but the problem is that proof is often too tall of a request in an informal discussion.
Their are clear reasons why the Mac mini costs more than a budget Dell PC. Software/ component costs are one factor. Business models are another factor.
Whether its value is worth the cost can be up to individual debate.
Just to let it be known, I do agree with all this. But it's not proof as far as I'm concerned.
The proof is generally in the explanation. Their are clear reasons why the Mac mini costs more than a budget Dell PC. Software/ component costs are one factor. Business models are another factor.
JeffDM is technically correct. The explanation could be completely true, but their may be no actual proof to support it even if it's rationally and logically stated.
For proof of the some of the price differences, BobtheTomato can go to the lonk below to see the prices of Intel chips per 1000.
For example, Intel lists the MBA's CPU as $284 and $316 for the 1.6GHz and 1.8GHz chips, respectively. That is almost the cost of a netbook with a 1.6GHz Atom CPU. Of course, these prices aren't what Apple and other OEMs pay, but they do show that it's a logical fallacy to assume that the same clock-speed (or other components) should equal the same price because of some simple comparison.
JeffDM is technically correct. The explanation could be completely true, but their may be no actual proof to support it even if it's rationally and logically stated.
I suppose I'm coming from the point that an explanation contains empirical information to support the explanation. Other wise its mostly an opinion.
Quote:
For example, Intel lists the MBA's CPU as $284 and $316 for the 1.6GHz and 1.8GHz chips, respectively. That is almost the cost of a netbook with a 1.6GHz Atom CPU. Of course, these prices aren't what Apple and other OEMs pay, but they do show that it's a logical fallacy to assume that the same clock-speed (or other components) should equal the same price because of some simple comparison.
Certainly the current Mac mini isn't a good example of price vs value. Its a year and a half long into its refresh cycle. But when you look at it after a new refresh its easier to explain.
I wonder if anyone remembers the MBP 17-inch part of this thread? Any more thoughts on the practicality of the new milling techniques for a machine that size; I have the older model, before the most recent upgrade and I've loved having that fantastic screen when I did not have to carry it further than to school and back, or when I wanted to use its screen in a small Seminar group, but the MBA won my heart for research note taking or just carrying around or jotting with or travelling.
BTW, does anyone really use the "Air" features of the MacBook Air that were so much trumpeted by Steve when it was announced? Of course I use the wireless internet connection, but I still load software via the clunky external DVD "SUPER-DRIVE".
BTW, does anyone really use the "Air" features of the MacBook Air that were so much trumpeted by Steve when it was announced? Of course I use the wireless internet connection, but I still load software via the clunky external DVD "SUPER-DRIVE".
I'm not sure what you mean by "Air" features. I have an Ethernet adapter for my Air, but sometimes I use the wireless. It's no different than what I would do with the MBP.
I use some gestures. They do come in handy enough that I feel less need for a mouse than I have in the past. I didn't get the external drive yet. No need so far. I love the machine. I'd like one more USB port OR a Firewire port, a slightly larger screen (14"), and 4GB. These will come in time. I don't need the DVD drive, and I don't have a problem with the fixed battery; I have never had a second battery for any laptop or notebook I've ever owned or used.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Air" features. I have an Ethernet adapter for my Air, but sometimes I use the wireless. It's no different than what I would do with the MBP.
I use some gestures. They do come in handy enough that I feel less need for a mouse than I have in the past. I didn't get the external drive yet. No need so far. I love the machine. I'd like one more USB port OR a Firewire port, a slightly larger screen (14"), and 4GB. These will come in time. I don't need the DVD drive, and I don't have a problem with the fixed battery; I have never had a second battery for any laptop or notebook I've ever owned or used.
Thank you Alonso Perez for answering my irregular query. I've always lugged around an extra battery in my many trips internationally with my trusty MBP17 or earlier PB G4 and PB G3 Pismos, but I am red-faced in admitting that I've never actually popped one out and put in a replacement. I did once load two into that Pismo instead of the DVD drive, though--- there was an "adoptable" Blackbird if ever there was, with a great sensual shape and feel in the hand when you carried it.
Back to the Air, though, I was thinking about trying to load MS Office "wirelessly" or updating Photoshop without that external drive.
Comments
What doesn't make sense is why Apple continues to use aging Firewire ports instead of the much faster eSATA ports.
Because many people have external FireWire hard drives and MiniDV cameras.
So lets back this up. Someone posts a price comparison between a Mini and a PC. In response you state that since Apple uses laptop parts to make the mini we should expect higher price and lower performance. Q.E.D. I point out that I'd rather have the lower cost and higher performance. You then claim this criticism is misguided and unfair.
This is why fanboys are infuriating. I don't think this is that hard. For better or worse, the Mini is the one product Apple has to offer in the budget desktop market. So then, many potential mini buyers shop the mini against budget desktop PCs instead of against Small Form Factor (SFF) PCs. Insisting this comparison is perforce invalid because Apple decided to use higher cost and lower performance components is a non-sequitur.
To be certain, against other SFF PCs, the mini is less overpriced and underpowered. However I have not seen any data that the budget and switcher markets desire a SFF over a minitower form factor. Apple is still run by mortals. In this case I think they are making a mistake.
Evidently it is hard because folks still don't seem to grok the concept that Apple doesn't want to compete in the budget desktop market. In fact, Apple has zero traditional desktop computers in it's lineup and certainly nothing in the budget market.
Mini - Small Form Factor, iMac - AIO, Mac Pro - Workstation.
Even if a mythical xMac were to appear it would be horridly overpriced in comparison to a typical budget tower because it would be yet another small form factor computer, much like the cube. Which failed pretty miserably.
The mini is an entry level machine for Apple, not a budget machine. Which is like saying this TV is the entry level TV for the Sony Bravia line. It's still $300 more expensive than the Vizio or Sceptre or whatever budget brand you can get from Costco or Best Buy.
Low end offerings in premium lines are typically so-so bang for the buck items. Cars, TVs, computers, food, clothes, whatever. You pay a brand penalty without much of the corresponding performance/style benefits. Which usually are not good bang for the buck improvements anyway even when you DO get them.
In this case, the mini isn't so bad for what you get. The only real weakness in the intell Mini was graphics. Which the update should address.
Anyone in the market for bang for the buck shouldn't be looking at Apple's line up even if the least expensive machine is in their price range.
Evidently it is hard because folks still don't seem to grok the concept that Apple doesn't want to compete in the budget desktop market.
The problem is the budget desktops (Prostar and their ilk) wants to compete with them.
The problem is the budget desktops (Prostar and their ilk) wants to compete with them.
Whose problem is it?
The argument you have is that Apple's doesn't make the elusive xMac to suit your specific needs. Outside of that there is no debate because comparing a machine with laptop-grade part to a machine with desktop-grade parts just to say that the Mini is woefully overpriced is inane because you are not comparing components accurately.
So if the Mac Minis case was solid gold would it be inane to compare its price with a machine without a solid gold case?
Being able to explain why something is more costly is not the same as proving it should be more costly.
The problem is the budget desktops (Prostar and their ilk) wants to compete with them.
And they can. Without OSX. You know Vista is NOT as bad as some folks make it out to be.
Why is this a problem anyway? Let Dell and HP go for high volume with thin margins.
Being able to explain why something is more costly is not the same as proving it should be more costly.
So if the Mac Minis case was solid gold would it be inane to compare its price with a machine without a solid gold case?
Yes, it would be stupid to compare the price of such machine.
Being able to explain why something is more costly is not the same as proving it should be more costly.
Explaining why it is more costly proves why it more costly. Don't confuse cost with value! If you continue to do the most rudimentary of comparisons then their would be no reason why anyone should ever have you buy more than a $300 PC desktop.
So if the Mac Minis case was solid gold would it be inane to compare its price with a machine without a solid gold case?
Yes. For the same reason it is inane to compare the gold plated Nokia Gold Arte, gold Samsung or Vertu against the iPhone and say the iPhone is better because it does more stuff and is cheaper. No kidding. It isn't covered with gold.
Comparing the Goldstriker 24K gold iPhone to those phones would make somewhat more sense. The point however, is that folks that buy exensive phones do not rank saving money as a particularly high criteria.
Neither do folks that buy a Mac over a HP or Dell. They value other aspects of the total cost of ownership and user experience.
Explaining why it is more costly proves why it more costly. Don't confuse cost with value! If you continue to do the most rudimentary of comparisons then their would be no reason why anyone should ever have you buy more than a $300 PC desktop.
Explanation isn't proof, but the problem is that proof is often too tall of a request in an informal discussion.
Whether its value is worth the cost can be up to individual debate.
Explanation isn't proof, but the problem is that proof is often too tall of a request in an informal discussion.
The proof is generally in the explanation.
Maybe for lax definitions of proof.
Their are clear reasons why the Mac mini costs more than a budget Dell PC. Software/ component costs are one factor. Business models are another factor.
Whether its value is worth the cost can be up to individual debate.
Just to let it be known, I do agree with all this. But it's not proof as far as I'm concerned.
How do explain the Dell Studio Hybrid?
The proof is generally in the explanation. Their are clear reasons why the Mac mini costs more than a budget Dell PC. Software/ component costs are one factor. Business models are another factor.
JeffDM is technically correct. The explanation could be completely true, but their may be no actual proof to support it even if it's rationally and logically stated.
For proof of the some of the price differences, BobtheTomato can go to the lonk below to see the prices of Intel chips per 1000.For example, Intel lists the MBA's CPU as $284 and $316 for the 1.6GHz and 1.8GHz chips, respectively. That is almost the cost of a netbook with a 1.6GHz Atom CPU. Of course, these prices aren't what Apple and other OEMs pay, but they do show that it's a logical fallacy to assume that the same clock-speed (or other components) should equal the same price because of some simple comparison.
JeffDM is technically correct. The explanation could be completely true, but their may be no actual proof to support it even if it's rationally and logically stated.
I suppose I'm coming from the point that an explanation contains empirical information to support the explanation. Other wise its mostly an opinion.
For example, Intel lists the MBA's CPU as $284 and $316 for the 1.6GHz and 1.8GHz chips, respectively. That is almost the cost of a netbook with a 1.6GHz Atom CPU. Of course, these prices aren't what Apple and other OEMs pay, but they do show that it's a logical fallacy to assume that the same clock-speed (or other components) should equal the same price because of some simple comparison.
Certainly the current Mac mini isn't a good example of price vs value. Its a year and a half long into its refresh cycle. But when you look at it after a new refresh its easier to explain.
BTW, does anyone really use the "Air" features of the MacBook Air that were so much trumpeted by Steve when it was announced? Of course I use the wireless internet connection, but I still load software via the clunky external DVD "SUPER-DRIVE".
BTW, does anyone really use the "Air" features of the MacBook Air that were so much trumpeted by Steve when it was announced? Of course I use the wireless internet connection, but I still load software via the clunky external DVD "SUPER-DRIVE".
I'm not sure what you mean by "Air" features. I have an Ethernet adapter for my Air, but sometimes I use the wireless. It's no different than what I would do with the MBP.
I use some gestures. They do come in handy enough that I feel less need for a mouse than I have in the past. I didn't get the external drive yet. No need so far. I love the machine. I'd like one more USB port OR a Firewire port, a slightly larger screen (14"), and 4GB. These will come in time. I don't need the DVD drive, and I don't have a problem with the fixed battery; I have never had a second battery for any laptop or notebook I've ever owned or used.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Air" features. I have an Ethernet adapter for my Air, but sometimes I use the wireless. It's no different than what I would do with the MBP.
I use some gestures. They do come in handy enough that I feel less need for a mouse than I have in the past. I didn't get the external drive yet. No need so far. I love the machine. I'd like one more USB port OR a Firewire port, a slightly larger screen (14"), and 4GB. These will come in time. I don't need the DVD drive, and I don't have a problem with the fixed battery; I have never had a second battery for any laptop or notebook I've ever owned or used.
Thank you Alonso Perez for answering my irregular query. I've always lugged around an extra battery in my many trips internationally with my trusty MBP17 or earlier PB G4 and PB G3 Pismos, but I am red-faced in admitting that I've never actually popped one out and put in a replacement. I did once load two into that Pismo instead of the DVD drive, though--- there was an "adoptable" Blackbird if ever there was, with a great sensual shape and feel in the hand when you carried it.
Back to the Air, though, I was thinking about trying to load MS Office "wirelessly" or updating Photoshop without that external drive.