On the higher end Apple tends to come in lower than the competition.
I guess it depends on what you're shopping for. In my case it has always been the other way around. Of course, "in my case" means only four or five comparisons, and each time for the same kind of product.
The difference in price is never huge, just a couple hundred bucks, but always with Apple taking the highest spot. Each purchase has involved at least one or two BTO options for things that can't be purchased third-party, like GPU and CPU upgrades, so that undoubtedly tipped the scales some since Apple's upgrade prices seem to be even higher than the already spendy rates charged by other suppliers.
My comparisons have all been on notebooks. Maybe it's different with desktops. I didn't even bother looking at alternatives for the Mac Pro we just bought so I have no idea how it would have compared.
I guess it depends on what you're shopping for. In my case it has always been the other way around. Of course, "in my case" means only four or five comparisons, and each time for the same kind of product.
The difference in price is never huge, just a couple hundred bucks, but always with Apple taking the highest spot. Each purchase has involved at least one or two BTO options for things that can't be purchased third-party, like GPU and CPU upgrades, so that undoubtedly tipped the scales some since Apple's upgrade prices seem to be even higher than the already spendy rates charged by other suppliers.
My comparisons have all been on notebooks. Maybe it's different with desktops. I didn't even bother looking at alternatives for the Mac Pro we just bought so I have no idea how it would have compared.
2 GPUs: $1200 (price between the W5000 that is lower performance than the D300, and the W7000 that is similar performance but double the RAM)
CPU: $400
12 GB ECC: $200
256 GB PCIe SSD: $300
Mobo: $500 (about a $200 premium to account for all the Thunderbolt)
PSU: $200
So with just major systems accounted for it's nearing $3000 already. Throw in silent cooling, good system integration and all the rest, and OK, they are selling a $3500 machine for $3000. And as you move higher I do think the separation is greater. NewEgg sells the W9000 for $3400 EACH, so $6800-$1200 for the "W6000" and you have a premium of $5600, while Apple allows that upgrade for just $1000. $4600 savings, advantage Apple.
Sure, you can get similar performance on benchmarks for a lot cheaper by going with an i7, GeForce cards, SATA SSD, non ECC RAM, fewer Thunderbolt ports, etc. But then it isn't apples to apples. That config would be a machine that is great for a lot, even the vast majority, of users, but not for the target audience of the Mac Pro. Those GeForce cards alone are going to be MUCH less capable when it comes to OpenCL, which is where the real power in the nMP comes from. So I still submit, if you need and can use the real horsepower of the nMP, then nothing even comes close for the price you pay. If you buy it for gaming, you are ripping yourself off. ;-) For pro audio, I guess you are maybe future proofing yourself, as I would assume that soon enough lots of pro audio apps will take advantage of the GPUs for openCL, but for now I understand they don't, so the nMP is a bit wasted on that market.
None. The last "high-end" notebook purchase I made was pre-TB. I'm clinging desperately to my 17" display, constantly coming up with excuses to put off upgrading a little longer.
If you are going to make comparisons, they may as well be valid ones which usually wipes out the "I can build a Linux box for less than the cost of an 'overpriced Apple product' without taking into account the entire package.
I think a Pro keyboard that is built around iPad technology could be the answer.
I personally don't like the idea of lots of little OLED screens in separate keys.
That would let them see how best to implement a touch keyboard without giving up too much of the tactile feel of the keyboard style people have used for 30 years. OLED is good as it only uses as much power as the illuminated parts. The downside is it would be harder to see in bright light. The thing they have to get right is the distinction between a touch and a press, which is hard to do with purely touch screen. OLED keys could perhaps be a stepping stone to a full touch panel without sacrificing the tactile feedback. In the diagram, the keys wouldn't sink down but rather overlap the metal so they can form a complete surface. This allows them to make a full touch surface and retain the same kind of keyboard people are used to.
If you are going to make comparisons, they may as well be valid ones which usually wipes out the "I can build a Linux box for less than the cost of an 'overpriced Apple product' without taking into account the entire package.
Trying to bait me into a fight isn't going to work. Obviously there are people who do that, but I didn't.
Thunderbolt came along since you made your comparisons, indicating they are at least two years out of date.
Uh yeah, I said that. Honestly, I think you're looking to stir up conflict where there just isn't grounds for any. What is it that's bothering you so badly? Surely I can't be the first to have pointed out the rather obvious fact that Apple products tend towards the spendy end of the spectrum. Are you suggesting that the existence of Thunderbolt somehow renders my observations invalid? If so, how?
(This is going way off topic. Does anyone else care about this exchange or should we take it private?)
Uh yeah, I said that. Honestly, I think you're looking to stir up conflict where there just isn't grounds for any. What is it that's bothering you so badly? Surely I can't be the first to have pointed out the rather obvious fact that Apple products tend towards the spendy end of the spectrum. Are you suggesting that the existence of Thunderbolt somehow renders my observations invalid? If so, how?
(This is going way off topic. Does anyone else care about this exchange or should we take it private?)
The reason Apple is at "the spendy" end of the spectrum is due to the quality of their components a factor not usually taken into consideration when making price comparisons.
The reason Apple is at "the spendy" end of the spectrum is due to the quality of their components
True, as well as margins twice as deep as anyone else in the industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
a factor not usually taken into consideration when making price comparisons.
Also true, though I did when making my comparisons. I tried to compare as close to feature-for-feature as I could, and you'll note that I accounted for some of the differences in my original remarks.
Comments
I often don't read the articles.
I guess it depends on what you're shopping for. In my case it has always been the other way around. Of course, "in my case" means only four or five comparisons, and each time for the same kind of product.
The difference in price is never huge, just a couple hundred bucks, but always with Apple taking the highest spot. Each purchase has involved at least one or two BTO options for things that can't be purchased third-party, like GPU and CPU upgrades, so that undoubtedly tipped the scales some since Apple's upgrade prices seem to be even higher than the already spendy rates charged by other suppliers.
My comparisons have all been on notebooks. Maybe it's different with desktops. I didn't even bother looking at alternatives for the Mac Pro we just bought so I have no idea how it would have compared.
I guess it depends on what you're shopping for. In my case it has always been the other way around. Of course, "in my case" means only four or five comparisons, and each time for the same kind of product.
The difference in price is never huge, just a couple hundred bucks, but always with Apple taking the highest spot. Each purchase has involved at least one or two BTO options for things that can't be purchased third-party, like GPU and CPU upgrades, so that undoubtedly tipped the scales some since Apple's upgrade prices seem to be even higher than the already spendy rates charged by other suppliers.
My comparisons have all been on notebooks. Maybe it's different with desktops. I didn't even bother looking at alternatives for the Mac Pro we just bought so I have no idea how it would have compared.
So how many of these notebooks have thunderbolt?
Just wondering.
Great! More parts to fail.
How did you come up with your figure?
Mostly a quick calculation to be sure, but...
2 GPUs: $1200 (price between the W5000 that is lower performance than the D300, and the W7000 that is similar performance but double the RAM)
CPU: $400
12 GB ECC: $200
256 GB PCIe SSD: $300
Mobo: $500 (about a $200 premium to account for all the Thunderbolt)
PSU: $200
So with just major systems accounted for it's nearing $3000 already. Throw in silent cooling, good system integration and all the rest, and OK, they are selling a $3500 machine for $3000. And as you move higher I do think the separation is greater. NewEgg sells the W9000 for $3400 EACH, so $6800-$1200 for the "W6000" and you have a premium of $5600, while Apple allows that upgrade for just $1000. $4600 savings, advantage Apple.
Sure, you can get similar performance on benchmarks for a lot cheaper by going with an i7, GeForce cards, SATA SSD, non ECC RAM, fewer Thunderbolt ports, etc. But then it isn't apples to apples. That config would be a machine that is great for a lot, even the vast majority, of users, but not for the target audience of the Mac Pro. Those GeForce cards alone are going to be MUCH less capable when it comes to OpenCL, which is where the real power in the nMP comes from. So I still submit, if you need and can use the real horsepower of the nMP, then nothing even comes close for the price you pay. If you buy it for gaming, you are ripping yourself off. ;-) For pro audio, I guess you are maybe future proofing yourself, as I would assume that soon enough lots of pro audio apps will take advantage of the GPUs for openCL, but for now I understand they don't, so the nMP is a bit wasted on that market.
Just wondering.
None. The last "high-end" notebook purchase I made was pre-TB. I'm clinging desperately to my 17" display, constantly coming up with excuses to put off upgrading a little longer.
If you are going to make comparisons, they may as well be valid ones which usually wipes out the "I can build a Linux box for less than the cost of an 'overpriced Apple product' without taking into account the entire package.
Your statements are out of date and irrelevant.
Haptic touch would be good on iOS devices:
[VIDEO]
http://www.immersion.com
That would let them see how best to implement a touch keyboard without giving up too much of the tactile feel of the keyboard style people have used for 30 years. OLED is good as it only uses as much power as the illuminated parts. The downside is it would be harder to see in bright light. The thing they have to get right is the distinction between a touch and a press, which is hard to do with purely touch screen. OLED keys could perhaps be a stepping stone to a full touch panel without sacrificing the tactile feedback. In the diagram, the keys wouldn't sink down but rather overlap the metal so they can form a complete surface. This allows them to make a full touch surface and retain the same kind of keyboard people are used to.
If you are going to make comparisons, they may as well be valid ones which usually wipes out the "I can build a Linux box for less than the cost of an 'overpriced Apple product' without taking into account the entire package.
Trying to bait me into a fight isn't going to work. Obviously there are people who do that, but I didn't.
Your statements are out of date and irrelevant.
Really? How so? What's changed?
Mostly a quick calculation to be sure, but...
2 GPUs: $1200 (price between the W5000 that is lower performance than the D300, and the W7000 that is similar performance but double the RAM)
CPU: $400
12 GB ECC: $200
256 GB PCIe SSD: $300
Mobo: $500 (about a $200 premium to account for all the Thunderbolt)
PSU: $200
I meant how did you come up with a price of $200-300 for a keyboard like the one described in the patent application?
Really? How so? What's changed?
Thunderbolt came along since you made your comparisons, indicating they are at least two years out of date.
Thunderbolt came along since you made your comparisons, indicating they are at least two years out of date.
Uh yeah, I said that. Honestly, I think you're looking to stir up conflict where there just isn't grounds for any. What is it that's bothering you so badly? Surely I can't be the first to have pointed out the rather obvious fact that Apple products tend towards the spendy end of the spectrum. Are you suggesting that the existence of Thunderbolt somehow renders my observations invalid? If so, how?
(This is going way off topic. Does anyone else care about this exchange or should we take it private?)
The reason Apple is at "the spendy" end of the spectrum is due to the quality of their components a factor not usually taken into consideration when making price comparisons.
True, as well as margins twice as deep as anyone else in the industry.
Also true, though I did when making my comparisons. I tried to compare as close to feature-for-feature as I could, and you'll note that I accounted for some of the differences in my original remarks.