Seriously, Apple's flagship Macs are now less expensive than ever before

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 66
    Rayz2016 said:
    entropys said:
    It does not matter how expensive macs were in the past. Heck I paid over USD$4000 for a PowerBook G3 “Wallstreet” back in the day.  
    What matters today is the price of a Mac compared with comparable windows machines.
    Not hardly, as Macs have also nearly always been more expensive than a comparable Windows machine. The argument that we've been assaulted with, with a new battery after the Mac mini rollout, is that Tim Cook has unnecessarily jacked up prices, and only he has ever had the gall to price machines so high.

    That is false, at its face.
    And of course, if price is your overriding concern then then by all means by a Windows machine. They will always be cheaper because they have no significant development costs for hardware or the operating system. 
    Windows machines include development costs too, the difference is just that Microsoft isn't always the one doing the development. The cost of CPU development is built in to the price of the CPUs. The cost of graphics card development is built in to the cost of the graphics card. Even if Asus, Dell, Microsoft, et al don't do any development themselves, the cost of advancements is included in the cost of the components they buy.
    elijahgmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 42 of 66
    sirozhasirozha Posts: 561member
    Tesla Model S for over $100,000 is way overpriced. Ten years from now, an EV sedan comparable to Model S will cost under $50,000 in today’s dollars. If an EV manufacturer jacks up the price from $50,000 to $75,000 ten years from now, should you be comparing the price to the price of Model 3 ten years prior or should you base such a comparison on the contemporaneous prices of competitive EV sedans?

    It’s obvious that prices go down as the technology matures. To go decades back in time to bring those prices from the dead seems to be a curious thing to do. 
    edited December 2018 elijahg
  • Reply 43 of 66
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,635administrator
    sirozha said:
    Tesla Model S for over $100,000 is way overpriced. Ten years from now, an EV sedan comparable to Model S will cost under $50,000 in today’s dollars. If an EV manufacturer jacks up the price from $50,000 to $75,000 ten years from now, should you be comparing the price to the price of Model 3 ten years prior or should you base such a comparison on the contemporaneous prices of competitive EV sedans?

    It’s obvious that prices go down as the technology matures. To go decades back in time to bring those prices from the dead seems to be a curious thing to do. 
    FTA: "Apple has always made you pay a lot for its newest and best Macs, and, believe it or not, the 2018 lineup isn't even close to the most expensive Apple has ever been. AppleInsider takes a look back at Apple's Mac pricing over the last three decades."

    This is what we wrote. This isn't about cars, it isn't about comparing to Windows. This is literally addressing the whining that only Tim Cook has sold macs for so much money -- which is nonsense.

    In a static technology, like cars, prices can drop as technology matures. They don't always. I don't think electric cars will. Given Moore's law up until a few years ago, and the slowing now, computer technology isn't static and you are getting more computer for the same money -- or less. That is literally the point of this article.
    edited December 2018 chiaradarthekatelijahgwatto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 66
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,454member
    You absolutely need to look at Apple prices in context. When I buy a computer, I buy it to do a job. I happen to be much more comfortable with OS X and prefer Macs, so I'm willing to pay a bit more for that (among other things) and get a Mac, but regardless, looking at Mac prices and ignoring the entire market around them tells a half-story and misses a big part of the picture. 

    Likewise, simply looking at inflation misses a big part of the picture. Yes, a Mac SE would cost $xxx in today's dollars and be a lot less powerful, but the same applies to every other computer out there. What maters is relative cost and value in today's market - the entire market, not just what's for sale at the Apple store.
    elijahgwatto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 66
    LatkoLatko Posts: 398member
    AI must have been looking pretty deep to find a metric for a rosy look at the Mac market.
    In fact we are in a second Amelio/Performa timeframe, with a confusing portfolio of overlapping Macbooks, Pro Machines in an iMac casing, MacMini without proper peripherals, and a completely lost innovation cycle (MacBook Air being underdimensioned not to pale out the rest of the line)
    This mgt. does not deserve to head the Mac division that it severly lamented in almost all aspects:
    Wrong strategy when it comes to processors. Insufficient RAM/SD capacity. Deprived quality, leading to several call-back situations (mostly being denied) Inadequate handling of warrantee/service.  Faulty keyboards, being lapped by the competition.
    Inability to make “keystone” innovations like TouchBar platform-wide. Taking 2/3/4 generations to implement common iPhone functions into Macs.
    Where can I stop ?
    Let them concentrate on iDevices and keep their hands from the former Apple Computer catalogue. 
    They don’t want it. They don’t deserve it.
    The industry’s once best just can’t be handled as a second-hand hobby.
    The “What’s a computer ?” generation that can not “innovate its ass” better be gone.
    edited December 2018 elijahg
  • Reply 46 of 66
    The headline says:

    Apple's flagship Macs are now less expensive than ever before


    That's not true. They may be less expensive than they have been at various points in history, but they are not the lowest they've ever been. Even the article itself states "[...] if you compare the current Mac and iOS lineup with last year's, you can see a huge increase in prices." That contradicts the statement made in the headline.

    I mention this not to be pedantic, but to dispute the article's implication that current prices are not cause for concern to me as a buyer. While current prices may not be inconsistent with and unprecedented in Apple's history, they are not what one might reasonably expect. Prices are higher than they were just a year ago, and last year's machines were no more exotic or specially equipped than current models. In the absence of any obvious reason for this, I find myself wondering what's gone sideways at Apple to cause it?

    This short-term aberration strikes me as more significant than ultra-long-term trends. I think comparing prices in 2018 to recent years is more relevant than a historical perspective, because Apple in 2018 bears little resemblance to the company it was twenty or even just ten years ago.

    The Apple of 2018 enjoys massive economies of scale it could not leverage in years past. The fact that Apple could not hit lower price points back in the day does not necessarily mean it can't now. Yet prices are not declining or even holding steady. They're rising. Sharply. Compared to just one year ago. I'm bothered by that, and am not comforted by comparisons to times of different circumstances.

    It was a fun article, an enjoyable romp down memory lane, and informative overall. I just don't think it makes the point it seemed to intend. Or maybe I misunderstood. It's been known to happen from time to all the time.
    muthuk_vanalingamentropysrogifan_newSpamSandwichelijahg
  • Reply 47 of 66
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,635administrator
    The headline says:

    Apple's flagship Macs are now less expensive than ever before


    That's not true. They may be less expensive than they have been at various points in history, but they are not the lowest they've ever been. Even the article itself states "[...] if you compare the current Mac and iOS lineup with last year's, you can see a huge increase in prices." That contradicts the statement made in the headline.

    I mention this not to be pedantic, but to dispute the article's implication that current prices are not cause for concern to me as a buyer. While current prices may not be inconsistent with and unprecedented in Apple's history, they are not what one might reasonably expect. Prices are higher than they were just a year ago, and last year's machines were no more exotic or specially equipped than current models. In the absence of any obvious reason for this, I find myself wondering what's gone sideways at Apple to cause it?

    This short-term aberration strikes me as more significant than ultra-long-term trends. I think comparing prices in 2018 to recent years is more relevant than a historical perspective, because Apple in 2018 bears little resemblance to the company it was twenty or even just ten years ago.

    The Apple of 2018 enjoys massive economies of scale it could not leverage in years past. The fact that Apple could not hit lower price points back in the day does not necessarily mean it can't now. Yet prices are not declining or even holding steady. They're rising. Sharply. Compared to just one year ago. I'm bothered by that, and am not comforted by comparisons to times of different circumstances.

    It was a fun article, an enjoyable romp down memory lane, and informative overall. I just don't think it makes the point it seemed to intend. Or maybe I misunderstood. It's been known to happen from time to all the time.
    All of the bolded statements above, including the headline, can be true. At no point did we say to not worry about it, but there is a lot of gnashing of teeth about how Apple has never, ever done this -- which is completely, utterly bogus.
    edited December 2018 radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 66
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,295member
    Apple has always made you pay a lot for its newest and best Macs, and, believe it or not, the 2018 lineup isn't even close to the most expensive Apple has ever been. AppleInsider takes a look back at Apple's Mac pricing over the last three decades.

    Fun article and absolutely true.  I've remarked on this many times over the years as certain folks harp on about the 'Apple Premium'.  Costs today of the high-end Macs are a fraction of their former prices.  The new iMac Pro is the first Mac for a long time to approach those levels.

    I would add that back in the days of the likes of the mighty Mac IIfx there were virtually no home purchases of Apple equipment from any of the seven Apple dealerships I had at one time or another.  A typical sale ranged from a single Mac with a LaserWriter, PageMaker etc. for about $10k to a large sale which would be several hundred thousand dollars which included a bunch of Macs, calibrated monitors, GPUs, extra RAM, larger drives, networked storage, and a few LaserWriters as proofing devices and perhaps a color scanner and often a 2400 d.p.i. typesetter.  Tons of software and many training days for dozens of staff.  The clients were printers, newspapers, graphic design companies, hospitals, universities, schools and so on.  I honestly cannot recall a single private home purchase in those years other than from those  ordering for their own company, as in 'deliver all those there and this one here.'

    We had high street locations so we did get people that wandered in of the street to look and my staff was trained to be very friendly and nice but tactfully let visitors to our showrooms know the cost of entry. In was a standard line to say, 'why not let us do a presentation to the company where you work, perhaps you can get your hands on one that way?'   In fact, many a large sale to a company started from the interest of such an individual who did exactly that.
    edited December 2018 elijahgwatto_cobra
  • Reply 49 of 66
    sirozha said:
    Tesla Model S for over $100,000 is way overpriced. Ten years from now, an EV sedan comparable to Model S will cost under $50,000 in today’s dollars. If an EV manufacturer jacks up the price from $50,000 to $75,000 ten years from now, should you be comparing the price to the price of Model 3 ten years prior or should you base such a comparison on the contemporaneous prices of competitive EV sedans?

    It’s obvious that prices go down as the technology matures. To go decades back in time to bring those prices from the dead seems to be a curious thing to do. 
    FTA: "Apple has always made you pay a lot for its newest and best Macs, and, believe it or not, the 2018 lineup isn't even close to the most expensive Apple has ever been. AppleInsider takes a look back at Apple's Mac pricing over the last three decades."

    This is what we wrote. This isn't about cars, it isn't about comparing to Windows. This is literally addressing the whining that only Tim Cook has sold macs for so much money -- which is nonsense.

    In a static technology, like cars, prices can drop as technology matures. They don't always. I don't think electric cars will. Given Moore's law up until a few years ago, and the slowing now, computer technology isn't static and you are getting more computer for the same money -- or less. That is literally the point of this article.
    I know it’s not about cars. In the era that you wrote your article about, the Mac platform was intended mostly for professionals and for those who were willing to pay those high prices. Since the introduction of the iPod, Apple has gone for the masses. Apple hasn’t relied on high-ticket lower volume sales for close to two decades now. Volume for Apple matters a great deal. In fact, Apple completely dropped the server line and all but discontinued Mac Pro in the last decade, which were the highest-ticket items. 

    The pricing structure should take into account the fact that Apple relies on the mainstream consumer for its success. A six-core 32 GB RAM 2TB SSD laptop is not a mainstream laptop for sure (it’s a Pro-level machine), but a quad-core 16 GB 512 GB SSD laptop is a mainstream laptop configuration nowadays. The Pro-level machines can cost north of $4,000, but the mainstream computers should be priced right around $2,000 for most people to consider them as viable options. The lower-end machines should be close to $1,000. 

    2018 non-Pro Macs are about $500-$1000 overpriced, and these prices cause consternation among the Apple’s faithful. 

    I do agree that the true Pro-level machines can cost whatever price Apple wants to charge, as they are means of production for highly paid occupations. 
    edited December 2018 muthuk_vanalingamelijahg
  • Reply 50 of 66
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,295member
    trackeroz said:
    Seriously... I cannot believe you are comparing the present prices with those of over three decades ago. How about you compare against normalised computing prices, since the cost of computing has continued to fall (in real terms) almost continuously in that time. The gouging in price point by Apple has seen a very recent resurgence. Apple needs to stop 'Gordon Geckoiing' it!
    mmm... Have you checked a graph plotting the power of the computers against the cost over the last three decades?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 66
    sirozha said:
    I do agree that the true Pro-level machines can cost whatever price Apple wants to charge, as they are means of production for highly paid occupations. 
    I accept that pro level machines cost more than consumer-oriented versions. What I don't understand is why the difference is increasing so much, so quickly.

    I use my MacBook Pro in my work. When I bought it, two years ago, it cost just over CAD$5,000 after AppleCare and taxes. The equivalent today (same amount of RAM, staying with an i7 instead of upgrading to the i9, Radeon graphics instead of upgrading to the Vega, same amount of storage) costs CAD$6225. That's an increase of 25% in two years!

    The new machine doesn't offer anything that will increase my earning power and thus offset the extra cost. That difference comes directly out of my pocket.

    A pro user has to accept the price of suitable tools being higher than consumer goods, but costs still have to be justifiable and make economic sense within the context of running the business. Current prices are making that a lot harder for those who prefer Apple's tools.
    muthuk_vanalingamSpamSandwich
  • Reply 52 of 66
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,295member
    sirozha said:
    I do agree that the true Pro-level machines can cost whatever price Apple wants to charge, as they are means of production for highly paid occupations. 
    I accept that pro level machines cost more than consumer-oriented versions. What I don't understand is why the difference is increasing so much, so quickly.

    I use my MacBook Pro in my work. When I bought it, two years ago, it cost just over CAD$5,000 after AppleCare and taxes. The equivalent today (same amount of RAM, staying with an i7 instead of upgrading to the i9, Radeon graphics instead of upgrading to the Vega, same amount of storage) costs CAD$6225. That's an increase of 25% in two years!

    The new machine doesn't offer anything that will increase my earning power and thus offset the extra cost. That difference comes directly out of my pocket.

    A pro user has to accept the price of suitable tools being higher than consumer goods, but costs still have to be justifiable and make economic sense within the context of running the business. Current prices are making that a lot harder for those who prefer Apple's tools.
    Just a thought ...  Did your house go up in value over the last few years?  Does a car cost more than the same car a few years ago?  
    edited December 2018 elijahg
  • Reply 53 of 66
    The headline says:

    Apple's flagship Macs are now less expensive than ever before


    That's not true. They may be less expensive than they have been at various points in history, but they are not the lowest they've ever been. Even the article itself states "[...] if you compare the current Mac and iOS lineup with last year's, you can see a huge increase in prices." That contradicts the statement made in the headline.

    I mention this not to be pedantic, but to dispute the article's implication that current prices are not cause for concern to me as a buyer. While current prices may not be inconsistent with and unprecedented in Apple's history, they are not what one might reasonably expect. Prices are higher than they were just a year ago, and last year's machines were no more exotic or specially equipped than current models. In the absence of any obvious reason for this, I find myself wondering what's gone sideways at Apple to cause it?

    This short-term aberration strikes me as more significant than ultra-long-term trends. I think comparing prices in 2018 to recent years is more relevant than a historical perspective, because Apple in 2018 bears little resemblance to the company it was twenty or even just ten years ago.

    The Apple of 2018 enjoys massive economies of scale it could not leverage in years past. The fact that Apple could not hit lower price points back in the day does not necessarily mean it can't now. Yet prices are not declining or even holding steady. They're rising. Sharply. Compared to just one year ago. I'm bothered by that, and am not comforted by comparisons to times of different circumstances.

    It was a fun article, an enjoyable romp down memory lane, and informative overall. I just don't think it makes the point it seemed to intend. Or maybe I misunderstood. It's been known to happen from time to all the time.
    All of the bolded statements above can be true. At no point did we say to not worry about it, but there is a lot of gnashing of teeth about how Apple has never, ever done this -- which is completely, utterly bogus.
    Okay, I accept the premise was not "don't worry about it" because you would know better than I.

    Assuming the formula used to calculate era-dollar equivalents was reasonably accurate, you're right, prices are not the highest they've ever been (though the headline is still a factual mis-statement). Nor should they be. The production challenges facing a computer manufacturer in 2018 are much less daunting than they were at the peak price periods mentioned in the article. I think it's reasonable to expect prices to be lower overall now than in the past.

    Compound that expectation with the fact that prices are not only not falling, but rising precipitously, and I think users have a valid gripe. We may not be in the midst of the worst price climate ever, but it's certainly stormy in a time when the forecast would suggest it should be sunnier.

    The article concludes that "you get what you pay for." I would argue that's less true today than it was two years ago, as price increases have not been proportional to performance and feature gains.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 54 of 66
    MacPro said:
    sirozha said:
    I do agree that the true Pro-level machines can cost whatever price Apple wants to charge, as they are means of production for highly paid occupations. 
    I accept that pro level machines cost more than consumer-oriented versions. What I don't understand is why the difference is increasing so much, so quickly.

    I use my MacBook Pro in my work. When I bought it, two years ago, it cost just over CAD$5,000 after AppleCare and taxes. The equivalent today (same amount of RAM, staying with an i7 instead of upgrading to the i9, Radeon graphics instead of upgrading to the Vega, same amount of storage) costs CAD$6225. That's an increase of 25% in two years!

    The new machine doesn't offer anything that will increase my earning power and thus offset the extra cost. That difference comes directly out of my pocket.

    A pro user has to accept the price of suitable tools being higher than consumer goods, but costs still have to be justifiable and make economic sense within the context of running the business. Current prices are making that a lot harder for those who prefer Apple's tools.
    Just a thought ...  Did your house go up in value over the last few years?  Does a car cost more than the same car a few years ago?  
    The article uses adjusted dollar values to make the comparisons, so inflation isn't a consideration.

    And no, my house did not go up 25% in value over the last two years, nor does a two-year newer car cost 1/4-again more than the one I have.

    More importantly, my billing rates have not increased 25% in two years, nor does a new Mac compared to a two-year-old model provide the means to increase my productivity by 25%.

    Finally, the cost of producing a computer should not have increased 25% in two years. It hasn't for anyone else. What's going on at Apple that its pricing is so out of step with the rest of the industry?

    For several years now computer prices have been pretty stable, even with inflation. The questions are why has that now changed, why only Apple, and why so much?
    muthuk_vanalingamelijahgsaarekdocno42
  • Reply 55 of 66
    IanSIanS Posts: 32member
    YEP, I was an original Mac 128 owner with an ImageWriter I at around $4000 Canadian. Also an SE and later SE 30. Most expensive Mac was a Quadra 840av $15000 Canadian as configured. So my current 5K iMac feels like a deal.
    docno42
  • Reply 56 of 66
    sirozha said:
    I do agree that the true Pro-level machines can cost whatever price Apple wants to charge, as they are means of production for highly paid occupations. 
    I accept that pro level machines cost more than consumer-oriented versions. What I don't understand is why the difference is increasing so much, so quickly.

    I use my MacBook Pro in my work. When I bought it, two years ago, it cost just over CAD$5,000 after AppleCare and taxes. The equivalent today (same amount of RAM, staying with an i7 instead of upgrading to the i9, Radeon graphics instead of upgrading to the Vega, same amount of storage) costs CAD$6225. That's an increase of 25% in two years!

    The new machine doesn't offer anything that will increase my earning power and thus offset the extra cost. That difference comes directly out of my pocket.

    A pro user has to accept the price of suitable tools being higher than consumer goods, but costs still have to be justifiable and make economic sense within the context of running the business. Current prices are making that a lot harder for those who prefer Apple's tools.
    Next time, visit the US for a computer shopping trip. ;)
  • Reply 57 of 66
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 947member
    The headline says:

    Apple's flagship Macs are now less expensive than ever before


    That's not true. They may be less expensive than they have been at various points in history, but they are not the lowest they've ever been. Even the article itself states "[...] if you compare the current Mac and iOS lineup with last year's, you can see a huge increase in prices." That contradicts the statement made in the headline.

    I mention this not to be pedantic, but to dispute the article's implication that current prices are not cause for concern to me as a buyer. While current prices may not be inconsistent with and unprecedented in Apple's history, they are not what one might reasonably expect. Prices are higher than they were just a year ago, and last year's machines were no more exotic or specially equipped than current models. In the absence of any obvious reason for this, I find myself wondering what's gone sideways at Apple to cause it?

    This short-term aberration strikes me as more significant than ultra-long-term trends. I think comparing prices in 2018 to recent years is more relevant than a historical perspective, because Apple in 2018 bears little resemblance to the company it was twenty or even just ten years ago.

    The Apple of 2018 enjoys massive economies of scale it could not leverage in years past. The fact that Apple could not hit lower price points back in the day does not necessarily mean it can't now. Yet prices are not declining or even holding steady. They're rising. Sharply. Compared to just one year ago. I'm bothered by that, and am not comforted by comparisons to times of different circumstances.

    It was a fun article, an enjoyable romp down memory lane, and informative overall. I just don't think it makes the point it seemed to intend. Or maybe I misunderstood. It's been known to happen from time to all the time.
    All of the bolded statements above, including the headline, can be true. At no point did we say to not worry about it, but there is a lot of gnashing of teeth about how Apple has never, ever done this -- which is completely, utterly bogus.
    Apple's never bumped prices quite as much in one go as they have recently though. In 2016 they bumped the 2015 MBP by £400 in the UK, but the actual spec of the machine didn't change at all. And if they had done this before, it doesn't make it ok. 

    Mike Wuerthele said:
    sirozha said:
    Tesla Model S for over $100,000 is way overpriced. Ten years from now, an EV sedan comparable to Model S will cost under $50,000 in today’s dollars. If an EV manufacturer jacks up the price from $50,000 to $75,000 ten years from now, should you be comparing the price to the price of Model 3 ten years prior or should you base such a comparison on the contemporaneous prices of competitive EV sedans?

    It’s obvious that prices go down as the technology matures. To go decades back in time to bring those prices from the dead seems to be a curious thing to do. 
    FTA: "Apple has always made you pay a lot for its newest and best Macs, and, believe it or not, the 2018 lineup isn't even close to the most expensive Apple has ever been. AppleInsider takes a look back at Apple's Mac pricing over the last three decades."

    This is what we wrote. This isn't about cars, it isn't about comparing to Windows. This is literally addressing the whining that only Tim Cook has sold macs for so much money -- which is nonsense.

    In a static technology, like cars, prices can drop as technology matures. They don't always. I don't think electric cars will. Given Moore's law up until a few years ago, and the slowing now, computer technology isn't static and you are getting more computer for the same money -- or less. That is literally the point of this article.
    In absolute terms no, they aren't the most expensive they've ever been. Relative to the rest of the market however, they are arguably more expensive than ever before, especially considering the gap between quality of Apple gear compared to PC hardware and even Windows compared to macOS has shrunk.

    The price of electric cars have dropped a lot recently, so not really sure where you're going with that. Also you talk as if modern Macs somehow have different technology inside which prevents the mature tech price decrease, but apart from the T2 chip they're essentially a PC. The issue is similarly specced PCs are now much cheaper than Macs, and the value proposition is much less attractive for many than a few years ago when PCs were just a bit cheaper.
  • Reply 58 of 66
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 947member

    The headline says:

    Apple's flagship Macs are now less expensive than ever before


    That's not true. They may be less expensive than they have been at various points in history, but they are not the lowest they've ever been. Even the article itself states "[...] if you compare the current Mac and iOS lineup with last year's, you can see a huge increase in prices." That contradicts the statement made in the headline.

    I mention this not to be pedantic, but to dispute the article's implication that current prices are not cause for concern to me as a buyer. While current prices may not be inconsistent with and unprecedented in Apple's history, they are not what one might reasonably expect. Prices are higher than they were just a year ago, and last year's machines were no more exotic or specially equipped than current models. In the absence of any obvious reason for this, I find myself wondering what's gone sideways at Apple to cause it?

    This short-term aberration strikes me as more significant than ultra-long-term trends. I think comparing prices in 2018 to recent years is more relevant than a historical perspective, because Apple in 2018 bears little resemblance to the company it was twenty or even just ten years ago.

    The Apple of 2018 enjoys massive economies of scale it could not leverage in years past. The fact that Apple could not hit lower price points back in the day does not necessarily mean it can't now. Yet prices are not declining or even holding steady. They're rising. Sharply. Compared to just one year ago. I'm bothered by that, and am not comforted by comparisons to times of different circumstances.

    It was a fun article, an enjoyable romp down memory lane, and informative overall. I just don't think it makes the point it seemed to intend. Or maybe I misunderstood. It's been known to happen from time to all the time.
    All of the bolded statements above can be true. At no point did we say to not worry about it, but there is a lot of gnashing of teeth about how Apple has never, ever done this -- which is completely, utterly bogus.
    Okay, I accept the premise was not "don't worry about it" because you would know better than I.

    Assuming the formula used to calculate era-dollar equivalents was reasonably accurate, you're right, prices are not the highest they've ever been (though the headline is still a factual mis-statement). Nor should they be. The production challenges facing a computer manufacturer in 2018 are much less daunting than they were at the peak price periods mentioned in the article. I think it's reasonable to expect prices to be lower overall now than in the past.

    Compound that expectation with the fact that prices are not only not falling, but rising precipitously, and I think users have a valid gripe. We may not be in the midst of the worst price climate ever, but it's certainly stormy in a time when the forecast would suggest it should be sunnier.

    The article concludes that "you get what you pay for." I would argue that's less true today than it was two years ago, as price increases have not been proportional to performance and feature gains.
    Perhaps one of the price increase defendants here can justify the extra 25% with features or speed increases? Though if speed increases were a real factor linked to price, we'd now be paying several million times more than the first computers.
  • Reply 59 of 66
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 761member
    Latko said:
    What does an affordability test mean when it doesn’t reckon 4 year old gear being sold for it’s original price ?
    Apple TCO is still lower. My primary desktop is a 2011 iMac. Let that sink in. An almost 8-year-old PC would run like crap.
    Amen..  I have mid 2011 Macbook Air ( i7 ) and Mac Mini ( i5 ) both running strong. Mini serves the ATV's in my house with 10tb of storage attached and has been on almost continuously since Jan 2012 with the weekly restart or restart for updates.  I bought the MBA used in 2014 it doesn't get heavy use, but the SSD and OS run smooth and fast when I need it.

    I have never had this type of longevity from a Win Laptop or PC...
  • Reply 60 of 66
    StayPuftZombieStayPuftZombie Posts: 45unconfirmed, member
    entropys said:
    It does not matter how expensive macs were in the past. Heck I paid over USD$4000 for a PowerBook G3 “Wallstreet” back in the day.  
    What matters today is the price of a Mac compared with comparable windows machines.
    Not hardly, as Macs have also nearly always been more expensive than a comparable Windows machine. The argument that we've been assaulted with, with a new battery after the Mac mini rollout, is that Tim Cook has unnecessarily jacked up prices, and only he has ever had the gall to price machines so high.

    That is false, at its face.
    Not true. 

    Mac Pro from 2006-2010 was VERY price competitive. Hmm, I wonder what changed after that. I guess that's when Apple started building its 'deep pipeline'.

    But then again that doesn't fit with the article's narrative here, so I'll assume this post will be deleted much like my earlier, "all apologies" comment/post.
    edited December 2018 elijahg
Sign In or Register to comment.