lorin schultz

MacPro said:

lorin schultz 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?

Rayz2016 said:

Mike Wuerthele 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.

It's not even just the scams that are eroding my trust. The system in its current form allows for misleading consumers.

Like free apps with in-app purchases that present as supporting Family Sharing. We checked to make sure the app Infinite Flight supported Family Sharing before paying over $100 for an in-app purchase for our grandson. When we tried to activate the unlocked features on another device, it didn't work. When we contacted the developer we were told the app itself is shareable, but NOT the in-app purchase. What the hell is the point of Family Sharing for a FREE app? The part that matters is the PAID part! There's nothing in the existing App Store structure that lets a buyer know that in advance.

Words With Friends does the same thing.

The "Family Sharing" designation in the App Store seems to be meaningless.

auxio said:

So you're saying that finding new ways to organize data which eliminates the need for file management doesn't help people?

I understand what you're saying and what Apple is trying to do, but it strikes me as one of those things that makes it less suited for "pro" use. I don't want a file associated with a specific app, as I may use two or three different apps to work on it. I also need to be able to save multiple versions of a project, which is more hassle with Apple's approach. Hand-holding and idiot-proofing are good for consumer-facing applications, but for many professional users, especially creators, a more traditional file system may be easier and more flexible. r maybe not, depending on the task. I'm just not quite so willing to dismiss effective workflows just because something new comes along, which may or may not be better, or only better for a certain subset of users.

auxio said:

Or wireless headphones

Latency, data compression, @#$%&!!! pairing. None of those things is insurmountable, none is a deal-breaker, but all are things that complicate the life of a content creator. Handy and logical for consumers, harder to understand in a pro product. I've got cables for mics, speakers, processors, et al, but we draw the line at a headphone cable? I don't care all that much, it just seems weird to me.

auxio said:
cloud data storage

Yet again, that's something with clear, obvious benefits for consumers, but is something most professionals would never even consider using, except in exceptional circumstances (I've been known to reach into a computer at home from a client's site to retrieve a file I didn't know I'd need, but I sure wouldn't want to make that my primary working method). Maybe if one is on the road for weeks at a time and doesn't want to fill the internal storage with all the CAD drawings for twenty sites, but even then a portable drive is MUCH faster and doesn't incur cellular data costs.

Again, it's not a deal-breaker since storage optimization can be turned off (can't it?) to prevent the system from invisibly offloading something you really don't want it to, and higher storage capacities can be had. It's even kinda handy for some situations. I just don't see it as something I would list in the "features" section if I was selling to pro users.

StrangeDays said:

"If you wanted to remove the keyboard but keep the back, sorry, that's too bad." - why would you want to do this? Keeping a cover on the *backside only* has got to be a fringe case.

Huh? Not at all. Most people keep their phone in a case, which covers only the back. Why would I not want the same thing for my iPad?

That's exactly what we have for my wife's original 12.9" iPad Pro. It has a silicone case of the same style/type as a phone case. We can attach the keyboard when we want it and detach it when we don't, but either way it's still in its case.