tylersdad

Mike Wuerthele said:

d3bug said:

I'm sorry Mr Gallagher and Mr. Wuerthele, but you cannot redefine what "Pro" means just for Apple. Everyone abides by the same definition of "Pro" or nobody does. I'm afraid you are guilty of a classic hypocrisy move... one definition for me, and one for thee. When the components you might wish to upgrade (RAM, HDD, CPU, GPU) are soldered to the board, I'm afraid you cannot claim that system to be professional in any way... You might get away with "Prosumer", but not "Professional".

Okay, I'll bite. What's Apple's definition of "Pro" then? Show me where they codified it? Apple uses "Pro" as nothing more than a marketing term, and never has applied a classification to what makes one product pro and one not.

Upgrading components is in utterly no way the definition of "Pro." That may be YOUR definition, but it means you're calling Disney, Pixar, NASA, IBM, and most of the rest of the market not pro because they don't crack the cases open -- and never have, even when the door folded down. You really don't have any room to call somebody else a hypocrite in this matter.

It's not just about not being able to upgrade. Components fail. Apple hardware is no less susceptible to this than other hardware. If you can't upgrade the SDD, then you certainly can't repair it. Which begs the question: What happens when parts fail? Do these devices need to be sent back to Apple or taken to an Apple authorized repair facility?

StrangeDays said:

toxicman said:

Seriously!  A fully configured Mac Mini without keyboard, mouse and monitor is over $4299!

for what?  I7 6 core, with 64gb ram and a 1.5tb SSD.   That’s a $1800 PC.  Come on apple.  Get real.  

Who’s forcing you to order the maxed-out top-tier machine? Are you OK? Do you need help?

Oh, you’re just whining about price. Would it make you feel better if Apple didn’t offer that top-tier? If everyone of all income-levels had to buy the same exact lower-tier machine? Would that make it better?

Even the lower spec'd machines are ridiculously overpriced. I guess some people don't mind paying for "awesome engineering as a feature". Count me out. The value proposition just isn't there. And don't give me that crap about Apple using more awesomer components than every other computer manufacturer. They source the same parts as every other manufacturer. They don't get better Intel I3 chips. They don't get better RAM. They don't get better hard drives. 

it is absolutely unbelievable what Apple charges for these things. The base model is $799 and only comes with an I3 processor, 8 GB RAM, and a 128 SSD drive. Want to upgrade to 256 GB? That'll be $200...the cost of a 1TB SSD on Amazon. 

Ridiculous. 

They can't include a $9 USB-C-to-3.5" adapter in a device that starts at $800? When they included the adapter on iPhones, it was a bit tougher to say that they removed it to increase accessory sales. Now?

Restrained_Nicholas said:

"Claw?"

Bad choice of words.

tylersdad said:

T.j.p. said:

All that will happen is Apple products will cost 2+% more rounded up to the next marketable price. Who pays this tax? People who buy Apple products, not Apple. The UK is wanting more money from its citizens. They know Apple will raise prices to cover this cost.

Exactly. Businesses don't pay taxes. Their customers do. That's why these various targeted taxes do nothing but hurt consumers. For instance, in WA state, there's a ballot initiative that would charge energy companies a "carbon fee", ostensibly to create a fund that would be used to pay for clean energy initiatives in the state. It's an indirect tax on WA state rate payers, since energy companies will simply raise rates to pay for it.

Sadly, the vast majority of the electorate seems to be illiterate and has no basic understanding of economics or business. So, it will likely pass.

Thank goodness the majority of the electorate understands more about economics than you do. Please look up "negative externality."

The carbon tax puts a price on polluting - one that's still far lower than what it actually costs everyone. That's one of the basic functions of taxes: encouraging/discouraging desirable behaviors.

I understand the concept of "negative externality" quite well. The fact remains. Energy companies will not pay for this new "fee". Their customers will. And that's my biggest issue with this proposal. If the proposal were written honestly, it would charge rate payers, not energy companies. After all, energy companies only pollute so that they may provide energy to their customers. No customers. No pollution. It's pretty simple. 

But, just like the ACA, it can't be written that way because the majority of rate payers would not knowingly vote to increase their power bills by $10-$20 per month...which is the estimated downstream impact to rate payers.