That's not what I think. Paying more gets you more in the case of Apple. What other company actually gives you much better products than the rest? What other computer gives you something that uses something like 50 watts at full-tilt but averages maybe 15 watts during regular use?
That's because they're using laptop components in their iMacs. They don't use full on desktop PC hardware.
I've built my own computers. I had my last one for the last 8 years and for the most part it didn't have trouble. But Windows nags every month with the blue screens. It couldn't even sleep properly. It was loud when the fans were on.
If you built it right, you wouldn't have been experiencing any blue screens. Blue screens don't just happen randomly due to software conflict anymore. You only see them if you've got some big hardware issue going on. Like half assed drivers written for cheap parts by a cheap manufacturer (which is why you only buy brand name stuff), or you had something going bad. Besides that one blue screen I saw during my time in the Win8 beta, it had been years and years since I've had to deal with one.
Not even being able to sleep properly? Once again, a no name parts manufacturer is the likely culprit here. When Windows has a problem going to sleep, 99% of the time it's due to the hardware not supporting all the feature, and it gives you a conflict.
Granted, with Macs you don't have to worry about this. Complete control of the hardware and software is one of the big advantages Apple has over the OEMs. But it isn't exactly a widespread issue in the OEM world. Not unless you're buying cheap stuff to save a few bucks.
The monitor was average, even though it was one of the best among the aftermarket. Why should I put up with all that? The money spent on a home computer is a total waste if you ask me. It runs half-ass AND you don't get a single dollar back for what you spend.
Sounds more like a failure to do your research to me. What monitor was it?
Plus it's not like Apple makes the best monitor money can buy. It's good, but is generally considered rather middling in comparison to some others in its price bracket. Like the screen on the iMac? Yeah, it's alright. You wouldn't use it if you were a pro publisher, though. You'd use an Eizo or a high end Dell for that.
Basically, if you want a monitor to match what you'd get from Apple, you buy in the same price range. You can't compare even an iMac monitor to a chintzy $250 dealie you can pick up at Best Buy. You have to buy a $700 to get into the same class, then you start comparing and contrasting.
Apple got their act together with OS X. but 2011 was the first time I think they got the whole package right. Now i have a 2012. Apple's have always been pricey, but considering the level engineering and development they put into this one, this is a deal. A one-piece Al case (pretty incredible achievement) says it all.
I'll give Apple props for making some of the best designed computers around. The rMBP and new iMac are not only pretty striking looking machines, but also pack a lot of power into a surprisingly small amount of space. I don't think anyone in the PC scene has a computer as fast as a 27" iMac in such a thin chassis.
But if you need pure power, you probably won't be worrying too much about how thin it is. You'll want something you can stuff all the latest and greatest into, and can upgrade later.
Want a small machine? Then buy a Mini-ITX one. They're still bigger than an iMac, sure. But the trade off is you're getting more power and flexibility.
Also Apple's resale value stems from one thing: demand vs supply. There is nothing else that determines the price. So what if Apple kept the price high? If they sold awful products, they wouldn't sell any regardless of price. Only if Apple sold LESS could they affect market prices. Fact is, Apple makes millions and millions of machines, sells all of them, and is breaking their back to make MORE.... and the resale prices are as high as ever. If that doens't tell you something about Apple's products, you're too thick to argue with.
Not really. Apple has been pretty clever about how they've controlled the Mac market. Mainly, they maintain the premiumness (I guess that's a word) of the brand by making it almost impossible to get a cheap one. Apple doesn't mark down the price of their older inventory, and only sells it indirectly once a new rev comes out. Like a new 2012 iMac will still cost the same in 2014 as the day they came out. Because of that, people selling their old iMacs don't have a reason to cut down on the price too severely to get it to move.
If someone wants a cheaper iMac, all someone has to do is sell their used machine off for a little less than what you'd get a new one for. There's no other way to get a Mac for any less. It's a well controlled market, maintained both by Apple and their resellers.
----------
Ok you did make me curious with the Falcon suggestion, I used to shop them. Check my pics, am I missing something here?
Though with Falcon, you're talking about Apple's equal in build quality and customer support, not being able to get the same for cheaper. If anything, they the one PC manufacturer out there who's more expensive than Apple.
I mean comeon. They use steel and polished granite for their cases. You don't get much more pointlessly fancy than that.
koolaid 
