No... millions of others, including me, feel comfortable with what they are charging. If they didn't, they wouldn't buy it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No... millions of others, including me, feel comfortable with what they are charging. If they didn't, they wouldn't buy it.
Apple, like every good capitalist, charges what the market will bear. And the market will bear what it feels is a good value.
If people felt Apple was not a good value, they would not buy the product - especially in double-digit percentage boosts quarter on quarter.
Do I wish I could have paid $1499 instead of $1999 for my MacBook Pro? Sure. But I don't have a viable option, and I value the MBP enough to pay the extra $500. I have the technical skill to build a Hackintosh laptop, but not the desire to futz with it to make it worth it. I value my time and user experience over three-plus years greater then I do $500.
If people felt Apple was not a good value, they would not buy the product - especially in double-digit percentage boosts quarter on quarter.
Do I wish I could have paid $1499 instead of $1999 for my MacBook Pro? Sure. But I don't have a viable option, and I value the MBP enough to pay the extra $500. I have the technical skill to build a Hackintosh laptop, but not the desire to futz with it to make it worth it. I value my time and user experience over three-plus years greater then I do $500.
Why is it you're not buying from someone else then? Would it be because of OSX? And do you think that maybe the millions, perhaps billions, they spend on development, R&D and support for OSX contributes to Apple machines having a higher price?
Now before you say Apple should just sell their OS to run on any PC, can you name one company besides Microsoft that has ever been successful selling a desktop OS that they developed to end users?
Wow, Mac fan boys attack... hahaha
If you're happy with your purchased and comfortable at the price you're paying then that's fine. All I'm saying it's that I think Apple is overcharge. I'm think a lot of people feels the same way, they just can't do anything about it because they want OSX but whatever float Mac fan boys...
OSX and Windows are two main OS, what else do you want me to name? Linux?
If you're happy with your purchased and comfortable at the price you're paying then that's fine. All I'm saying it's that I think Apple is overcharge. I'm think a lot of people feels the same way, they just can't do anything about it because they want OSX but whatever float Mac fan boys...
OSX and Windows are two main OS, what else do you want me to name? Linux?
To paraphrase, you are mad at current Mac customers for buying at such high prices so that the price won't come down to a level you are comfortable with.
Yeah, calling someone a fanboy always helps your argument.
In case you didn't understand, I meant selling the OS alone, Apple makes money because it charges more for the hardware to run the OS, Linux distros make money mostly from support contracts, the OS itself is free. They do sell boxed versions, but they don't profit much from them.
Linux can't even dethrone Microsoft and it's free.
That's a nice paraphrase. Such a statement might work if we were talking about some market-traded commodity or raw material where the seller can not change the value being offered. But we are not.
If Apple could not sell the current Mac offerings at the current price, I doubt they would lower the price until they find the "balance point". Apple would find a way to increase the value they are offering through new innovations, to keep the price, and profit, high. That is the way they roll. That is why so many like Apple. There are very few other computer makers like that, seeking to constantly innovate and increase end-user value.
The reason the price is high now, is because that is what Apple has done for the last 5-6 years - reinvested to increase the value of their offerings. They are now reaping the return on all that investment and the market is voting very strongly that they like it, with millions buying, and 30-50% quarter over quarter growth in Mac sales for something like 10 quarters in a row now. Yes, it might be shocking, but speculators like Apple expect a nice return when they invest in innovation, and that translates into higher unit price. But the market is an amazing thing: people won't buy at a high price if high value is lacking. Guess what: people are buying. Hmmm.....what is the problem again, exactly? (beside a whiny few who want a high value premium product without having to pay for it!)
None of that makes my paraphrase wrong. I just rephrased his statement for clarity, I didn't say it was accurate or that it was my sentiment.
All that is very well. But you guys using the "the market is a great indicator of value" forgot the "perceived value", not to mention hype and marketing. One can certainly argue that you pay a lot for that hype and marketing when it comes to Apple, because if you go down to the nitty gritty of it all, the products "real" value is far less. I guess it also ties into "perceived quality", judging from all the people regurgitaging four-six year old mantras such as "Macs are better quality".
I have to say, that even though one can look at things in the very simple form you guys do (ie. they can sell it for as much as they do, thus it must be great value), I have to disagree, as that point of view is using a utopian view on a market being self-regulating. Hell, point in case: Dotcom and subprime loans. Yes, it might selfregulate in the end, but that does not mean that it's the best price, the best value at any point on the timeline.
All that any transaction means is that at the point in time the transaction takes place, the buyer and seller both perceive that the transaction is in their best interest. That's it. It isn't utopian that the market is self-regulating - it's a simple matter of the laws of economics. The dot com crash and the sub-prime mortgage mess are exactly evidence of this self regulating, not counters to it. Those who speculated in risky transactions oftentimes lose. That's self correcting. A government bail-out is the only way to interfere with the self-correcting market, and it would be a mistake to not let the market punish those who make poor decisions - it would only encouraging more of it.
A transaction does not require evidence to be the best value at any point on the timeline for computers. Maybe for oil speculators or futures traders, but not for consumer purchases. All it requires is a willing buyer and seller at the time of the transaction. And at this time, Apple is providing strong, compelling value to record numbers of buyers who perceive a great enough value to shell out high prices. Until someone else can offer the value that Apple is, or there is a major economic downtown affecting their buyers, this trend will continue, and Apple would be foolish to veer at all from the current, very profitable, high-value course they are on.
As far as "Mac are better" being 6 years old, this was from last week in PC Magazine:
Most people I talk to who are getting Macs for the first time are pleasantly surprised that Apple exceeds their expecations, not disappoints. Their high price, record sales, 10 quarters of 30-50% growth, and consistent favorable reviews are real evidence of their value and consistently exceeding customer expectations, not some reality distortion field or over-blown marketing effort, as you have implied.
It's interesting, because the "Kool-Aid" drinking seems to have reversed itself in the last 6 years. Apple users used to be accused of "drinking the kool-aid" when seeing a great value in Macs despite the overwhelming evidence of low market share, declining sales figures and low Apple profit that suggested the contrary. Now that the tides have turned, it seems that the kool-aid drinking logic has flipped to the other side.
Ahhhh - how ironic!
I know - I wasn't reacting to you, but to the content of your paraphrasing of the other persons POV. A point I tried to make by saying "That's a nice paraphrase" at the start of my post, but perhaps it wasn't clear enough.....
As I said, it doesn't mean that the prices you pay for, say, an MBP, is way too high at the moment. Even if some people (mainly because of marketing and hype) think it's a-okay. Take a look at the
Yes, it's simple, but not as simply as you and others make it out to: "The price cannot be too high in relation to what you get, otherwise no-one would buy" is a simplification of ecnomics with utter disregard for the many other factors at play. It's the same as when people go "the market will always result in better quality products, otherwise people will buy something else". Again, it's not that simple.
You obviously missed my point: You're saying that at this point on the timeline, the MBP HAS to be good value, because otherwise people wouldn't buy it. I, on the other hand, are using the subrpime crisis and dotcom bubble as examples where at certain point in the timeline the value just wasn't there, even though a lot people thought it to be. THAT is the comparison.
Please reread my post, because what you do right now is very close to strawman argumentation.
See above. Especially about the strawman argumentation: Why the hell do you suddenly want to infer I'm talking about "government bail-out" and "government interference"?
As I said, as examples: Hype and marketing. Very few people are aware enough to check out the market.
I am not talking about what course Apple is taking. I couldn't care less, as my interest is not doing a corporate study, but to get actual value and quality as a consumer, and not some hyped up poor quality product. We COULD compare to other nonsense brands such as Gucci (who make their watches in China on the very same factory as Adidas and others). Unlike you, I'm talking real value here, not some "instant gratification" product.
I didn't merely imply it. The fact is: People are purporting that Apple is still quality – even if they have a crappy machine third time in a row. Take a look at the MBA-forum, and even if there are all sorts of things wrong with bloke A's computer, he will STILL say he's satisfied with the quality. Hell, some are even arguing that it's all fine and dandy to have core shutdowns and whatnot, having to install apps and play with the voltages to the cpu, all in order to not having it shut down from wathcing a youtube video.
Also, go ask around how many think that the ipod (even with the "free" headphones) are the end-all of good audio "because every one else has one, sp it must be good".
I'm sorry, but your notion that because a lot of people are buying a product, then it must have real value is a logical fallacy.
You know what's ironic? Watching you think you can prove that Macs are good quality by way of the McDonald's argument:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Now let me paraphrase the post quoted above: "I don't understand value".
We are not talking about a fluke or a fad at one point on the timeline. We are talking about almost 5 continuous years of amazing flocking to Apple products, and all signs that it will continue for some time. Apple products that are popular, and are charged at a premium. And you compare that to the McDonalds argument. LOL. Popularity at a low price (generic PCs, Bic Pens, MCD's) may fall into your fallacy appeal link, but you failed to take into account a major item in the Apple argument: they are popular at a high price. Guess what: there is something else going on here that you have failed to grasp: Apple provides a real value to their customers, whose expectations are exceeded, resulting in a very high customer loyalty. Your fallacy popularity point is just another way of saying that the cheapest commodity item on the market is popular because of its price, not because of its quality. Isn't that obvious? Show me something that is popular at a high price, and you have something that is providing quality AND value. You totally whiffed at grasping this. You also conveniently ignore the numerous PC Mag, Consumer Report and other reviews of Apple's quality, refer to on-line forums as indicative of quality, and then accuse me of making a strawman argument. LOL. Again.
You're iPod example is a wonderful example of how badly you are whiffing. You make the statement that just because it is popular does not mean it is the end-all of good audio. Duhhhh, and whiff again. The appeal of the iPod is it's user interface and how easy it makes to have your music go with you, not the quality of the audio. Hello. Welcome to the 21st century and the compressed music era! Saying it is about audio quality sounds like the record companies, completely missing the point about what people want. It is that misunderstanding by the record industry that created the opportunity that Apple is seizing in the music business. You obviously completely fail to understand the value that the iPod brings, just like you are failing to understand the value the Mac brings. The iPod is not about audio quality, and the Mac is not about price competitiveness. Get it? Apple is doing something different. I understand if these are not values to YOU, and if YOU value the best audio, and low-price computer values, but please do not assume that such products are what we ALL value, or that Apple needs to make these products to meet YOUR needs. There are plenty of others who already do so, but a scant few who meet the needs that Apple fills.
Go try bating somewhere elsewhere, and get off your reversed brand of kool-aid. It ain't gonna play here!
Neither am I. McDonald's, Coca Cola, Levi's, Gucci, Hermes, and so on aren't flukes or fads either – one can be succesful, popular, and/or be perceived as "quality" by way of marketing and hype. I think you ought to read up on logical fallacies, and then, for once, try to understand what I say straight out.
As I said: Read up on things. Particular logical fallacies.
Imagine that! One can actually hype and market a product to make people believe the quality is better than anything out there. What a surprise! And the funny part is, you STILL think that this popularity at high prices translates into "high quality". And you STILL think that it has nothing to do with the McD-argument. You really need to read up on, and wrap your head around the concept of logical fallacies in order to avoid them.
I even gave you examples of how this RDF works, when I mentioned how MBA owners were willing to fiddle with voltages of the CPU, all the while claiming it is well designed and splendid quality.
Stop with the strawman argumentation (even if you seem to do it unwillingly). The McD-argument has nothing to do with price, but everything to do with the logical fallacy that "popularity=quality". One uses McD as a prime example to show that that is a pure and utter logical fallacy, because who in their right mind consider McD-eats "good quality", thus one EXAMPLIFIES how you cannot appeal to popularity to show that something is "good quality".
No you don't. You may have a "perceived" value, but "real value" (as in "quality" is not guaranteed by high popularity AND high prices.
LOL, for someone who cannot even understand what a logical fallacy is, let alone the concept of the specific McD-argument, I hardly think you should bark too loudly.
All I have seen are more of your way of arguing: That because more people buy the stuff, it must be good quality. In other words: "a billion flies can't be wrong: Eat sh it"
The thing is, in an argument, it doesn't matter if the entire world believes the earth is flat. It's an appeal to popularity, and as such it is a logical fallacy.
LOL, you really are selective. Have you followed the numerous stories about the vertical striping issues on the MBP, the motherboard stories across the board, the core shutdowns, the cracking iPhones and so on? I'm sorry, but when fanboys are saying that all the while their computer is acting, they still consider it a "quality product", I have to conlude it's the RDF speaking and make my own decision as to whether the product is quality or not, based on what's wrong with their computer, not how they perceive, say, core shutdowns as a "minor nuisance one can live with".
When you put words into my mouth, pretending I said something completely different than what I did, and refute what you pretend I said, then you make a strawman. Apparently there's another concept you need to read up on.
Haha, you sound like you think you're an umpire or something, yet you don't even know how to throw a ball properly.
Oh yeah, it's all just marketing hype........
Uh-hu. You're one of those types. I know the type. Sorry.
Uh-hu. You're one of those types. I know the type. Sorry.
Sigh! I'm not saying it's ALL just marketing and hype. I'm saying that popularity at high prices does not mean "high quality" automatically but that you utterly ignore how hype and marketing can work wonders with popularity.Oh yeah, it's all just marketing hype........
Do you think that people stood in line for the iPhone and the iPHone 3G because they somehow knew it was "good quality"? No, that was hype and marketing, not the market "proving" the iPhone was a "good quality".
Yes, you sure do. It shows – especially when you have to make a caricature of what I said in order to make your point.
You don't need to be sorry, your statement says a whole lot more about you than anyone else[ oh, I just realised why you're sorry. I would be too, if I were you.]
Excuse me, but those quotes does in no way contradict each other. One CAN hype a product to make people believe something is better quality than it is. Otherwise people like you wouldn't be using the McD-argument to the extend you do.
That does in no way mean that everything Apple is ALL hype and marketing.
But I see you're willing to go to any lengths in order to "prove" your fallacies.
verus
Thanks for clarifying, because you were running out on a limb before. Yes, you can improve perceptions with marketing, and no, that is not the only thing going on with the Mac.
My point exactly.
No I wasn't. I was countering your logical fallacy that popularity at high prices automatically meant "high quality".
Besides, I see you deliberately left something out of that "vs"-thing you just made. You ought to have done it like this:
Versus this one, later on:
If you notice, I had the word "can" in both those sentences. It's funny you decided to leave it out. I can only guess as to why you did that
Hmm, "certainly"? It smacks of certainty for some reason. And considering it's coming from someone who claims that the BECAUSE Apple's products are becoming more popular, and that at high prices, means that Apple products are inherently better products/good quality/real value, as seen in a vacuum of market forces, it really does mean absolutely nothing.
Eh, no it wasn't. Your point was that by a law of nature, or rather market forces, the fact that they're popular and at high prices, it HAD to be good quality, because you chose to use a most simplified economics model.
But anyway, I don't think I want to be bothered with you going back and forth on what you mean, using strawmen and logical fallacies in order to make your point anymore.
Ta
There you go again: "really does mean absolutely nothing". I bet I could drill down on that too, and get you to back off it. Again. Maybe you need to try to stop using such absolutes in your statements. You lecture me on logical fallacy, and then make such elementary mistakes. It so easy to disprove this so-called logical fallacy stance you are taking, especially when you keep on using such extremes. You are comparing to McD's, and then call what I am saying a fallacy. Maybe you need to better read your own posts and links.
Popularity at a high price does mean something more than just "marketing hype", you said so yourself (or rather, I got you to say it, after you ran out on a limb). It indicates a real, compelling value.
I bet you will. You will read this and find the need to clarify your own contradiction, extremes and reverse kool-aid.
You don't think I wrote "absolutely" on purpose, BECAUSE you were talking certainties? [shakes head in disbelief]
Man, you really miss a lot, don't you?
You realise that that statement is in itself a logical fallacy, right? Further, me pointing out that the very basis of your argumentation is a logical fallacy is not "a stance". It is showing you that your argumentation is logically flawed.
Wow! I'm amazed you're still not able to fathom that the logical fallacy where one appeals to popularity to prove a product is "quality" is what you're doing. And that - even after I explained WHY it's called the McDonald's argument - you STILL don't get that it's because by using McD as an example you get to show that you cannot conclude that something is good quality based on popularity. I'm truly and utterly amazed.
I never "ran out on a limb". You pretending that I somehow changed what I said, which was basically, that your argument was flawed, that you CANNOT conclude from high prices and higher popularity that any given product inherently must be good or even better quality because of it.
You see, I NEVER claimed that it was ALL marketing and hype. I said you ignored those two things as parameters in your idiotic simplifed "economics in a vacuum" theory, where you pretend that that was ALL there was to it, and that was PROOF that Macs must thus be good quality. You really need to stop making strawmen and pretend I said anything like "It's ALL marketing and hype". It's becaoming tiresome.
No it doesn't. It CAN indicate that. But it doesn't follow AUTOMATICALLY as you want it to.
Yup. Thus I said I didn't WANT to.
There are no contradictions.
Man, you need to get some tuition. You can't even read what I wrote. And back then you even made a logical leap and compared apple's to oranges, all the while ignoring the context. What a joke.
Ah, yes, you mean where I, unlike you, don't believe in economics in a vacuum? That we should ignore marketing, but conclude that it was because of "good quality proven by the market forces" that the iPhone was popular even before it came out?
Ah, yes, it's certainly "reverse kool-aid"
So you're saying because Microsoft has had a virtual monopoly on the home OS market for a decade or more now that it's OK that no one else plays on that playing field? How can someone in one breath compare Apple to Microsoft and claim Apple does not have a monopoly on the OSX market (or claim no such 'market' exists) and in the next breath claim Apple is NOT in the same market as Microsoft? Because that's what you're telling me. Either Apple is competing against Microsoft on the SAME market OR they're monopolizing their OWN OS market. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.
So either Apple has to compete the same way Microsoft does by opening up their market to all computers OR they can be sued for anti-trust failings because they have a monopoly on their own operating system market. Either way, Apple LOSES. I find it amusing that Apple would actually sue Psystar for unfair competition when they are the ones that are not competing fairly. They sell hardware that no one else is allowed to compete with even though they can easily be proven to be nothing more than glorified clones. But wait you might cry, Dell competes with their hardware? Does Dell sell an OSX clone? No. So Dell is NOT competing for OSX hardware sales! So they're NOT a competitor to Apple's hardware. There IS NO hardware competing with Apple's hardware to run OSX! That's the whole point and why SOME of us think Psystar should win this and open up the market. If Apple doesn't want to play fair in an open market environment, then maybe they should move to Russia where Putin and his cronies will unfairly protect them from all competition...after the government takes control of them.
I'm sorry, but people want their cake and want to eat it too. Either you play by the rules of open competition or you go somewhere else. Apple doesn't want to play fair. They want to monopolize all the hardware for their own software market. Even Microsoft doesn't stoop so low and they've been the kings of unfair competition in the past.
The problem here is Apple is using one market to leverage another market. That's called tying. You can buy OSX and you can buy hardware, but if you want to run OSX on hardware, you HAVE to buy only Apple's hardware. That's tying. That's been previously ruled ILLEGAL and that's why Psystar has a case and is fighting it instead of just letting Apple bully them around. I know some of you don't agree and don't like it and want Steve Jobs to rule the Earth, but too freaking bad. You need to get over it. It'll mean lower prices for Apple branded hardware and alternatives for segments of the market Apple is completely ignoring (e.g. gaming spec'ed hardware). The only reason you could possibly think that's a bad thing to have clones is if you either own massive amounts of Apple stock and are afraid it might drop (heck it drops when they report record profits anyway!) of if you're a fan that likes to worship Steve Jobs and think it's unfair he might not make a world record breaking profit for Apple again next year if he has to lower his prices a bit to compete with someone selling clone hardware for what it's actually worth.
Personally, I don't give a hoot about Apple itself. If they make a good product at a fair price, I buy it. I bought an iPod Touch and two AppleTV units, but I bought my Mac USED because a MacMini just isn't for me. I needed a tower with internal storage. I would have bought a new one, but that would have meant a MacPro, which is insanely high priced for what I actually need a tower for and yet there are no other options from Apple. Oddly enough, a Psystar or Hackintosh would have fit the bill for about the same price as upgrading an old PowerMac and would have had considerably more power. Yeah, I feel a little stupid for buying the used Mac when I could have made a Hackintosh. I would never buy the MacPro, though, because it's way overpriced as a consumer desktop machine and iMacs simply don't interest me with no options for clean internal storage (I don't want to mess up the top of my desk).
So, as you can see, personal feelings can sway either direction. You can love Psystar or you can hate it, but there is no denying that if they win the case the consumer will win too with lower official prices and plenty of alternatives to Apple's overpriced hardware.
You can argue their OS cost them X amount to make, but then you're just telling me that OSX is undervalued. Given they tend to make you buy a $129 update every 1-2 years on average, I don't really believe it's undervalued. Look how much longer shelf life you get out of Windows. It costs more, but you don't have to buy an update every 1-2 years either so it ends up being the same thing when all is said and done. So do you want Windows Ultimate Vista for $400, which will last you the next 4 years or do you want to pay $129 every year for the next 4 years? It's your choice, but it costs about the same. Snow Leopard is set to be released next year with "no new features" but I bet it costs the same $129 to get it all over again.