Contradict much ?
They are a very good price/performance value, in their own segment. If you're out of the segment, you can't compare them, unlike what you're trying to do. Apple doesn't compete in the desktop market. If you're shopping for one, you're not shopping for an Apple computer, end of story.
Again, you seem to fail to udnerstand this very simple concept and keep repeating Macs are overpriced in a runabout way.
The xMac doesn't exist. Apple exited the market of market valued desktop tower computers around the time of the G5 because they saw it was just a race to the bottom they couldn't win.
Le sigh.
My premise: If one is looking for a desktop computer and want the best performance at a reasonable price, Apple's current product line does not represent a good value
for the intended use.
Precisely because they machines they
do offer don't quite fit the same market segment, they are not a good "fit" to the desired application and thus don't represent good value compared to the desktop PC.
As compared to the $699 Dell XPS 8000, the mini costs about the same but lacks in the performance area, the $1999 iMac costs ~3x more for similar performance, and the $2499 Mac Pro costs ~4x as much for similar performance.
You need to value something other than performance and price to consider those Macs a good value. Form factor is one option, the Mini is significantly smaller, the Mac Pro is about the same, and the iMac may be too big since it locks you into a 27" display. So the only Apple options are: sacrifice performance for size in the Mini, or get the 27" display for an extra $1300. The quad core Mac Pro compromises performance (slightly) over an i5 and isn't any smaller so what is it's current market segment?
Your premise: In the segments that Apple has products in, they provide good value.
There is no contradiction there at all. They are just two different perspectives with different assumptions, constraints and yardsticks.
I have said before and will say again that there is no disagreement from me on your premise. I would not currently be an all-Mac household and recommend Macs to anyone looking for a new machine (as long as their needs fit the parameter space Apple's current offerings are in) if I did.
Just to be more explicit. The Mac Tax is a myth, in many cases a Mac will be
cheaper than an equivalent PC when all factors (form factor, battery life, etc...) are taken into account 1:1. [Due to Apple's business model and product cycle your best bang for the buck is usually right when new models are released, and not when they are long in the tooth. By the end of a product's lifespan it becomes far easier to find comparable Windows machines at or below the same price.]
I think the i5/i7 27" iMac is a good value,
as a large, expensive, screen with a computer "included". Unfortunately Apple does not offer anything with similar performance in a smaller/different form factor.
Personally, if they had an i5/i7 iMac in the 20-24" range I'd be all over it even if it cost as much as the 27"(*), because it would better fit my particular form factor needs and would thus represent a better value.
(* Based on the current price of the Apple 24" LED display and i5 computers like the Dell XPS 8000, I would hope a 22-24" i5 iMac would be priced closer to $1700, but it would potentially still be acceptable at $1900-$2000).
I'm also one of the few people who doesn't think that Mac Pros are overpriced...
But the fact is: Even for graphic design work you use seldom more than 5% of its CPU power.
Unless you edit HD video, a Mac Pro is an absolute overkill!
I don't think the 8 core Mac Pro is overpriced, as a similarly configured Dell T5500 workstation isn't that much cheaper. I know I just tried. The quad core however is another story.
The 8 core Mac Pro is also a great engineering workstation. I have two of them at work and it's always fun to max out the CPU and/or RAM running MATLAB or other simulation software.
B
TV could have been it, but they don't work in this respect without a computer.
