milozauckerman said:
Ah, the head in the sand approach - 'if I demand the unanswerable, no one can argue with me!!!!'
It's not unanswerable--it's unquantifiable. The PC market is diverse and rearranging to fit different "mission profiles." There is no "average" PC. What you get for the iMac price is reasonable for certain uses and unreasonable for some other goals. It doesn't make the iMac a bad value. It just makes it a bad choice for
you because you want it to be something it's not.
Where are these 'PC alternatives with matching specifications'? Who's putting out laptop-based desktops right now for iMac prices?
Core Duo is not a laptop-based processor. Intel itself identifies desktop use as one of the Core Duo markets.
Or even ignoring the big difference in laptop and desktop hardware - show me where it costs $2200 ($2800-$600 for the Dell 24") to get a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo chip and 7600GT or equivalent graphics card. It doesn't. That's simply bad value in comparison, unless you believe that OS X is worth a 75% premium.
So now a comparison of "average" to you is based on the highest, most expensive Apple product in a series being compared to a mid- to low-range budget PC? You've already admitted that the "top end" products in each Apple model line are proportionately more expensive than others. This is true of most electronics companies.
I will? Where are these $2700 Core Duo laptops?
Where are the $2000 Core Duo laptops?
Again, "average" for Apple being the most expensive, while "average" for everyone else is whatever best fits your argument. $2700 machines: many Dell XPS models (not the ones with two hard drives and 8GB of RAM, either). $2000 price range is the one I'm more familiar with--Thinkpad z61/T60/X60, Acer Travelmate ZM4000 series units, Sony Vaio SZ series, and the list goes on. Just because you ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, the Thinkpad T60 priced at $3200 has almost identical specs to the 15" MBP.
No, I explained my perspective on value, and gave examples of the acceleration depreciation of Apple products in the new Intel market.
No, you gave no examples. You mentioned a hypothesis. If you look at eBay, you can see that the Intel Macs are selling at near-new prices, just as the PPC ones did. Furthermore, look at the G4 towers now--compare to a similar-vintage PC. G4 towers are still going for $1000+ in some cases, despite being at least 3 years old. To control the "eBay inflation effect," compare in both cases PCs of the same age. The difference is substantial.
You just don't like it, and want to blather on about how Apple's value is tied up in the beauty of OS X and it's just better and blah blah blah. Nonsense.
I never said that it was tied on in the "beauty" of OS X. The value is largely dependent on the OS, however, because the OS is available to a smaller market and therefore overall availability is lower, which naturally sustains a high demand. PCs are cheap, new PCs are cheap, and used PCs are almost worthless--because they are not well supported by Windows after release and because the update cycle means that individual models last a few weeks before being replaced at the exact same price. The rules in the Apple market are not the same as the computer market as a whole, and the reason is because Apple computers are the only ones with OS X.
In no way does that equate to greater value when one goes to buy and sell a computer, because most people don't think in terms of your 'ooooh, but I'm buying upscale.'
You'd be surprised. Why do people buy Macs, in your view, if not because of OS X or other immaterial factors? It's a combination of aesthetic design, the "just works" factor, the included software and OS X (introducing many reasons related to this), perceived security, and the fact that Macs are "trendy." For any one of those, you will find people willing to pay an additional 10% or more. For just about any Mac, you can find multiple similar models at the same price--it's not any more of a premium than, say Sony. Why doesn't Sony sell all their 2.16GHz Vaios for $900? Gosh, no one would be stupid enough to pay $2200 for that when they can get the same CPU and graphics in an $800 computer! Crazy, right?
For people who are just looking for the cheapest buy, Apple's never going to show up on their radar except to say, "I wish they were cheaper." When you come back justifying the "high" Apple "premium" by showing that Apple's products are higher than
any PC competitor, then you might start making sense.
One key problem here: I never said that it was slowing down. Can you read?
Ah, "can you read?" The great, "I can't come back with substance so I'll just insult your comprehension" move.
, but it is an attitude, an outlook, and dare I say it - an ethic.
