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.
Is Apple ripping us off with the Macbook Pro?
- Thread starter wikoogle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
simply not true. if you are prepared to buy in good faith yet the seller is benefitting from the transaction in an unethical way ( ie pricing inappropriatley) then it is a rip off. simple.
of course you can choose not to buy. that simply means it's *you* thats not being ripped off, it dosn't for a single second *stop* the seller form ripping off somone else. simply not buying dosn't prevent exploitation.
Good value is subjective. I wouldn't say buying a Ford is a good value because I get a sucky car that I will hate driving, neither would buying a PC be good value.
no offense intended but that's probably because one would find it difficult to afford a MBP every 18 months....
Hell, im a college student and I been switching every 10 months for the past years.
Alienware is for 12 year old kids...
Just because people pay it - doesn't mean its good value.
The concept of whether the MBP is good value or not is heavily influenced by the amount of peripherals and software you own. If your peripheral hardware is not compatible with Windows or you would have to replace a large number of programs with their Windows versions or you have uniquely Mac software, you are not in the position that you can turn away from the Mac range cheaply or easily.
Thus as a new purchaser the difference between the Mac and the PC laptop may lead you to the economic decision to get the PC, but if a Mac user of some time, the costs and learning curve of all these extras would steer you to get another Mac.
The concept of whether the MBP is good value or not is heavily influenced by the amount of peripherals and software you own. If your peripheral hardware is not compatible with Windows or you would have to replace a large number of programs with their Windows versions or you have uniquely Mac software, you are not in the position that you can turn away from the Mac range cheaply or easily.
Thus as a new purchaser the difference between the Mac and the PC laptop may lead you to the economic decision to get the PC, but if a Mac user of some time, the costs and learning curve of all these extras would steer you to get another Mac.
Wow... You've really had to digress to picking on 12 year old kids? Don't get me wrong, they're probably most of their fanbase, but why hate on 12 year olds? What makes them such a favorable hate magnet?
And no, I'm not 12.
The argument in this thread is a valid one...but one that has never been answered by someone specifically in the know. How and why Apple prices its products the way they do, will remain a question unanswered I'm afraid. I am also one of the curious ones.
As someone mentioned earlier, spending $500 to work on a substandard Windows based notebook, gives some the encouragement they need to fork over $2K for an Apple. I being one of them...
And for those saying that Win7 is as stable as OSX, what is your basis for these claims? Although somewhat more stable that previous Microsoft OS's, Win7 is simply a rehash of the same old GUI deficiencies embedded in disorganization compounded by usability issues. Multitasking in Win7 is almost non existent, particularly during long and tedious software install processes. So working within the Windows environment, with over 20 years of Microsoft commitment, continues to be overly tedious and unnecessarily inefficient.
As someone mentioned earlier, spending $500 to work on a substandard Windows based notebook, gives some the encouragement they need to fork over $2K for an Apple. I being one of them...
And for those saying that Win7 is as stable as OSX, what is your basis for these claims? Although somewhat more stable that previous Microsoft OS's, Win7 is simply a rehash of the same old GUI deficiencies embedded in disorganization compounded by usability issues. Multitasking in Win7 is almost non existent, particularly during long and tedious software install processes. So working within the Windows environment, with over 20 years of Microsoft commitment, continues to be overly tedious and unnecessarily inefficient.
How is that any different from you repeatedly ignoring the value of the things included in every Apple notebook, that are rarely, if at all, included in others (esp. at the price-points you're using for comparison)?
The overall experience of using a laptop is so much more than just CPU, HDD, RAM and graphics card specs.
iSuppli estimates that a Mac mini costs $376 to build, so I'm guessing that a MBP is going to be a few hundred dollars more.
http://www.isuppli.com/News/Pages/M...Bill-of-Materials-iSuppli-Teardown-Shows.aspx
You assume a lot of things about the computer retail industry. The retailer makes just about nothing on the machine itself but rather a credit from the vendor. The margins aren't as high as you think.
This changes with apple. Due to their lock on OSX and the status macs tend to hold and the market they cater to, the can basically set their price points anywhere and they will still sell.
Mind you, Most macs are constructed a hell of a lot better than your average PC.
Nothing wrong with 12 year olds, but Alienware isn't comparable with Macs. Their computers are for 12 year olds, people who thing led lights are cool and spend their computer time playing games.
They seem just as reliable as other pc manufacturer, they will all fail at one point or another.
So I think that the big price difference is mostly due to their lock on osx, design and users loyalty to osx. Users have no other official choice and will have to spend that extra money if they want to use osx on supported hardware.
And seeing how hard apple is trying to keep others from manufacturing mac compatible computers, I don't the situation will change.
Sorry, but I stopped reading your post after you referred to a Gateway laptop as "top of the line."
so what you're saying is every Apple customer is stupid? as if that's completely true.
Asus are second or nearly second in overall PC shipments in the WORLD. Their net profit margin in Q3 2009 was just over 4%. In 2008, their margins were 2.8% Your estimates are pure fantasy.
For every $499 laptop on a 4% margin, they make roughly $21. For every $999 they make $42 dollars.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=TPE:2357
(Assuming I understand these figures in the correct way, i'm not in my element with such things)
If what you say is true, where is the logic in "blowing" money on something that has no value and then why do you care enough to rant here about it?
I agree a person does need to spend more on purchasing a MBP, but I don't understand how you have a problem with it.
Some people seem to be missing the point that unique selling point of Mac is OS X experience; other considerations are secondary. Therefore most methodologies that compare Mac vs PC in terms of cost or hardware, like OP's, are ultimately flawed. In fact, one could argue (controversially) that, when one accounts for time wasted installing/fixing stuff and inefficencies due to UI in a Windows environment, Mac comes out relatively cheaper. Now that my time increasingly commands higher price in the job market, I find Mac to be a good deal.
Also, argument about Mac being a ripoff is rubbish. For a transaction to occur, buyer has to agree with the seller on the price. Obviously, there are enough buyers who agree with Apple on price and thus buy goods/service from them.
Also, argument about Mac being a ripoff is rubbish. For a transaction to occur, buyer has to agree with the seller on the price. Obviously, there are enough buyers who agree with Apple on price and thus buy goods/service from them.
I haven't read it all because it seemed many were repeating themselves.
Many have pointed out that what one person values may be worth more or less than another. You can draw comparisons to watches, cars, clothes etc but some things are worth the extra cost.
But in terms of pure specs that the large majority of trolls come out and blab about it's simple.
Apple update their product one/twice a year, it's been a while since we last saw a spec boost so the value for money, in comparable specs at the minute is poor.
When they update the line, we'll see a much more favourable comparison and these types of threads disappear.
Many have pointed out that what one person values may be worth more or less than another. You can draw comparisons to watches, cars, clothes etc but some things are worth the extra cost.
But in terms of pure specs that the large majority of trolls come out and blab about it's simple.
Apple update their product one/twice a year, it's been a while since we last saw a spec boost so the value for money, in comparable specs at the minute is poor.
When they update the line, we'll see a much more favourable comparison and these types of threads disappear.
No, it's illegal, according to the EULA that you acknowledged and agreed to. Violate the EULA, and you'd be breaching your contract with Apple and they could sue you for it. You can view the contract you agreed to with Apple here http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ . OSX has to be installed on an Apple-branded computer.
Your assertions that Apple is breaking the law by makeg that requirement is, of course, merely speculative on your part, and I missed the part where you documented your credentials as an attorney. You might want to check with Pystar about that before getting too wound up in your legal expertise. I'm pretty confident that you will find that they can impose whatever restrictions they want on how you use their software. And you did agree to abide by their restrictions. Or..are you saying that because you think their position is illegal, you are justified in ignoring the EULA that you agreed to?
Anyway, your whole thread premise is ridiculous. The computer is worth $2000 because people are paying $2000. The free market is at work here. You may not like it, but that's tough. You can choose another platform. Apple does not owe you the OSX experience.
MBP's have a better screen, the aluminum costs more, there is bluetooth, firewire and a few other things like a 0 dead pixel policy. some laptop manufacturers will sell you a laptop with 8 bad pixels.
the MBP's are priced to high compared to a Dell or HP. you can get a Dell Studio with much better specs than a MBP for $1200 including the warranty.
the price difference always fluctuates. in June MBPs were priced better than Dell or HP. iMac is cheaper than a comparable Dell.
and you have to account for support. if that laptop breaks no one is going to go out of their way to help you since they will lose money. if you have an MBP you go to the Apple Store. if you need it for business than it's cheaper to pay the higher price for better support than to have Dell keep you on hold for 6 hours and then spend another 4 hours trying so speak Hindu.
Please post your documentation of where it is that the law says it's ok to install a retail copy of OSX on any computer you want. I mean, this is important information that Apple should have. Somebody should at least let their legal team know that they should be reading MacRumors so that they can be brought up to speed on the law. And while we're at it, we should let Pystar know that the entire case against them is invalid.
You can, legally, make a contract for anything that doesn't violate federal, state and local laws - including Apple's OS X contract that reads you "are not licensed to install this software on anything other than Apple-provided hardware."
Are those sorts of contracts too restrictive? Maybe, but until a definitive ruling is made by the courts to that end Apple can continue to hold you to said contract.
A Precision Aluminum Unibody Enclosure is not cheap to manufacture, neither is the multitouch technology in the trackpad, the trackpad itself, the battery, or the backlit keyboard. Im sure Apple makes a lot more profit than the average retail computer seller, but OSX alone makes it worth it.
For the record, the computer you referenced has a 2.13 GHz Intel i3 Processor. There's nothing "top of the line" about that laptop, really.
Prices on many Windows machines (netbooks included) are subsidized by advertising dollars to place all those "trial" software packages (known as "crapware" in many circles) in the initial install. These subsidies can be on the order of several hundred dollars per install.
For the most part (I'll ignore MobileME for the moment), Macs purchased through normal outlets (not discounters) only include fully functional non-trial versions of software (iLife, et all).
That does affect the bottom line quite a bit.
For the most part (I'll ignore MobileME for the moment), Macs purchased through normal outlets (not discounters) only include fully functional non-trial versions of software (iLife, et all).
That does affect the bottom line quite a bit.
Please post your documentation of where it is that the law says it's ok to install a retail copy of OSX on any computer you want. I mean, this is important information that Apple should have. Somebody should at least let their legal team know that they should be reading MacRumors so that they can be brought up to speed on the law. And while we're at it, we should let Pystar know that the entire case against them is invalid.
is there a law that says you can only install software you buy in a manner that the manufacturer says you can? unless you're reselling the software commercially a company can only refuse to provide support
Dell just had a ruling against them. they have an arbitration clause in their contract. Judge said it doesn't mean people can't sue you via a class action lawsuit