Are you trying to nullify the argument about which Sound API is better by pointing to the audio hardware?
[facepalm]
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
Are you trying to nullify the argument about which Sound API is better by pointing to the audio hardware?
[facepalm]
Did you miss the fact that most PC companies have premium lines which are priced similarly to MacBooks and that the premium lines not are necessarily the most powerful?
For example, Sony has a laptop with a quad-core i7 for under $1000 and another laptop with an Atom chip for $1,500. Specs don't determine pricing.
If the hardware is normal (Realtek ALC885 for example) then, no matter the api used.
The point is :
a) Apple is a monopoly (concerning to OSX and the hardware used), ergo you can't apply the motto "free market" under a monopolized market.
b) Apple, as monopoly, are giving us few options to choose from. So, if you want the cheapest/expensive or powerful or not, Apple is not for us. Let's say that the price of macbook/pro is around $900-$2500, while the price of notebook is around $500-$5000, plus another variant such netbook, tabletpc (not simply touchscreen) and such.
and since when Apple is forcing you to buy one of their products ?
This IS a "free market", where you can choose what to buy and what to leave on the shelf.
And what is your point ? Don't agree with Apple's commercial policy ? Go buy a "powerfull" pc ....
I CAN'T, XCode runs only in OSX.
And most people can't do that, specially users that are captive with OSX because they are seasoned with it or they are purchased hefty software for OSX.
BTW :MS do the same (you can't run Visual Studio in OSX) but at least only for software.
I CAN'T, XCode runs only in OSX.
And most people can't do that, specially users that are captive with OSX because they are seasoned with it or they are purchased hefty software for OSX.
As I said before, I'm a Mac user since 1989, and the situation isn't changed: quite expensive and not ever "top notch" performer.
So a "seasoned" user should know ....
I didn't read the whole thread, but I need to kinda break things down for people.
The following items = cost.
Development
Manufacturing
Support
Retail and online stores to sell the product
Transportation
and I'm sure a plethora of other items
The point is that it's quite unfair to look at the value of the raw hardware and not figuring in intangible items.
Is Apple making a solid profit? Definitely! But keep in mind that they are a business in this to make money. Their lot is quality items, not value. Obviously they are doing something right, and people are paying that premium.
The following items = cost.
Development
Manufacturing
Support
Retail and online stores to sell the product
Transportation
and I'm sure a plethora of other items
The point is that it's quite unfair to look at the value of the raw hardware and not figuring in intangible items.
Is Apple making a solid profit? Definitely! But keep in mind that they are a business in this to make money. Their lot is quality items, not value. Obviously they are doing something right, and people are paying that premium.
Ridiculous! It's like saying McDonalds has a monopoly on the Big Mac.
There are two other operating systems you can choose from. Nothing forces you to use Apple's. And the "monopoly" argument is rendered even more pointless by the fact that OSX only has about 8% of the market.
As someone has pointed out already this would be true if we lived in a truly free market, which we don't. The last time we were in an almost completely free market period were the decades prior to World War One. We haven't seen anything as capitalist as that since, although since the 80's we have seen a return somewhat beginning with Reagan and Thatcher.
Still what you say does hold somewhat true today obviously. If Macbooks didn't have some serious appeal that made people pay the high price for them, they wouldn't sell.
My issue is that the OS is too tied to the hardware. Apple has a superior OS that only works seamlessly on Apple hardware. I know from a business standpoint, this tight control makes the Apple experience worth a premium. But it kind of reminds me how Microsoft embedded Internet Explorer into Windows (couldn't uninstall). Windows didn't prevent the installation of another browser. People weren't forced to use this browser. But it was seen as an unfair practice in which Microsoft eventually lost in court. The same goes for Apple with their OS. I can't just buy the OS and install it on a netbook without things not working. How is this apples fault, you say? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. All I know as a consumer is I should be able to install OSX on any hardware I choose. At least that's one way of looking at this argument.
Going back to the original question
I'm an economics major and have thought about this a little.
When you buy a macbook pro or actually any apple product, you're not just buying the actual product. You're buying into the whole apple "phad" of white apple headphones and ipods and everything else. Apple has its own mouses and keyboards, monitors even USB cables. You're buying not only the actual parts of your computer, but also for the RD that was put into it, the operating system thats on it (REALLY big point seeing as snow leopard is not *officially* cross compatible to PC's), and a part of everything else that Apple sells.
Now, this isnt to say that other companies don't have that, all of the add along products. But even just by operating system, HP could contract with Gentoo linux or whatever else not if they really wanted to. Apple can't. With a PC you're JUST buying the the PC, and if Windows 7's on it they probably slid the board of directors some money and they in turn just pushed up the price two three hundred dollars to what the software costs (and maybe a little extra profit).
Like your Buggati example. From a marketing perspective, you're not just buying a Buggati. You're buying the parts and manufacturing process (the quality of the product so to say) of the Buggati, the RD that went into it, the Buggati driving gloves and the driving socks (ha!) and the class of the people that drive Buggatis. Yes, you can buy the Buggati and just get some other driving gloves and wear your normal clothes and not fancy suites but seriously, people don't do that and Buggati knows it.
And Apple knows it too. You buy the Mac Pro, chances are you'll also buy a new apple monitor (because they are just SO beautiful), apple mouse apple keyboard apple this apple that and don't forget all of the "approved vendors" youre forced to buy from cause nothing else really works (my biggest hatred: mac vs. non mac printers).
So basically, apple just got really good at ripping you off cause they know generally most people that buy apple stuff simply must absolutely have adore apple stuff.
All you have to do to use Apple's operating system is contractually agree to their conditions. If you don't like those conditions, you can use another operating system. It's really simple. Outside of any such agreement, Apple is under no obligation to meet any of your expectations, wishes, hopes, dreams.
There's another side to it. Microsoft spends a lot of time and resources supporting all those different pieces and versions of hardware. The savings of not having to do that lets them build that better experience and move the platform ahead more nimbly. Hardware/software integration testing is slow and painful; I did it before and it was a horrible job that I quit after 6 months.
I know, you might say Hackintosh, but it took a lot of pain/effort and TIME to get it rolling. Lots of stuff that didn't work 'in the beginning' got hacked out over time for my particular setup.
So there are reasons Apple doesn't do this beyond the "our software helps drive profitable hardware sales". It's smart, because the razor-thin margins out there are killers. It's that race to the bottom which has given so many people 'crappy PC experiences'.
Apple is a monopoly in my view, but like satellite radio uses regular radio as its competition, apple uses windows as its competition. I think it is unfair, and wonder how microsoft gets sued for something like just adding ie to the browser when it supports other browser options, but apple gets away with imposing no other option for hardware for consumer's of osx.
It decreases competition and locks consumers of osx into very controlled options.
It decreases competition and locks consumers of osx into very controlled options.
Apple is a monopoly in my view, but like satellite radio uses regular radio as its competition, apple uses windows as its competition. I think it is unfair, and wonder how microsoft gets sued for something like just adding ie to the browser when it supports other browser options, but apple gets away with imposing no other option for hardware for consumer's of osx.
It decreases competition and locks consumers of osx into very controlled options.
There is something wrong with your view then. They're what, 5%ish of the world market?
Nothing of a surprise.
Apple is the only company to offer OSX with its unique industrial design.
There is no need to rush to roll out the updated MBPs because current MBPs are good enough to attract consumers.
In reality, "high-end" doesn't really matter to most consumers or professionals. People just want the newest and the best. People are just greedy when they are lazier than computer.
I understand the thought that MacBook Pro's are expensive. But let me outline my reasons for craving and saving for one.
1. The OS is a huge factor. Apple has worked hard to establish an excellent, stable, and overall easy to use OS but still has kept it very powerful.
2. I do believe Apple takes a lot of care in design and structure of their products. They use nice materials, and are constantly trying to improve upon what they have established. Windows machines are great, I've been a Windows user for years, but the machines are not made by Microsoft and therefore in my opinion not as optimized and cared for as Apple's products. There are so many different processor speeds, hard drive speeds, types of processors, types of RAM, etc. That Microsoft can not get their OS optimized to the max for every system like Apple can.
3. Customer support. Even just the fact that you can go onto the online apple store and chat with a representative about the products is a huge plus for me.
I know that there are probably other reasons people want the products, but all I am saying is that for me those key points are what make me want to spend $2,500 on a 17" MBP and not EVER regret it.
1. The OS is a huge factor. Apple has worked hard to establish an excellent, stable, and overall easy to use OS but still has kept it very powerful.
2. I do believe Apple takes a lot of care in design and structure of their products. They use nice materials, and are constantly trying to improve upon what they have established. Windows machines are great, I've been a Windows user for years, but the machines are not made by Microsoft and therefore in my opinion not as optimized and cared for as Apple's products. There are so many different processor speeds, hard drive speeds, types of processors, types of RAM, etc. That Microsoft can not get their OS optimized to the max for every system like Apple can.
3. Customer support. Even just the fact that you can go onto the online apple store and chat with a representative about the products is a huge plus for me.
I know that there are probably other reasons people want the products, but all I am saying is that for me those key points are what make me want to spend $2,500 on a 17" MBP and not EVER regret it.
Exactly. They make their own hardware and OS. Is Sony a monopoly because they use Memory Sticks?
Apple is a monopoly in my view, but like satellite radio uses regular radio as its competition, apple uses windows as its competition. I think it is unfair, and wonder how microsoft gets sued for something like just adding ie to the browser when it supports other browser options, but apple gets away with imposing no other option for hardware for consumer's of osx.
It decreases competition and locks consumers of osx into very controlled options.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. No one is forcing you to buy OSX.
It's akin to walking into a Toyota dealership, looking at the Camry and complaining that it includes a Toyota engine and not a BMW one. Toyota offers the total package, Toyota steering wheel, seats, doors, sunroof, etc. If you do not like it, walk away and go find another car.
The key to your argument lies in the fact that if you truly wanted a Camry with a BMW engine in it, you can do it yourself. If you want a OSX computer not built by apple, you can visit hackint0sh and figure it out yourself. And if you want a web browser other then IE, you can download it yourself. We do not need government regulation to help us do this.
It was actually the other way around, since Lexus brand was established many years after Toyota started producing automobiles. But yes, the timing is a little off.
Agreed. It's a choice. I don't bash on windows users. I may not like it as much, but I have no issues with people wanting to use Windows. If I don't want to use Windows (which I dont for the most part) I dont have to and can just walk away.
"A monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods".
By this definition, Apple is not a monopoly because there is plenty of competition in the PC and media market. People who don't want an Apple-based PC can always buy a Windows-based PC.
By this definition, Apple is not a monopoly because there is plenty of competition in the PC and media market. People who don't want an Apple-based PC can always buy a Windows-based PC.
As soon as you start with car analogies you prove only that you can't come up with a realistic and factual argument.