Value, by definition, must correlate with price. A bentley for $1,000,000,000 is a much poorer value than a Toyota Camry for $20.
They only correlate with respect to cost of ownership, not in initial outlay.
Let's use an example using non-computer merchandise.
Say, for example, you go out and look at cars. You've narrowed your choice down between a Ford Focus and a Honda Civic. The Ford Focus has an asking price of about $12,500, while the Civic has an asking price of $15,000. Let's assume all things are equal (ie, all other features except quality are the same; gas mileage, options, etc). Now, standard tests done by JD Power and Associates shows us that the Ford Focus lasts about 6 years without having any major problems, while the Civic lasts about 10 years before having any major problems. Now let's do a little math:
Ford Focus: $12,500/6=$2,083.33 per year of ownership before problems arise.
Civic: $15,000/10=$1,500 per year of ownership before problems.
Now, if we were to take the simplistic view and say that each car will last twice as long as it's first problem, we get:
Ford Focus: $12,500/12=$1041.67 for each year of ownership.
Civic: $15,000/20=$750 for each year of ownership.
Clearly, the Civic offers a better
value because it costs less to own (ignoring other maintenance for argument's sake). In the long run, the Civic will be a better buy because it is a superior car.
Now, aside from Apple's recent QA problems, Apple has historically made good quality products. At the very least, the OS is supported on computers that are decently old, and those older machines are still quite capable (as many veteran members will tell you about their iBooks and Powerbooks). Just as with the car example, the Mac will provide a better value because it will cost less over the course of several years. The initial outlay is higher, but the cost of ownership is not.
The same is true if you go to a warehouse store. It is more expensive in outright terms to buy a whole crate of cereal, but over the long run (as you consume the cereal) it is cheaper, and hence, a better value.
Of course, convenience will factor into the work formula, but such a miniscule difference in dimensions and weight will not be a big factor, especially not for the majority of consumers.
As I said before, those who need/want smaller and lighter notebooks will tell you that the one you linked to is too large and heavy. When a notebook crosses the $1500 mark, demands from consumers are quite high. Obviously the mbp is meeting a lot of those demands, because it's selling quite well.
Value will be a formula taking into account PRIMARILY resources invested, then work saved. Longevity isn't an issue as it's just a factor of work saved (ex: you have a computer that is twice as fast as another computer that lasts twice as long, both cost the same and are used at maximum capacity for their entire lifespan, they both had the same value).
Yes, these are important to value too. What the product can do for you over another product is an important measure of value.
Meanwhile, the OP has several talking points to work with now (which was the original topic
).
