Nickle and Dimed

[GGJstudios]

That seems not far removed from arguing that they shouldn't include power adapters...

... except the fact that you need a power adapter for each Mac, especially if you want them both running simultaneously, without running on battery. Or if you decide to sell one, you'd include the power adapter, but not necessarily a remote or display adapter. Remember, many don't even attach external displays to their notebooks.... they use the built-in screen. So why should they pay for a display adapter they'll never use?

 

[mox123]

Apple certainly seems schizophrenic. On the one hand, they market their products as lifestyle / boutique objects of wunderlust and yet they seem to nickle and dime people who buy them. Now they're not including display adapters or remote controls with their Macbooks.

Yeah, yeah, I know some marketing student is going to say that it's a brilliant move on Apple's part to save the $1.20 that it would have cost Apple to include these items and to 'encourage' buyers who need these peripherals to buy them at a ridiculous markup. There is a downside. If Apple really wanted to push Front Row into living rooms and get people to try AppleTV or its successor they'd want people to start exploring related features in their successful products.

Look at the Lenovo U110. Now there's a lesson in bundling luxury: A low AND high capacity battery, external drive, and soft case all come with purchase.

When I eat in a restaurant and they skimp on the fries, salad, or pop, I'm sure someone in the kitchen think they're saving 50 cents on the meal. On the flip side, I'm a lot less likely to come back and I'm a lot less likely to recommend the place to friends. For a company that 'gets' so much about presentation, Apple really misses the mark sometimes.

Why is this surprising? Buying any german cars, most options are a-la carte....such simple things as foldback seats on a $50k+ sedan would be optional.....or in high-end restaurants where all sides are a-la carte....i.e. ruth chris steaks, etc..

If anything, this approach works exactly because apple is a high-end operation....

 

[seedster2]

The second generation MacBook Air now uses two different suppliers for parts - Intel and NVIDIA. Maybe Intel cut them a deal on the first gen since they were the only supplier. Now that they have to pay two suppliers, they had to make up for the cost difference by eliminating an unnecessary accessory.

Simply put, you don't know what Apple is paying NVIDIA for their graphics card in relation to what Apple payed Intel. Intel most likely cut them a better deal for using their processor and graphics card the first time around.

I find your hypothesis plausible but unlikely.

Would you then suppose that the iphone cradle was excluded on the 3G because of the addition of a 3G radio antenna?

 

[Unspeaked]

... except the fact that you need a power adapter for each Mac, especially if you want them both running simultaneously, without running on battery. Or if you decide to sell one, you'd include the power adapter, but not necessarily a remote or display adapter. Remember, many don't even attach external displays to their notebooks.... they use the built-in screen. So why should they pay for a display adapter they'll never use?

I'm with you except for the bold part.

If I were buying a used system from someone, you better believe I'd expect the complete system (including the remote or display adapter if it was originally included) for me to pay top dollar for it.

 

[GGJstudios]

I'm with you except for the bold part.

If I were buying a used system from someone, you better believe I'd expect the complete system (including the remote or display adapter if it was originally included) for me to pay top dollar for it.

Well, since mine didn't come with a remote, I couldn't very well sell it with one. I was referring to remotes and display adapters that weren't part of the original bundle.

 

[cmcbridejr]

I find your hypothesis plausible but unlikely.

Would you then suppose that the iphone cradle was excluded on the 3G because of the addition of a 3G radio antenna?

Maybe. Also consider the fact that the original iPhone with the dock cost $500. The 3G version without the dock cost $200.

 

[seedster2]

Maybe. Also consider the fact that the original iPhone with the dock cost $500. The 3G version without the dock cost $200.

The price difference is related to subsidization.

Try buying a 3G without contract, it's still more expensive than the v1.

Similar behavior can be found with the remote exclusion on the updated mini as well.

 

[clyde2801]

No one should criticize you on a discussion board? If you don't like, don't post.

(empahsis added)

Criticizing a person's logic and reasoning are one thing. Agreeing to disagree in lively debate is what forums are (or, at least should be) about. What gets tiresome is people resorting to ad hominem attacks in the threads.

 

[Demosthenes X]

Theyre about as optional to me as the power cable. But thats right, I wont buy a MBP as long as they charge so much extra for something that is essential to every laptop. They could have used mini-dvi but they didnt, they had to use a completely useless proprietary connection just so they can force people into buying adapters at ridiculous markup. Im not going to stand for it, there is not a single other laptop that pulls that crap.

This ought to be nominated for most ridiculous, illogical posts of the month.

Display adapters are far from "essential" to every laptop. In fact, in my (admittedly statistically insignificant) sample, I know exactly one person that uses their laptop with an external display: me. Adapters are an option: if you want to run an external screen or projector, you need one. But most people use their laptop on its own, and have no need for an adapter. Why should Apple waste the resources, time, and money to manufacture and ship an adapter with every laptop when most users will never use it?

You say Apple could have used mini-DVI. Apparently you forget that mini-DVI also requires you to buy an adapter. I'm guessing you already have a mini-DVI to DVI adapter, but the point remains: Apple has always required adapters for its laptops (Pro excluded). So you're argument is completely fallacious.

And DP is hardly useless. It supports higher resolutions than mini-DVI - the MacBook now supports a 30" display, which is awesome.

Stop whining about a $20 adapter that represents 1% of the cost of the system.

 

[Abstract]

Apple has always required adapters for its laptops (Pro excluded).

I agree with most of what you said, but to be fair to that guy, Apple used to include an adapter in the box. Not sure about the iBooks, but I believe my old PowerBook came with an adapter, just like my iPod came with an AC adapter, and both firewire and USB cables. The highest capacity iPods also came with a desktop dock in the box.

I doubt it would cost them $20 retail to include the adapter. It would probably cost them $1 to manufacture. All you need is pin compatibility between them. It's not a really technical product to manufacture in bulk, and it's a really weird change to have to pay for basic cables, or not even cables, just the adapter to allow your system to connect to an external LCD.

Also, DisplayPort is really small. I'm not sure if Mini DisplayPort was necessary for Apple to invent. Way to push for something we don't need.

 

[zhenya]

It seems to me that most of you who wish Apple continued to include every possible incentive are actually ok with the fact that you (and every other customer) WERE in fact paying for those accesories. I get it - apple is a premium brand and it feels good when these kinds of things are included. (this was made especially apparent a few pages back when several of you would have been ok if they were included but you had the option of removing them...) I guess I look at it from a more pragmatic view that says I'm glad that people aren't paying for things they don't need and that resources aren't being expended unecessarily on things that will go straight to a landfill.

 

[Demosthenes X]

It seems to me that most of you who wish Apple continued to include every possible incentive are actually ok with the fact that you (and every other customer) WERE in fact paying for those accesories. I get it - apple is a premium brand and it feels good when these kinds of things are included. (this was made especially apparent a few pages back when several of you would have been ok if they were included but you had the option of removing them...) I guess I look at it from a more pragmatic view that says I'm glad that people aren't paying for things they don't need and that resources aren't being expended unecessarily on things that will go straight to a landfill.

Exactly! People demanding things like adapters be included are being selfish. I think it's clear that most users do not use such things - why should any company expend resources, create more pollution, etc. to manufacture something that most users will never even look at? Think for a second about the planet before yourself.

The idea of a bundling something with the option to remove it is laughable from Apple's POV. If you have a product that the majority of buyers aren't using, the obvious solution is to list it as an option, not to include it unless customers specifically opt out. A business serves its largest market segment, not its smallest.

Now, if Apple offered their adapters at a discount with the purchase of a laptop, that would be nice. But there's nothing wrong with paying for an optional adapter. If I want cruise control in my car, I have to pay extra for it. Why should everyone have to buy cruise control if they're never going to use it?

 

[Psychmike]

It seems to me that most of you who wish Apple continued to include every possible incentive are actually ok with the fact that you (and every other customer) WERE in fact paying for those accesories. I get it - apple is a premium brand and it feels good when these kinds of things are included. (this was made especially apparent a few pages back when several of you would have been ok if they were included but you had the option of removing them...) I guess I look at it from a more pragmatic view that says I'm glad that people aren't paying for things they don't need and that resources aren't being expended unecessarily on things that will go straight to a landfill.

I would grant you the point if they were including something that likely added significantly to the manufacturing costs of the product like an extra battery that some users would use but many would not.

I don't think that is the case with a proprietary connecting cable that in reality likely costs them $1 to manufacture. I seriously doubt that Apple sat around the table and said "we shouldn't pass that cost on to every buyer." More likely, they said, "Hey, we can sell this separately at a huge markup."

Video apapters are things that aren't used often, but when they're needed, there's often no easy substitute. I may present 1 or 2 times a year but during those times it's not practical to have 50 people huddled around my laptop and converting between PowerPoint and Key Notes still seems to result in problems.

The environmental cost of wastage is a legitimate concern. In my mind, Apple could handle this in one of two ways. At physical stores, they could give out an adapter based on presentation of a receipt and then mark the receipt so it could not be used to obtain another one. At the online stores, they could make it a free BTO option. I don't like wasting things either, but when you consider the energy and materials that it takes to produce a laptop, the environmental damage associated with making a 2" inch cable adapter is quite small, don't you think?

No, $30 isn't too much money to spend when I've already spent almost $2000 on the laptop. But like I said, when I sit down in a restaurant and they put 10 french fries on the plate next to the burger, I shrug and wonder if the manger who thinks he's cleverly saving 20 cents per meal is aware that he may be reducing the chances that customers will come back. Apple has done a lot of things like that lately.

Before someone inevitably posts Apple's sales figures as 'proof' that they do everything right or asks me for my business credentials, I want to state again that companies succeed or fail for many reasons and there is plenty that Apple does right. They have a beautiful OS that promises to be even more efficient in Snow Leopard. They design elegant products. These are the things many people love about Apple. But their quality control and their tendency to nickle and time are things that plenty of people complain about. And if you fan boys can't tolerate that, I seriously wonder why you feel more compassion and acceptance towards a corporation than you do about flesh and blood human beings who happen to hold different opinions than you do.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I hope you appreciate that you destroy your own argument by resorting to insults.

 

[Psychmike]

I hope you appreciate that you destroy your own argument by resorting to insults.

You know, I've often found your posts to be informative and balanced so if you say that I'm coming across as insulting I certainly accept that my frustration is leaking out and I apologize for contributing to the bad karma that sometimes permeates these discussions.

In my experience, there is only a narrow middle ground of people who post here who seem genuinely open to hearing other positions and acknowledging other sides of the issues. Too many people seem intent on believing whatever they want to believe and fall back on polarizing rhetoric to get their point across. Straw man arguments are created and destroyed with genocidal frequency and ridiculous dualisms get set up ("No company can be 100% perfect"). In this thread, I feel like my narrow position - that Apple is taking a short-sighted view in selling expensive accessoires that they used to include as free - has earned me criticism that I don't really understand the way the world works or don't have the business acumen to understand Apple's decisions. I feel like I've been fair. I've tried to acknowledge the other positions. I've talked about how environmental costs for wasted accessories is a serious concern, I've praised Apple for their OS and product design. Alas, I feel like the argument keeps getting pushed in one direction > Apple is good and can do no wrong (e.g., they pulled those $2 manufacturing cost accessories to save US a few bucks) or Apple is bad and can do nothing right (e.g., Apple lowered their prices and offered a rebate on initial iPhone prices).

 

[IJ Reilly]

The apology isn't necessary but is appreciated just the same. It happens that you've tripped over one of my pet peeves, which is the "fanboy" insult. People who'd never consider calling someone an idiot in a serious discussion seem think nothing of trotting out the fanboy insult when they've run out of ways to explain why someone doesn't agree with their position. If they're not stupid, they must be unthinking or uncritical in some other way. This insult has become an all-too common argument substitute on these boards. I've been waging a private campaign against it.

Enough about that. I've been a Mac owner for 25 years as well as a long-time Apple stockholder. So trust me when I say I've seen Apple make some brain-dead decisions over the years which I have felt in my daily working life and my wallet besides. Believe me, I don't think Apple is perfect, just a lot better than the alternative. I've also been impressed by the way they've executed over the last ten years, especially when compared to how poorly they executed for the ten years before that. Where at one time I'd have been more picky and critical, I'm now more prepared to presume that they actually know what they are doing.

What tends to get my dander up (in addition to the fanboy insult) is the attitude we see expressed frequently here: If Apple hasn't perfectly satisfied my particular desire today, then the company must be run by arrogant morons who haven't got a clue about how the technology market operates. Every day you can read dozens of posts on these boards from people declaring that Apple has completely gone off the rails, with no better justification. For one, I think the current evidence argues against this. For another, I don't know of any other company that gets held up to this standard of performance. Long along I reconciled myself to the idea that Apple isn't in business to assure my happiness and satisfy my every desire. Apparently a lot of people haven't arrived at that point yet.

 

[zhenya]

I don't think that is the case with a proprietary connecting cable that in reality likely costs them $1 to manufacture. I seriously doubt that Apple sat around the table and said "we shouldn't pass that cost on to every buyer." More likely, they said, "Hey, we can sell this separately at a huge markup."

I would expect that it was a bit of both - 1) that they were trying to hit a specific price point (in large scale manufacturing every part's cost is calculated down to fractions of a penny - so $1 is a relatively big line item) and 2) they realized that they could sell these parts at a big mark up to some customers. I'm sure that realization made some bean-counter's day.

Believe me - I know where you are coming from. I think that it's a bad sign for most companies when the accountants start controlling product development or marketing. In the automotive world it is somewhat of an (urban?) legend that the reason Mercedes' legendary quality tanked in the early 90's was due to a major change in practice - up to that point the engineers had designed a car, and the accountants put a price on it. After that point the accountants dictated a vehicle to be made for no more than x dollars, and the engineers had to work within those constraints. Big difference.

 

[GGJstudios]

...At physical stores, they could give out an adapter based on presentation of a receipt and then mark the receipt so it could not be used to obtain another one.

They already do that: it's called a "sales receipt" and you get one when you pay for the adapter.

At the online stores, they could make it a free BTO option.

They already make it a BTO option. It's not free, of course, but it's available to those who need an adapter.

I'm going to make a wild guess here, based on things you've said in this thread. Here's what I'm guessing:

After doing presentations using PCs for years, you bought a MacBook. You showed up to do a presentation and realized at that "inopportune moment" that you didn't have the right adapter to connect an external display. You were embarrassed and you chose to direct the blame to Apple, for not including the adapter you needed, instead of accepting the responsibility that you didn't make complete preparations in advance.
​

I could be wrong, of course, as it's only a guess. If that is the case, the wisest thing to do is learn from the mistake and make sure you're prepared in the future. Even if you have the precious adapter that you believe Apple should have included, that's no guarantee that you won't make a presentation where the equipment available isn't compatible with that adapter. That's why there's no substitute for testing everything in advance.

 

[Psychmike]

They already do that: it's called a "sales receipt" and you get one when you pay for the adapter.

They already make it a BTO option. It's not free, of course, but it's available to those who need an adapter.

I'm going to make a wild guess here, based on things you've said in this thread. Here's what I'm guessing:

After doing presentations using PCs for years, you bought a MacBook. You showed up to do a presentation and realized at that "inopportune moment" that you didn't have the right adapter to connect an external display. You were embarrassed and you chose to direct the blame to Apple, for not including the adapter you needed, instead of accepting the responsibility that you didn't make complete preparations in advance.
​

I could be wrong, of course, as it's only a guess. If that is the case, the wisest thing to do is learn from the mistake and make sure you're prepared in the future. Even if you have the precious adapter that you believe Apple should have included, that's no guarantee that you won't make a presentation where the equipment available isn't compatible with that adapter. That's why there's no substitute for testing everything in advance.

You are wrong. I've had my Macbook for 2 weeks, am fairly technically proficient, and will be buying an adapter before a planned presentation in 3 weeks. But I believe that the average consumer (e.g., people who DON'T visit Macforums) likely doesn't know the difference. You know, those folks characterized as "monumentally ignoant" by some.

 

[GGJstudios]

... But I believe that the average consumer (e.g., people who DON'T visit Macforums) likely doesn't know the difference.

The "average consumer" doesn't usually make presentations with a MacBook, so it's a non-issue for them, since many of them never connect their MacBook to an external monitor. For any professional making presentations on a regular basis, advance preparation is SOP. Anyone making a presentation without preparing in advance would be "lacking knowledge" (ignorant.)

 

[Psychmike]

I would expect that it was a bit of both - 1) that they were trying to hit a specific price point (in large scale manufacturing every part's cost is calculated down to fractions of a penny - so $1 is a relatively big line item) and 2) they realized that they could sell these parts at a big mark up to some customers. I'm sure that realization made some bean-counter's day.

Believe me - I know where you are coming from. I think that it's a bad sign for most companies when the accountants start controlling product development or marketing. In the automotive world it is somewhat of an (urban?) legend that the reason Mercedes' legendary quality tanked in the early 90's was due to a major change in practice - up to that point the engineers had designed a car, and the accountants put a price on it. After that point the accountants dictated a vehicle to be made for no more than x dollars, and the engineers had to work within those constraints. Big difference.

Thanks for the support. Engineering, accounting, and marketing are all specialized and important parts of corporate functioning but a lot of nonsense seems to occur when one of them stages a coup!

I don't think anyone doubts that companies exist to do business but there are times when their short-term desire to make profits can seriously tick off consumers. I remember when everyone had a Sony Walkman (tape, then CD). They jumped onto the MP3 wagon early enough but introduced a frustrating and limiting copy protection system and they've never really recovered in the portable media department. I'm happy that Apple is switching to a non-DRM model for IP.

 

[Demosthenes X]

Let's draw a parallel for those who believe that because they need something, it ought to be included.

Cars need gas to operate. Do these people refuse to buy a car on the basis that gas is not included? Do they accuse Toyota of being arrogant, greedy, etc. for not including gas?

Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

A bit of an extreme example, I admit, but think about it for a minute, and stop whining. If you need an adapter, you buy one. If you don't, you don't. Simple.

 

[pavinder]

Let's draw a parallel for those who believe that because they need something, it ought to be included.

Cars need gas to operate. Do these people refuse to buy a car on the basis that gas is not included? Do they accuse Toyota of being arrogant, greedy, etc. for not including gas?

Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

A bit of an extreme example, I admit, but think about it for a minute, and stop whining. If you need an adapter, you buy one. If you don't, you don't. Simple.

Just to get clear on the 2 seperate issues here:

First, the issue of bundling "extras" with a product - I don't think there's so much argument here - if it's something that most users won't need or deem as essential, it may best be sold seperately, both for environmental and cost reasons. It should also be sold at (and here we lead into the second issue) at a reasonable price.

Secondly, the issue of non-standard ports.
I have 2 macs, with different video-out ports and am about to buy a third. I discover it has yet another type of port, necessitating a 3rd adaptor purchase even though I am connecting the SAME basic standard home projector to every Apple machine. Almost $100 spent on adapters to use a $700 projector - this I find unacceptable.
For Apple to adopt a new type of port, if it is a significant improvement over the previous styles, I can handle - this is simply improvement in technology which we all accept.
However, whereas I can go to my local electronics shop and buy a 1 metre 2-way splitting cable to convert a standard video port to 2 seperate display cables for $5, Apple are stitching me up for $30 having created a proprietary configuration and then charging over the odds for the privilege of being able to use it.
I know it's business, and Apple want to make a profit, but I still call this user-unfriendly. For the price of 5 adaptors I can buy an iPod - this adaptor is clearly overpriced.
It won't stop me buying my new Mac, but it does leave a sour taste in my mouth.

And to continue to the car analogy some have used, if a manufacturer of an incredible car with great performance and features decided to then use a non-standard tyre specification and then charge $500 for a spare, wouldn't you think this was outrageous?

 

[Psychmike]

Demosthenes X: What a ridiclous comparison. No one is saying that something should be free simply because its wanted. It's a specious argument that either reflects your lack of knowledge about the issue involved or your valuation of rhetoric at the expense of precision.

Pavinder has it right - the issue is that this is a proprietary connector that isn't cheaply available elsewhere, used to be included, and now is sold separately at a significant markup.

 

[Scottsdale]

I see a lot of people for and against Apple's policies, but the truth is it is a changing Apple. Just like a lot of other companies, Apple is finding new ways to cut costs.

I think the current updates to the iMac and Mac Pro, further exploit the idea of the computers being Macs. Apple is using nearly the same OLD processor in the iMac, and yet NOT offering substantial discounts like it is receiving on the components. Same thing with the Mac Pro, it decides new model means further exploitation of profits when the components do cost Apple more money.

We saw an iMac update that Apple is really selling over year old CPU technology with a nice RAM update, but it doesn't equal the SAME VALUE in prior updates. I think Apple simply updated because people wanted and were waiting for an update. Yet, Apple didn't do many favors with the updates.

Most consumers do notice that the CPU speeds are the same. Most consumers do notice that Macs are Core 2 Duo, and almost every PC for half the price of the Mac has a quad core processor. Most consumers do know that the only thing that changed was the RAM, but they also know for only $50 they could throw in an extra RAM DIMM anyways. Most people do know that the Mac Mini is the same basic product for two years. And the HDs, where does Apple buy a 120 GB HD? And at what cost? And really, it's such an expensive upgrade to a 320 GB HD when it costs only $75 for us to buy a new one online?

The Mac mini... REALLY. That is sad, yet Apple is paying less and less for those OLD components and not charging less for the Macs.

I bought my first Mac which was the day the Intel BlackBook came out. I think it came with two adapter cables for miniDVI to DVI and miniDVI to VGA (but maybe I bought one). It also came with a remote. Just like the OP says, this remote may cost Apple $.50 or $1 to make. What this really does is frustrate people as their buying experiences become less and less rewarding. What happens is people just do without the remote. That is less rewarding. Or, they buy the remote for $15, which makes them think about it.

Apple is already charging a SERIOUS PREMIUM just so we can use its OS X operating system. We all get to give Apple a lot of money just to be able to run the OS. And people say Microsoft is a rip off because it costs $199 or $299 depending on which version of the OS you want to buy, but then you can buy any hardware you want, and there is no forced profit on the hardware side when you buy from Microsoft.

I don't want this to be a Microsoft Apple debate so that is not the point.

Then, an iPhone comes out and includes a dock... Next iPhone comes out and no dock is included. In addition, the original buyer's dock will not work with it, and it costs $50 to buy the dock. People want to say well the original cost double the price, but that is only because AT&T is subsidizing these costs with the iPhone 3G.

Again, it comes down to we are paying a lot of money already for an experience of owning Apple products. This is a premium and yes, it is in the best interests for Apple IN THE LONG RUN, to continue including cable adapters, remotes, and etc. These things make us FEEL that it's ok to buy Apple products. The extras make us feel it's worth the extra money. The extras give us the feeling that the products are superior to competitors. So, in the short run, Apple is trying to save a dollar for the shareholder and make $15 on the adapter.

In the long run, maybe years down the road, Apple will finally start to see declines rather than growth of its sales. When that happens, Apple will learn that the buying experience used to be something that was rewarding and removing the items that costs $1 to make, when selling a LUXURY PRODUCT, is and was NOT the right way to save $1 for the shareholders.

In the end, people remember these things. Especially when the economy goes South, and Apple charges the same money for OLD technology it calls new by changing the RAM. Or, the minimal gains of the Mac mini by the video card, prove not to be helping much in the benchmarks we have seen. $599 or $799 on the PC side will buy them a 20" flat panel monitor to go with the PC.

Is the new iMac, really NEW? Is the new Mac mini really NEW? Will Apple win in the end by using all of these tactics to get away from offering a premium or luxury product by CALLING an OLD MAC NEW? Will Apple's saving the dollar for a cable really pay off in the long run?

We are paying TOP dollar, and now more than ever, we are getting LESS and LESS Mac with every "new" version. We are getting less and less compared to the PC. The OS is a great deal, but eventually Microsoft will copy the whole concept and make a Windows 7 that looks like Leopard.

Microsoft is figuring this stuff out. Ubuntu is really making leaps. I predict a day when Apple wishes it had kept its products premium. I predict a day when Apple stops seeing growth. I predict a day when it no longer makes any sense for a consumer to buy a Mac. I predict that if Apple doesn't actually start improving its products, the complete COMPUTER HARDWARE side of Apple will become irrelevant.

Apple has to TRULY UPDATE its Macs. None of this BS, swapping dedicated for integrated graphics on an iMac. None of this upgrading the RAM and nothing more and calling it NEW.

I have seen drastic differences in the value of what the AVERAGE buyer receives from Apple with Mac computers since the Intel chips were introduced. If Apple doesn't start doing things well again, its growth will stunt and people will realize that all of the extras that used to make the Mac something really special aren't included anymore. And it will costs substantially more money for substantially LESS MAC.

People were pissed at MacWorld when the only updates were to iLife 09 and iWork 09. In truth, that is the only really great and innovative part of the "NEW" Apple. The only reason I am buying Macs all of the time is iLife 09 and OS X. But, OS X is becoming less and less of a reason other than it's required to run iLife and iWork.

I want Apple to get back to giving us what we are paying for... PREMIUM PRODUCTS that are CURRENT and INNOVATIVE and SUPERIOR to the PC.

Apple's hardware focus on the aluminum and the glass trackpad are nice, BUT we need some real component updates inside to match the outside of our Macs. The internal components are suffering on MOST Macs. Whether it's a MBP with nearly the same speed CPUs for two years. A MB with nearly identical speed CPUs, Mac mini with a joke of an update, an iMac with double the RAM and called new or whatever, it all seems to be OLD and outdated components branded as new.

Why can other companies sell quad core "desktop" components but Apple doesn't have a single desktop computer. ALL are mobile or server.

Mac mini - mobile
iMac - mobile
Mac Pro - SERVER - the only product truly "updated" with a new CPU and they're charging an extra $500 for that CPU!

Apple wants to wow us with software, and dull us with hardware, or it wants to make an extra $500 per Mac, if we want a real UPDATE! (the Mac Pro)!!!

I hope Apple gets back on track. I fear the iPhone and the iPod have left Apple learning that it can make more money selling the NON Mac products because the margins aren't high enough on Macs unless Apple can sell us outdated two year old hardware components that are probably scraps from PC manufacturers DONATED to Apple by Dell, HP, and SONY. LOL.