For the 2009 Mac Pro, you are paying for going green. None of the other computers come close to the effort Apple has put in and going green is not cheap (40 lbs and all aluminum).
http://www.apple.com/macpro/environment.html
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.
So far, not impressed by Nehalem vs. last years Mac Pro
- Thread starter jjahshik32
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For the 2009 Mac Pro, you are paying for going green. None of the other computers come close to the effort Apple has put in and going green is not cheap (40 lbs and all aluminum).
http://www.apple.com/macpro/environment.html
But surely going green isnt worth the cost of literally more greens ($500 more in this case).
If anything going green should have made the Mac Pros cheaper since it probably save Apple a whole lot of money. Basically their building the same machines without the extra harmful materials.
If the $500 dollars is the cost of Apple's service that their charging us for going green then thats insane. Highway robbery.
Exactly! Great post! It really is telling when you look at the prices like this. What happened with that last entry, indeed!
Don't get me wrong. I'm not all bent out of shape about the nehalems, and don't feel any kind of need to put them down. I actually almost bought one myself, but in the end, decided that the 2008 2.8 octo was a much better deal, and would actually be faster for photoshop, which is the main use for it for us right now. I'm sure I would have been happy with a nehalem MP, too, but it's just obvious that the 2008 MP's are a better bang for the buck.
Basically Apple is skimping on extra parts (harmful materials in this case) that should cost them less in materials.
Green!!! LOL!!! That's been proven to be complete and total fallacy. And keep in mind that by these made-up magical ideas of "greenness" Apple was the worst e-violator by all reports. So it stands to reason that if they came up to normal standards that they "improved more than anyone else".
Personally I don't care. Green = Political = Socialism = Totalitarianism = BS. Instead let's attack the real offenders like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, (not to mention the US military using DU in their projectiles), etc. and not the companies like Apple that use their products.
And I don't think $2000 extra per machine is a rightful figure to place on the little bits of effort Apple has put into the greenness conspiracy.
_________________________________
_________________________________
Thanks JS.
Yeah, I go back and forth myself. One day I feel betrayed and "bent out of shape" the next I'm just kinda curious, and then i go: Oh well, let the buyer beware I guess. In a kind of cycle.
Hhehehe I should stop that. I like the the new machines though... just not the prices or the feeling like someone is trying to pull a fast one on good and loyal customers.
umm...
Whats so hard to understand, materials cost money and if their not using them anymore, it saves them money.
Just wait till you have to start paying carbon surcharges on everything and an energy tax. Green = us paying much more.
It doesn't work that way. They had to substitute more expensive parts and processes for cheaper, more polluting, parts and processes.
It's not like the electric company can save money by just "skimping on" carbon monoxide in their smoke stack output.
This is one of the most bizarre arguments I've ever read.
So, in other words, Apple could use polluting plastic, but they switch to aluminum. And that saves them money, because they no longer use plastic?
Or they could use lead solder, but they switch to more expensive solders that require higher temperatures and thus more expensive manufacturing, and that saves them money because they leave out the lead?
Huh?
It's the cost of public perception. Apple was getting hammered for not being "green" enough.
Ok. What does that have to do with anything? Leadless solder costs more than lead solder, and aluminum costs more than plastic.
Or are we just saying stuff. If so, I'd like to say puppies cost more than cheese.
If you bothered to read you would see, that Apple is replacing non-green materials (flame retardants etc.) with other costly green materials. You could almost build a small car with all the aluminum they have in the 2009 Mac Pro and that isn't cheap for the material and machining. I'm not saying if the 2009 Mac Pros are actually green or not but, the Mac Pro changes to supposedly make it more green, have impacted the prices.
Have you considered that the harmful parts they're "skimping" on are cheaper than the non-harmful parts they've been replaced with?
And maybe researching, developing and mass-producing products made with the new "green" materials might cost some money...
Just maybe though..
Edit: substituted the word "materials" for "parts"..because OP is having trouble with the difference between the cost of materials and the cost of mass-producing parts made from those materials.
I still dont see where $500 increase in pricing comes in factor. Maybe a $100 at most? So what is it $400 for the cost of service of going green? Thats insanity.
No! You don't get it! Apple was adding extra parts for fun all this time. Then it found out they were polluting, so it decided to leave them out. Since they served no purpose, they don't need to be replaced. Makes perfect sense.
It balances out? HUH? They switched both! They paid more going from plastic to aluminum (in this purely hypothetical set of swaps), then they paid still more by switching solder. There's no "balancing out." They pay for aluminum and leadless solder instead of plastic and lead solder. This is grade school math:
A>C
B>D
therefore
A+B > C+D
no matter if C is greater than or less than D.
I dunno if jjahshik32 is technically correct but he IS generally correct.
If it's truly "green" it should cost less. Not more. If it costs more it's using more resources and energy (unless the price hike in question is a scam) and that's un-green.
If it's truly "green" it should cost less. Not more. If it costs more it's using more resources and energy (unless the price hike in question is a scam) and that's un-green.
Even if this was true, I still dont think it warrants that much of a price spike. $500??? From going from less lead solder.
I think they still contain lead just not as much in % wise as to the older generation stuff. But I still dont think it warrants a $500 increase in price just from that.
Nvidia has changed its bump in their lineup of lead in % dramatically and you dont see a huge price spike up from that.
My point is that technology advances and becomes standard, which should cost the same.
I dunno if jjahshik32 is technically correct but he IS generally correct.
If it's truly "green" it should cost less. Not more. If it costs more it's using more resources and energy (unless the price hike in question is a scam) and that's un-green.
In general, jjahshik32 is rarely technically correct.