Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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. :)

No.

Because "different" doesn't mean "more." One can use the same AMOUNT of material A or material B. They can take the same amount of ENERGY to extract and process. However using one may cost more than using the other because one or the other may, for example, be a scarcer resource (either literally scarcer, or with fewer current suppliers, etc.) Demand may be greater than supply for one or the other, and thus it may cost more.

Further, one or the other may be better understood, and thus more engineering effort may be required to use one or the other. This engineering effort is temporary "waste," but is offset by long-term environmental savings. The price may reflect the short-term costs, and not be lowered until later.
 
In general, jjahshik32 is rarely technically correct.

Oh no, another conundrum. I was just recovering from forcing myself to consider the possible value ratios for D and C to A and B. :eek:


EDIT:
No.

Because "different" doesn't mean "more." One can use the same AMOUNT of material A or material B. They can take the same amount of ENERGY to extract and process. However using one may cost more than using the other because one or the other may, for example, be a scarcer resource (either literally scarcer, or with fewer current suppliers, etc.) Demand may be greater than supply for one or the other, and thus it may cost more.

Further, one or the other may be better understood, and thus more engineering effort may be required to use one or the other. This engineering effort is temporary "waste," but is offset by long-term environmental savings. The price may reflect the short-term costs, and not be lowered until later.

I think that may be true in theory but not in practice!

PS: OMFG!!! There's a green lizard following my mouse around on the screen!!!!
 
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 almost the same.

I'm not saying it warrants the price spike, either. I'm just saying your argument was flawed on every possible level, and it's hard taking your opinion very seriously given that you don't seem to get how the universe operates.

As for your newest argument - yes, long term one might expect the price of green to come down. But you can't really argue that Apple doesn't use some more exotic materials and building processes right now, and that these materials and processes are already the standard. Because they're not. Yeah, maybe not $500 worth, but I don't know.

All I know is you don't save money by replacing cheap dirty things with expensive clean ones.
 
No.

Because "different" doesn't mean "more." One can use the same AMOUNT of material A or material B. They can take the same amount of ENERGY to extract and process. However using one may cost more than using the other because one or the other may, for example, be a scarcer resource (either literally scarcer, or with fewer current suppliers, etc.) Demand may be greater than supply for one or the other, and thus it may cost more.

Further, one or the other may be better understood, and thus more engineering effort may be required to use one or the other. This engineering effort is temporary "waste," but is offset by long-term environmental savings. The price may reflect the short-term costs, and not be lowered until later.

Anyways, to the person who used the "going green" excuse for Apple's $500 spike in price is probably not true.

Thats the whole point of this argument, if anything its probably a $100 or so + the extra $400 due to the new architecture.

Perhaps like others speculated that Apple has lost their discount since going Intel.
 
Anyways, to the person who used the "going green" excuse for Apple's $500 spike in price is probably not true.

Thats the whole point of this argument, if anything its probably a $100 or so + the extra $400 due to the new architecture.

Perhaps like others speculated that Apple has lost their discount since going Intel.

I thought we agreed that it was a $2,000 price hike and not $500. ?


PS: DANG!!! There;s that green lizard again!!! I'm freaking out!!!
 
I think that may be true in theory but not in practice!

PS: OMFG!!! There's a green lizard following my mouse around on the screen!!!!

Um, no. It's true in practice. Not all of the elements of the periodic table are equally distributed in nature. Not all materials are equally abundant. And the full price of something reflects not just the price of the energy required to transform it, but also the price of the raw materials, and the supply/demand markups of intermediate adders of value. Price is not a function purely of energy.
 
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. :)

Good point. I wonder if people who objected to Apple before consider what the 2009 Mac Pros require in resources and energy to produce now (even though they can be better recycled). Considering everything, it's probably no overall change/improvement except that we pay more and people think that Apple is green :) .

Note - Similar to electric cars. People buy them because they are green without realizing that the electricity to charge them comes from a polluting power plant (in most cases).
 
Um, no. It's true in practice. Not all of the elements of the periodic table are equally distributed in nature. Not all materials are equally abundant. And the full price of something reflects not just the price of the energy required to transform it, but also the price of the raw materials, and the supply/demand markups of intermediate adders of value. Price is not a function purely of energy.

But you're still in the theoretical sciences. In practice this is not how manufacturing works. At least from what I know abut manufacturing - which while admittedly is limited, may not be insufficient living and working in the manufacturing capital of Japan as I do. :)


Good point. I wonder if people who objected to Apple before consider what the 2009 Mac Pros require in resources and energy to produce now (even though they can be better recycled). Considering everything, it's probably no overall change/improvement except that we pay more and people think that Apple is green :) .

Note - Similar to electric cars. People buy them because they are green without realizing that the electricity to charge them comes from a polluting power plant (in most cases).

Yup. :)
 
Anyways, to the person who used the "going green" excuse for Apple's $500 spike in price is probably not true.

Thats the whole point of this argument, if anything its probably a $100 or so + the extra $400 due to the new architecture.

Perhaps like others speculated that Apple has lost their discount since going Intel.

I never said that the hike was only due to going green but that you had to consider the green design changes as being a part of the increase. I also think that the green increase was much more then $100.00 and I'm wondering how many people would now want a less green cheaper computer.
 
Good point. I wonder if people who objected to Apple before consider what the 2009 Mac Pros require in resources and energy to produce now (even though they can be better recycled). Considering everything, it's probably no overall change/improvement except that we pay more and people think that Apple is green :) .

Note - Similar to electric cars. People buy them because they are green without realizing that the electricity to charge them comes from a polluting power plant (in most cases).

Power plants are much more efficient than automotive internal combustion engines. They also have better pollution abatement mechanisms. As a result, the pollution per mile driven is less when the energy is generated at a power plant, even taking into account energy loss on transmission lines.
 
But you're still in the theoretical sciences. In practice this is not how manufacturing works.




Yup. :)

I spent 11 years working in manufacturing companies. I've spent time in cleanrooms actually using different chemicals to perform the same semiconductor processes. I know what they cost.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Power plants are much more efficient than automotive internal combustion engines. They also have better pollution abatement mechanisms. As a result, the pollution per mile driven is less when the energy is generated at a power plant, even taking into account energy loss on transmission lines.

Not to mention power plants have a relatively fixed output.
If you don't charge your car, you're not actually saving the environment.

This is why BS such as "Earth Hour" is so annoying.
If anything, it "consumes" more electricity than a normal hour, because a **** load of devices powering up maximize their power usage for a second or two (not to mention all the blown fuses from everything switching on at once :D).
Power plants simply don't adapt quickly enough.
 
But since I don't think (didn't think) Apple was evil or greedy I keep looking for alternate reasons. I mean there has to be a reason they jacked the price structure up across the board between $1,000 and $2,000 right? The only thing I've been able to come up with is that they know better than us common folk what the affects of the recent economical collapse are going to be and are pricing their systems based on real dollar devaluation.

But if that were true then wouldn't IBM, Gateway, HP, Sony, DELL and others be doing the same thing? None of them are. Some have raised prices $200, $300, on previously similarly priced units but nothing close to Apple's jump.

Anyway, I still looking for an explanation meself.

Apple aren't any more evil than their industry competitors. They are owned by their shareholders. Those shareholders choose people to operate the company who make the most money for them. Hence the business becomes all about making money.

The thing we (or I) like about Apple is that they hold the strangely unique notion that you make more money by making better products. The rest of the industry, perhaps because it's the significant potion of the technology market, try to increase profits by cutting costs. For example, Dell or HP might use a cheaper quality plastic or spend less time on design or install bloatware to subsidise the cost of the machine.

Apple tries to grow profits by making an even more outstanding machine. They think if they build an even faster, even better designed, even more amazing product, they'll sell more and make more money. I like that because it means each product, individually considered, is better than its competitors.

Unfortunately, Apple's prices are out of step with their current position. Apple needed a lot of money to keep afloat. Because it was able to rely on its core user base to keep buying products, it increased the margins significantly to make enough money to survive. This was designed to give Apple a cash cushion should it ever fall again.

It worked. Apple now has $25Bn in the bank, and Apple is in excellent health. The idea of Apple falling now seems ludicrous. Yet those margins are still high, because Apple has managed to grow despite them. It's the most profitable OEM on the market. There's no pressure on Apple to lower margins (and hence prices), so it simply won't.

Now that Apple's healthy, they are in a position to experiment with low cost, high volume sales models. Unfortunately, I don't think Steve Jobs can think like that. He's great at picking markets to enter, but perhaps because of the work he had to do to bring Apple back from the brink, he's shown no signs of lowering the margin now Apple is healthy again.
 
For example, Dell or HP might use a cheaper quality plastic or spend less time on design or install bloatware to subsidise the cost of the machine.

Let's just say I remember a time when Dell's UltraSharp branding didn't include TN panels..
 
Apple aren't any more evil than their industry competitors. They are owned by their shareholders. Those shareholders choose people to operate the company who make the most money for them. Hence the business becomes all about making money.

The thing we (or I) like about Apple is that they hold the strangely unique notion that you make more money by making better products. The rest of the industry, perhaps because it's the significant potion of the technology market, try to increase profits by cutting costs. For example, Dell or HP might use a cheaper quality plastic or spend less time on design or install bloatware to subsidise the cost of the machine.

Apple tries to grow profits by making an even more outstanding machine. They think if they build an even faster, even better designed, even more amazing product, they'll sell more and make more money. I like that because it means each product, individually considered, is better than its competitors.

Unfortunately, Apple's prices are out of step with their current position. Apple needed a lot of money to keep afloat. Because it was able to rely on its core user base to keep buying products, it increased the margins significantly to make enough money to survive. This was designed to give Apple a cash cushion should it ever fall again.

It worked. Apple now has $25Bn in the bank, and Apple is in excellent health. The idea of Apple falling now seems ludicrous. Yet those margins are still high, because Apple has managed to grow despite them. It's the most profitable OEM on the market. There's no pressure on Apple to lower margins (and hence prices), so it simply won't.

Now that Apple's healthy, they are in a position to experiment with low cost, high volume sales models. Unfortunately, I don't think Steve Jobs can think like that. He's great at picking markets to enter, but perhaps because of the work he had to do to bring Apple back from the brink, he's shown no signs of lowering the margin now Apple is healthy again.

This makes a lot of sense. It's a really good reply I think. The only two things I would like to add or point out are that I was thinking and expecting Apple to be a lot LESS evil than other companies. Board aside the CEO pulls a lot of weight - especially a CEO like SJ! I dunno why, but there's something common-man-ish about the guy that makes me think the weight he pulls will be a kindness paid to in kind - to the common working stiff (like us) I mean. And the other thing is that while what you say is all true and very thoughtful it doesn't seem to explain the price hike. In other industries this kind of price manipulation causes boycotts and does a lot of damage to a company's public reputation - if indeed there's no reasonable explanation for it I mean.




You have no idea what you are talking about.

No, I have an idea. Now if I can just remember what it was... Hmm. :D
 
Note - Similar to electric cars. People buy them because they are green without realizing that the electricity to charge them comes from a polluting power plant (in most cases).

…and because the average hippie is either stupid or uneducated on the subject, they think nuclear power is the devil. In fact, it's the safest, cleanest form of non-geographically dependent (e.g., hydroelectric, geothermal) base grid power generation in existence. 95% of the so-called "waste" can be reprocessed and used again as fuel, but unfortunately people don't spend time on facts when they can spout off about being green.
 
…and because the average hippie is either stupid or uneducated on the subject, they think nuclear power is the devil. In fact, it's the safest, cleanest form of non-geographically dependent (e.g., hydroelectric, geothermal) base grid power generation in existence. 95% of the so-called "waste" can be reprocessed and used again as fuel, but unfortunately people don't spend time on facts when they can spout off about being green.

on a related note... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smug_Alert!
 
I think the reason why Apple is charging more on their Mac Pros is because of the new interior architecture & because people are starting buying laptops more then desktops these days.
 
For what ever my .02 cents are worth, I'm pretty impressed with the Mac Pro.
For one thing the heat sinks are huge, not typically found on home build or off the shelf units. 2nd the modular MB and plug in SATA drives. That type of engineering comes at a bit of a price tag.

The type of quality that they put in to these units is really good its not like they fall apart after a few yrs. It seems like most Mac Pro's life span are 4+ yrs if not more.
 
I think the reason why Apple is charging more on their Mac Pros is because of the new interior architecture & because people are starting buying laptops more then desktops these days.

...Surely in that case, you think they'd charge more for the laptops?! :confused:
 
I hate to say it but the Nehalem Mac Pros are not any faster than last generation Mac Pros and especially Penryn Mac Pros being considered old now, I think I'm going to wait another year or so (at least until snow leopard is out) for something unbelievable is released.

Why would you upgrade hardware if you are not pushing it.

I am still running my 06 box and so far I do not see the need to upgrade.


The days of huge performance jumps for standard stuff are pretty much over.
 
You'll be waiting a long time. Next gen is just gonna see a die shrink, no major advancements. If you don't think they're fast then i argue you either aren't the target audience or your apps haven't been optimized to use the system to its full potential

In other words...don't expect it to surf the internet or fetch mail faster...that depends on your internet connection. Expect it to shave off a significant amount of time on video/photo editing/3D work, if the app is optimized.

...and i'll end with this. Following your other threads, it seems you are never truly satisfied. With you there's always something...no offence.

Sandy Bridge will be adding significant changes to the Vector engine that will make a big difference for code that can be vectorized well such as nuclear weapons simulation/physics package validation, FEA or CFD applications etc..
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.