why are apple laptops so expensive?

[MiG-]

So what exactly are my replacements for Omnigraffle, Textmate, Applescript, and .Mac syncing?

I'm sure I could jerry-rig up something that works 'well enough', but I have yet to find tools that let me accomplish the same things even half as fast.

You can measure power in bogomips and gigaquads if you want, I prefer to measure it by how much I can get done in a given period of time.

i looked at those apps, and i must admit those are pritty nice programs, but hey a lot of things i have dont work with mac, e.g. my Sony MP3 player, quite a few things dont work..

i dunno everyman to his own and all that, some people love mac, others dont, unfortunately i cudnt use it as a daily machine.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

OSX doesnt play Games though does it, and that is what stops most people from going the OSX route. o you my say, run bootcamp, but then everytime you wanna play a game you have 2 reboot into windows, and then wait for that to boot, and then play.

Also, the gfx chip in the laptop is mediocre at best. you get a laptop with a screen resolution of 1440 x 900, or the equivalant of 1280 x 1024 non wide, and yet try playing with 4xAA and 8xAF on most games, its not going to happen, dont say it will because my 7800GT struggles in some games at those settings.

Also you have licensing issues and other things to consider, such as your licence of photoshop and disc will not work on OSX, nor will macromedia studio.

The laptops are well built, and i think there power connectors are the best around, but with the recent flaws and whines i dont think they justify there price.

The apple has the iPod look to it, and it makes people go oooooo, but if you what serious style and power there are better alternatives available, albiet more expensive.

The thing is, you are thinking as if everyone that has a computer plays games. The amount of gamers out there compared to the rest of the marketshare of PC users is probably in the range that Apple is compared to the rest of the PC marketshare. Basically, you are in the minority just as we are.

Apple's laptops cost so much because of design, more intensive quality control, and custom hardware design (logicboards for instance). Actually what's interesting that if you take a MacBook and compare it to similar priced laptops from the big 3 (HP, Compaq, and Dell) what you see is that the MacBook actually provides the best bang for your buck.

For the average person, if they weren't scared of OS X they would find life probably a bit easier. Thats not to say it has its issues, but as a Windows user for about 13-14 years, switching only a year ago, I can say that OS X is not only light years more advanced than Windows, it is much much much more stable and user friendly while being even more powerful.

To those that say well they can't be too good since 99% of people use Windows, well that was because one, OS X comes with Mac's only and Macs are made only by one company, and two, Macs gained a bad rep because of issues back in the 90's. Those issues that gave it that bad rep are gone now. But that stigma coupled with fear since most of the people now were raised on Windows is what is keeping the marketshare so low.

[LTD]

Apple makes its money on margin, selling to (and profiting from) a particular target market. In order to enrich its bottom line, Apple does not need compete for 94% of the market. In fact, as a premium product, it's to Apple's advantage to *not* attain dominant market share, but to simply satisfy its target market and cause it to clamour for more. The expsnsion of this particular target market is of course a primary goal, but by its nature it will only swell its ranks with a particular kind of consumer. Breitling, Mercedes, Tag-Heuer, Gucci, and Vacheron-Consantin are exemplary with respect to this phenomenom.

Apple products, like it or not, are considered premium products, and the price tag and quality reflect that.

Apple's profits are soaring, yet it only commands a small percentage of the market. It's a question of the particular economics of what are known as luxury products. It isn't always about sheer volume of sales, people.

Apple's products have attained a status and symbolism that go beyond the sum of their parts, to reflect a particular taste and lifestyle as much as (if not moreso) to reflect the actual raw performance of the components.

An Audi A4, for instance, is not the fastest or most agile car in its class. Indeed, lower-end customized Hondas and the like could probably outrun and out-handle it easily. But taken overall, in terms of fit, finish, the brand name and the quality of the entire package, it is considered a relatively higher-end, premium product. Its charm and appeal go beyond the raw performance numbers.

So there you have it. The economics of luxury.

[vhane]

Apple makes its money on margin, selling to (and profiting from) a particular target market. In order to enrich its bottom line, Apple does not need compete for 94% of the market. In fact, as a premium product, it's to Apple's advantage to *not* attain dominant market share, but to simply satisfy its target market and cause it to clamour for more. The expsnsion of this particular target market is of course a primary goal, but by its nature it will only swell its ranks with a particular kind of consumer. Breitling, Mercedes, Tag-Heuer, Gucci, and Vacheron-Consantin are exemplary with respect to this phenomenom.

Apple products, like it or not, are considered premium products, and the price tag and quality reflect that.

Apple's profits are soaring, yet it only commands a small percentage of the market. It's a question of the particular economics of what are known as luxury products. It isn't always about sheer volume of sales, people.

Apple's products have attained a status and symbolism that go beyond the sum of their parts, to reflect a particular taste and lifestyle as much as (if not moreso) to reflect the actual raw performance of the components.

An Audi A4, for instance, is not the fastest or most agile car in its class. Indeed, lower-end customized Hondas and the like could probably outrun and out-handle it easily. But taken overall, in terms of fit, finish, the brand name and the quality of the entire package, it is considered a relatively higher-end, premium product. Its charm and appeal go beyond the raw performance numbers.

So there you have it. The economics of luxury.

One of the rare lucid posts in this fanboy-infested thread.

[MiG-]

i would hardly call apple laptops "premium" and a top end computer, far from it.

People have compared Gucci and the like with Apple, and im no expert, but hell no... Gucci is meant to be different, something like a lifestyle purpose to show your different, have class and money.

Apple products dont show that, and never will. everyone has an iPod, and i think it just means its another apple device.

If you want to compete with the likes of Gucci, D&G, Hugo Boss, companies like Savrow, and Voodoo, and Holly Computers build machines that are the premium end of laptops, with any paint job you like, and service to go with it.

Apple is good, i aint saying that it aint, but it is further away from a premium product than most, at the end of the day its just a laptop, what happens to look sleek in a white colour.

More Bang Per Buck, i really hope your kidding there...

[LTD]

It can be irritating for some, but the Apple brand has, in recent years (thanks in part to the iPod) become synonymous with *cool.* Being trendy and distinctive means that an Apple product plays a role in your life somewhere. Granted not for *everyone*, but it's an aknowledged phenomenon that needs no further demonstration. I'll get back to this in a little bit.

The ipod is what is known as a gateway-product. It is priced competitively, though still on the high-side. Even an expensive mp3 player, however, is still far less of an investment than a 4-figure computer. There are other players which can hold more songs or play for longer, but the ipod's (and nano's) distinctive design (form and colour) and ease of use have stolen the *cool* factor. And that means it's a winner, regardless of the raw performance numbers. It is the gateway to Apple's more expensive products. It is what drives the sales of Apple's mac and mac notebook line. In fact, nearly everything out of Cupertino these days is designed around the ipod's distinctive style. One pundit has said that the imac is basically a massive ipod that can do more tricks. That sentiment isn't far off from the truth, though he was being a little facetious.

Let's get back to the Gucci = Apple = class and distinction concept. To start off, if you can't at least ackowledge that the imac's and ipod's design, for example, is distinctive and easily recognized (brand recognition) and that the exterior fit and finish of these products is of higher quality, then you need an optometrist, not a computer. Distinction and price are driven partly by the product. Partly. The other driving force behind the idea (or in some cases illusion) of class and distinction is driven by the consumer. The consumer also sets the price. ;-) Walk into any Apple Store. The majority in there are not mmorpg-kiddies or DOOM-addicts, but . . . yuppies and families with $$$. Yuppies with expensive tastes that appreciate, first of all, a computer store that resembles a combination of a Starbucks and modern-art showroom. Very similar to the modern design and finish of upscale condos. It's no accident. Apple knows this market like a dog knows its ######. And the majority in there are usually women. The perfect target. So Apple happily charges what the yuppie-market will bear: plenty. And in turn, these yuppies and higher-income bracket families regard the distincitve style of Apple products, plus the price (expensive = quality, to their minds) as worthy of their attention, which in turn, justifies Apple's pricing, which in turn, attracts this target market, and so the cycle continues.

And OS X in terms of quality, ease of use, and pleasant effects which enahnce the user experience, fits the *cool* factor of Apple's hardware like a glove.

So there you have it. Apple's marketing/selling strategy in a nutshell, more or less.

[MiG-]

It can be irritating for some, but the Apple brand has, in recent years (thanks in part to the iPod) become synonymous with *cool.* Being trendy and distinctive means that an Apple product plays a role in your life somewhere. Granted not for *everyone*, but it's an aknowledged phenomenon that needs no further demonstration. I'll get back to this in a little bit.

The ipod is what is known as a gateway-product. It is priced competitively, though still on the high-side. Even an expensive mp3 player, however, is still far less of an investment than a 4-figure computer. There are other players which can hold more songs or play for longer, but the ipod's (and nano's) distinctive design (form and colour) and ease of use have stolen the *cool* factor. And that means it's a winner, regardless of the raw performance numbers. It is the gateway to Apple's more expensive products. It is what drives the sales of Apple's mac and mac notebook line. In fact, nearly everything out of Cupertino these days is designed around the ipod's distinctive style. One pundit has said that the imac is basically a massive ipod that can do more tricks. That sentiment isn't far off from the truth, though he was being a little facetious.

Let's get back to the Gucci = Apple = class and distinction concept. To start off, if you can't at least ackowledge that the imac's and ipod's design, for example, is distinctive and easily recognized (brand recognition) and that the exterior fit and finish of these products is of higher quality, then you need an optometrist, not a computer. Distinction and price are driven partly by the product. Partly. The other driving force behind the idea (or in some cases illusion) of class and distinction is driven by the consumer. The consumer also sets the price. ;-) Walk into any Apple Store. The majority in there are not mmorpg-kiddies or DOOM-addicts, but . . . yuppies and families with $$$. Yuppies with expensive tastes that appreciate, first of all, a computer store that resembles a combination of a Starbucks and modern-art showroom. Very similar to the modern design and finish of upscale condos. It's no accident. Apple knows this market like a dog knows its ######. And the majority in there are usually women. The perfect target. So Apple happily charges what the yuppie-market will bear: plenty. And in turn, these yuppies and higher-income bracket families regard the distincitve style of Apple products, plus the price (expensive = quality, to their minds) as worthy of their attention, which in turn, justifies Apple's pricing, which in turn, attracts this target market, and so the cycle continues.

And OS X in terms of quality, ease of use, and pleasant effects which enahnce the user experience, fits the *cool* factor of Apple's hardware like a glove.

So there you have it. Apple's marketing/selling strategy in a nutshell, more or less.

arguement won. i cba to type a response to that.. :whistle:

[LTD]

MiG, put it this way: if a particular consumer is looking for pure, raw performance - that kind of visceral, blazing speed that characterizes current top-end 64-bit processors, and the ability to customize to their exact needs, then a Mac would certainly not be their first choice, and would likely not even make the list.