I knew Mac's were overpriced, but Jesus!

[tablet_user]

This thread is only going to end up in the gutter like all the others.

It's like paying the extra for a Mercedes over a Ford.

no its not. the Mercedes has performance over the ford so your paying for a better car. The macbooks aren't more powerful then the windows laptops.

[Hitman2000]

You can rice out a Honda Civic to outperform a Ferrari too. So what?

Quality > Quantity for plenty of people. If they were that outrageously priced, Apple wouldn't have $300 billion is profits right now.

Incorrect analogy.

Ferrari (most) have big 4,5,6 L v,8,v10,v12 engines and a whole host of other things like F1 style transmission and ger shifting etc.

The apple is not superior hardware wise, a better analogy would be having a toyota corolla engine inside a ferrari body kit, thats what macs are you arent paying for the engine you are paying for the body (outside only)

Also about the profit thing, Apple was a dead in the water company and has almost gone to banktrupcy a few times. what saved them was the Ipod (its a pretty good product but almost a decade later it still lacks a simple FM radio!), then oviously the IPhone was the next thing that really drove up their company.

apple mac desktops/laptops continue to be quite low value in terms of hardware vs price ratio.

Also complaining about build quality, have you ever used Sony Vaio ,Hp or some top end Dell laptops? I have a few laying around from 5+ years ago and they work fine to this day.

[Chasethebase Reporter]

no its not. the Mercedes has performance over the ford so your paying for a better car. The macbooks aren't more powerful then the windows laptops.

Incorrect mainly because if you get one with the exact same engine size, in most cases the specs will be similar, taking the Mondeo and C Class as examples. Still, this thread has already gone downhill.

[zombieChan]

So, if people want to pay that much to own a Mac, let them.

Trying to tell everyone that Mac are overpriced is like telling them the sky is blue.

[treemonster]

And your proof? If that was the case, why would they bother making them?

look at the market share of macs. then look at the market shares of apple mobile devices :blink:

why does apple still mac computers? because it brings in modest profits compared to the cost of support(which they charge extra for anyway) and because it's steve jobs. seriously just look at his resume from the 90s and you tell me why apple still makes laptops and desktops.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Incorrect analogy.

Ferrari (most) have big 4,5,6 L v,8,v10,v12 engines and a whole host of other things like F1 style transmission and ger shifting etc.

The apple is not superior hardware wise, a better analogy would be having a toyota corolla engine inside a ferrari body kit, thats what macs are you arent paying for the engine you are paying for the body (outside only)

Read what I said. "Quality > Quantity for plenty of people."

[+Warwagon MVC]

Incorrect mainly because if you get one with the exact same engine size, in most cases the specs will be similar, taking the Mondeo and C Class as examples. Still, this thread has already gone downhill.

Actually I enjoy reading posts were people argue back and forth.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

And your proof? If that was the case, why would they bother making them?

According to MacJournals, which chewed over the numbers, "At $5.445 billion, iPhone sales accounted for 40% of Apple's revenue. All Mac sales were 28%, all iPod/Music sales were 24%." Mac sales are 2.943m units, generating revenue of $3.76bn - which Apple says was 33% year-on-year growth, compared to market growth of 24%. (But Apple had a bad second quarter in 2009 for Mac sales.)

My link

That was in 2009, and the story has not changed. 64% of their sales in 2009 were from the mobile/iPod side of things, and again this was from 2009, that means even more in 2010 with the iPad. It is pretty well known knowledge that since the iPod has come out, that the actual sales of computers make up the least of Apple's sales. And I am posting this from my Macbook through Safari, so it has nothing to do with being biased. I just call it how I see it.

[Xerxes]

while OSX doesn't have blu ray drivers at all last i heard and macs don't come with blu ray drives.

That wasn't the point though :p I mean when you buy a Mac, Apple don't expect you to then go find the drivers online to get all your hardware to work, it all works from the moment you turn the machine on! and to be fair, most Windows machines are fully functional out the box too, I was just unlucky enough to find one that wasn't :p

[treemonster]

Read what I said. "Quality > Quantity for plenty of people."

but there's no realisitic increase in quality in a mac. unless you treat your laptop like it's garbage and let your kids play with it, the parts of the product that matter are either identical or slightly better in the OEM offerings.

mac internals aren't made by magical elves toiling away to bring magic into the real world through apple computers.

[iuerg87yerg879e0rg9erugjer]

Quantity < Quality :D

[Bengal34]

And your proof? If that was the case, why would they bother making them?

Their computer's do make money but the majority of their revenue comes from iDevices.

[Astra.Xtreme]

look at the market share of macs. then look at the market shares of apple mobile devices :blink:

why does apple still mac computers? because it brings in modest profits compared to the cost of support(which they charge extra for anyway) and because it's steve jobs. seriously just look at his resume from the 90s and you tell me why apple still makes laptops and desktops.

Market share doesn't mean anything. It's Apple vs. 10,000 PC Manufacturers. If it was an equal battle, it would be a completely different story.

They sell plenty of them, and set their prices accordingly. If they were "overpriced", they would lose money, and they clearly don't. It's common business sense.

[Chasethebase Reporter]

Their computer's do make money but the majority of their revenue comes from iDevices.

Low sales high margin, instead of the opposite, which is what most OEM's roll.

[treemonster]

That wasn't the point though :p I mean when you buy a Mac, Apple don't expect you to then go find the drivers online to get all your hardware to work, it all works from the moment you turn the machine on! and to be fair, most Windows machines are fully functional out the box too, I was just unlucky enough to find one that wasn't :p

anything in wondows that does doesn't have drivers already installed befor eyou bring it home will download install before you realize it.

if you think the drivers were crap, in what way? did they not play blu rays did your drive not work? if those were the case i'd think it'd be a failed drive before i considered the OEM drivers were bad. the blu ray playback software was bad? because apple's quicktime player is good in any way?

i build my computers myself and i never have to manually search for drivers for internal hardware other than my video card. my chipset and controller and optical drivers all install automatically on first load of windows.

[Astra.Xtreme]

According to MacJournals, which chewed over the numbers, "At $5.445 billion, iPhone sales accounted for 40% of Apple's revenue. All Mac sales were 28%, all iPod/Music sales were 24%." Mac sales are 2.943m units, generating revenue of $3.76bn - which Apple says was 33% year-on-year growth, compared to market growth of 24%. (But Apple had a bad second quarter in 2009 for Mac sales.)

My link

That was in 2009, and the story has not changed. 64% of their sales in 2009 were from the mobile/iPod side of things, and again this was from 2009, that means even more in 2010 with the iPad. It is pretty well known knowledge that since the iPod has come out, that the actual sales of computers make up the least of Apple's sales. And I am posting this from my Macbook through Safari, so it has nothing to do with being biased. I just call it how I see it.

28% of their total revenue is an absolutely ridiculous amount of money. If anything, that completely backs up what I said.

[Hitman2000]

Read what I said. "Quality > Quantity for plenty of people."

Yeh but i responded to the part where you are saying a mac is a ferrai.

Alienware laptops are what i would consider the "ferrari" of the pc world ie Performance, Price, Quality.

Apple has a weak "engine" for a premium price because the exterior looks nice.

And as per my post, why compare a low end 400$ el cheapo laptop to $1200 mac, when you compare a $1200 Sony Vaio, Dell or Hp they have same if not better quality! And superioir "engines" (cpu,ram,gfx) aswell!

[nohone]

You can rice out a Honda Civic to outperform a Ferrari too. So what?

Quality > Quantity for plenty of people. If they were that outrageously priced, Apple wouldn't have $300 billion is profits right now.

Please learn how the stock market works before you write such things, because you just defeated your entire argument. Apple does not make "$300 billion is [sic] profits," they have a market cap of $300 billion. Very, very big difference.

[osxdude]

Ugh seriously just buy what you like and use it. Seriously. Here, I'll even say it in Comic Sans; Seriously.

[treemonster]

Market share doesn't mean anything. It's Apple vs. 10,000 PC Manufacturers. If it was an equal battle, it would be a completely different story.

They sell plenty of them, and set their prices accordingly. If they were "overpriced", they would lose money, and they clearly don't. It's common business sense.

i didn't say their computer segment wasn't profitable. it's just not where they get the majority of their profits.

before the ipod apple wasn't doing half as well as it is today.

[Alladaskill17]

Why do you people create threads about this? A quick search would clearly list a plethora of previously created topics. As an M.V.C you should know/be tech knowledgeable enough to figure this out. Yes, it is about the 'apple' logo, but also for the stability and included software. Not specifically a "spec for spec" comparison...

/rant

[Astra.Xtreme]

Yeh but i responded to the part where you are saying a mac is a ferrai.

Alienware laptops are what i would consider the "ferrari" of the pc world ie Performance, Price, Quality.

Apple has a weak "engine" for a premium price because the exterior looks nice.

And as per my post, why compare a low end 400$ el cheapo laptop to $1200 mac, when you compare a $1200 Sony Vaio, Dell or Hp they have same if not better quality! And superioir "engines" (cpu,ram,gfx) aswell!

Show me where I said a Ferrari is like an Apple. It was just a simple analogy...

[treemonster]

28% of their total revenue is an absolutely ridiculous amount of money. If anything, that completely backs up what I said.

you implied that when i said the majority of their profits come from their mobile devices segment that i was wrong. so no it backs up what i said

[+Warwagon MVC]

Why do you people create threads about this? A quick search would clearly list a plethora of previously created topics. As an M.V.C you should know/be tech knowledgeable enough to figure this out. Yes, it is about the 'apple' logo, but also for the stability and included software. Not specifically a "spec for spec" comparison...

/rant

I under stand why they are so expensive. But here we have a mother that wasted her money on an computer that was going to be used for Video editing. Its an expensive laptop with a crappy engine, compared the cheaper pc counterparts, and she bought it just because It's a "Mac Book Pro"

[Knife Party]

All hail Steve Nobs for teh premium lulz trap, quality > quantity = joke of the century :D

but anyways, getting awefully serious now (yeh right), people know Apple products are overpriced to the point of legal extortion, but who cares? its yo moneyz yo, let them pay for what they are fooled into thinking they are getting.