Gabe Newell: Windows 8 is a 'catastrophe' for PC biz

[Stark]

Tolya, are you seriously arguing appliances and appliance manufacturers you don't like are the same as games you don't like? In markets, successful products meet needs and provide value. Different people have different ideas and priorities for 'value'. For instance, no professional I know gives a fuck about elite PC configuring or how good their frontside camera is; they care about shit working, they care about workflows, they care about confidence and aesthetics. For these people, Apple products are not overpriced, because they provide more value to them than a random off-the-shelf kludgebox full of toshiba trackpad accelerators.

As Phongn suggested to earlier, the statistics decades of marketing have trained nerds to value are important, but I'd suggest they're only really important when comparing otherwise similar products. My toaster draws more current than my headphones, but so what? Comparing the stats on two devices that are otherwise not the same is deliberately or accidentally devaluing or ignoring everything else that makes those products distinct, and then asking WHY DO THEY DO IT. If you honestly want to understand why people and consumers make the decisions they do, you have to be able to consider the views of others, rather than endlessly repeat BUT I GET BETTER STATS FROM NEWEGG.

[Edi]

Apple products being overpriced or not depends on what market you're in. Here they are fucking expensive, so much so that it's ridiculous.

I just checked http://www.verkkokauppa.com (Finland's biggest computer retailer and also the best value for money compared to anything else) and the cheapest MBA they have in their regular lineup is €1100. They have a limited number of MBAs that are part of an older batch that is being sold off for the cheap, cheap price of €949 and if you move up from the 11" screens to anything bigger, the price goes up like a rocket. The 13" MBAs are €1300 to €1600 and the 15" ones start from €1700 and up.

Just see for yourselves. The page is in Finnish, but that shouldn't make much of a difference if you want to check the specs of the individual Macs.

For a comparison, here's the lineup of 17" laptops from other manufacturers. There is a lot more variety and the quality undoubtedly varies from crap to excellent, though the business lineup is more expensive than the Macs.

And here are the 15" ones.

Make of those what you will, but for a lot of people, the prices of Macs compared to what they actually use them for are simply too high. Might be one of the reasons why they are not all that competitive.

For dektop computers, the iMacs are actually somewhat more competitive (and for professional stuff, very much so), though they still come in at almost double the price of fairly good offerings from other manufacturers.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Can I just say, that {some} people on both sides of the argument should fuck up and stop comparing wildly different models?
Yes, a 600 $ has crappy build quality compared to a 1,100$ laptop with inferior specs and better build quality as a selling point, NO SHIT.

If people want to compare, use price point equilevent models, don't compare an 11 inch MBA to a 600$ dell or a 17'' laptop, compare it to other Windows Ultrabooks selling for +-10-20% (Such as say, the Asus Zenbook Prime, or Lenovo's new ultralights or Carbon or X1, etc').

(And for the record - yeah, Apple/Macbooks are hideously overpriced here [Overseas/Israel] as well. The premium is often around 60-110% over US amazon.com prices for stuff like iPods, though iPads are more competitively price last I looked. ).
And yes, Mac stuff has excellent design, and rather good build quality from what I've seen. But it's all at the 1,000$ pricepoint and up, and competing laptops at that price range are also better. (I don't own anything by Apple except for an old iPod. And my Laptop is a sub 800$ 2 year old Asus windows model).


EDIT: Random example: Argue over something like these: Asus ZenBooks U32VD/ U31Ahttp://www.laptopmag.com/review/ultrabo ... eview.aspx
Compared to a 13'" MAB, or Beefier kits compared to the MBP. (Granted, the Retina screen thing is a killer feature for now. Even if almost nothing supports it beyond some specialized games.)

[Stark]

In AU in the 90s Apple stuff was regularly 3x or 4x as expensive and thus nobody bought them. Even after the AU tax they're priced in an accessible way for their target markets these days.

[TheFeniX]

Are business-grade laptops pulling down failure rates)? I'd love to know more and go into detail (and wish they'd release their dataset). This survey is in contrast to initial-quality surveys which usually put Apple and Lenovo (ThinkPad) up front. Thanks for sharing it.

Business Laptop likely bring failure rates down as much as the cheap boxed laptops bring them up. I would like to see whatever surveys you have.

Retina isn't bullshit (it should be the minimum standard), and of course a gaming-desktop replacement is going to be cheaper than a machine designed for portability (like, oh, an EliteBook or ThinkPad T/W-series).

I've seen a wide range of ASUS laptops that would still outperform an Apple and are still thin and lightweight. And no, they don't fall apart the first time you pick them up.

And as Stark notes, Acer is pretty much just relabeling a machine, there's no real custom engineering going on.

Probably explains why their failure rate is 5% more than the other leading brands. Acer sucks.

There's more to quality than reliability (if an important component of it). Again, screen quality, quality of case, quality of keyboard, trackpad, etc. Cheap plastic junk with terrible keyboards and tiny trackpads that barely can do palm rejection are not "quality".

After working on god only knows how many laptops over the years, you find out that laptop keyboards and trackpads just plain suck. Mac sucks worse due to no actual buttons. The only keyboard/trackpad combination I ever worked with that didn't make me want to kill myself was on this laptop because I could disable the trackpad with one button press and it was so "lol huuge" I could just place a mouse on the bottom right of the laptop and browse easier. Even with this beast of a machine, I could comfortably watch movies on an airplane. That was my "work" laptop I was forced to buy because my old boss was to cheap to get me one. I got it at Sam's Club for $478 (the hardware alone combined with Office made it worth that) and it came with a 2.1 MP camera and inkjet printer. It still works to this day even though just being in a laptop case should have destroyed it according to posters in this thread.

Apple's keyboards and trackpads aren't anything special. I've used them. Their screens (besides maybe retina, haven't seen it and never will because I could just go buy a TV for that money) aren't anything special. The only thing left is the case. It's metal, whoop-di-fucking do. If you think that's what you need to support laptop components then you've never actually opened a plastic one up (they actually have support struts and well-made ones interlink to try and make the laptop one solid piece) and also don't realize how tough high quality plastic really is. How does this justify the 2x price point? I'll get to that.

Comparing the stats on two devices that are otherwise not the same is deliberately or accidentally devaluing or ignoring everything else that makes those products distinct, and then asking WHY DO THEY DO IT. If you honestly want to understand why people and consumers make the decisions they do, you have to be able to consider the views of others, rather than endlessly repeat BUT I GET BETTER STATS FROM NEWEGG.

You still think you're onto something we're not, even though you're just stating the glaringly obvious.

It's actually really easy to see that Apple like Harley Davdison, BOSE, Monster Cables, Oakley, and numerous other companies that take the same shit everyone else is using, make it shiny and/or market the fuck out of how cool it will make you, then charge 2x (or 10x WRT Monster Cables) the going rate everyone else does. Your exact same argument was used by a Harley fan to explain why his bike cost twice that of a Honda: "It's different, it's not fair to compare them." It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now. In reality, he didn't buy a bike, he bought a lifestyle.

And no one gives a shit that people pay that money for a lifestyle. It doesn't bother me in the least. What does bother me is when those same people come into a thread and start shitting it up with lies because they bought into all the marketing.

[phongn]

Are business-grade laptops pulling down failure rates)? I'd love to know more and go into detail (and wish they'd release their dataset). This survey is in contrast to initial-quality surveys which usually put Apple and Lenovo (ThinkPad) up front. Thanks for sharing it.

Business Laptop likely bring failure rates down as much as the cheap boxed laptops bring them up. I would like to see whatever surveys you have.

That's what I meant; the business line may drive down the rate compared to the cheap consumer ones. I'll have to dig up the surveys.

I've seen a wide range of ASUS laptops that would still outperform an Apple and are still thin and lightweight. And no, they don't fall apart the first time you pick them up.

Again, it's not just specification. Please pay attention to every Apple thread ever in this forum.

After working on god only knows how many laptops over the years, you find out that laptop keyboards and trackpads just plain suck. Mac sucks worse due to no actual buttons. The only keyboard/trackpad combination I ever worked with that didn't make me want to kill myself was on this laptop because I could disable the trackpad with one button press and it was so "lol huuge" I could just place a mouse on the bottom right of the laptop and browse easier.

First, I've used plenty of scissors keyboards. I've used laptops for many, many years (486 Toshibas, PowerBook 170 - the machine that defined the look of all future laptops, IBM ThinkPads, Lenovo ThinkPads, Dells, HP, Toshiba, random Asian OEM/VAR ...) That they plain suck is your opinion; I find both the classic and sadly-discontinued long-travel ThinkPad keyboard and the Apple laptop keyboards excellent to type on. Yes, even in comparison to the IBM Model M or Apple Extended Keyboard II, both of which use real mechanical key switches. They are leagues better than desktop rubber-dome keyboards (and most other laptop keyboards).

I thought trackpads sucked, too, until I got a Mac. Hey! Someone actually bothered to put some thought into design (and I find no problem with lack of extrinsic buttons; I have touch).

That was my "work" laptop I was forced to buy because my old boss was to cheap to get me one. I got it at Sam's Club for $478 (the hardware alone combined with Office made it worth that) and it came with a 2.1 MP camera and inkjet printer. It still works to this day even though just being in a laptop case should have destroyed it according to posters in this thread.

Not everything will die quick and you might just handle it better. My girlfriend has a 4-year-old Toshiba that I would've probably destroyed inside of two years, but she keeps in very nice condition. I still wouldn't trust it.

Apple's keyboards and trackpads aren't anything special. I've used them. Their screens (besides maybe retina, haven't seen it and never will because I could just go buy a TV for that money) aren't anything special. The only thing left is the case. It's metal, whoop-di-fucking do. If you think that's what you need to support laptop components then you've never actually opened a plastic one up (they actually have support struts and well-made ones interlink to try and make the laptop one solid piece) and also don't realize how tough high quality plastic really is. How does this justify the 2x price point? I'll get to that.

ThinkPads used magnesium honeycombs inside as load-bearing, independent of the plastic shell. That's what I compare against, not a plastic shell, even if interlinking and with struts. The milled metal case of a Mac is strong, light and pretty good at heat dissipation (too good at times, it's a design fault of them in how much they sink heat into your lap!). Their screens tend to be brighter and with more accurate (and deeper) color than non-business competition and the Retina display is leagues above anything else on the market except maybe specialized medical displays that cost five figures USD.

It's actually really easy to see that Apple like Harley Davdison, BOSE, Monster Cables, Oakley, and numerous other companies that take the same shit everyone else is using, make it shiny and/or market the fuck out of how cool it will make you, then charge 2x (or 10x WRT Monster Cables) the going rate everyone else does. Your exact same argument was used by a Harley fan to explain why his bike cost twice that of a Honda: "It's different, it's not fair to compare them." It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now. In reality, he didn't buy a bike, he bought a lifestyle.

No, because Apple actually has value-add for its cost, unlike Bose, Monster Cable, etc. You yourself simply ignored some of the excellent things they do, above (e.g. Retina display). You can't say "I'm ignoring this interesting thing" and then go "they don't produce anything interesting for the money, like these other well-marketed brands".

What does bother me is when those same people come into a thread and start shitting it up with lies because they bought into all the marketing.

No, people who have the urge to paint Apple as "sizzle, no steak" or "style and no substance" shit up the thread.

[Spoonist]

Just a small note, the cost for the hardware is almost nothing compared to whatever most medium sized companies pay in tech support staff etc.

Macs being produced and delivered by one company only, ie apple, is a huge advantage here to medium and smaller businesses. Especially if they work in a field where they rely on the computers being available while not necessarily having a computer savvy work force. Like advertising, design, layout etc.
It is definately worth it paying extra for hardware knowing that everything is easily compatible without any configuration or similar.

Add to that some levels of user friendlyness and a looks good factor and its clearly worth it for a lot of businesses, regardless of tech disparity.

However if you are in a field targetting engineers like mine then the advantages become disadvantages. Not being able to customize or jury rig ad infinitum with old and new stuff in all possible configurations makes it nearly impossible for us to have macs. To the point of specifically trying to cater to managers who want apple products for the cool value by giving them substitutes but with a heftier price tag so they still get the cool factor.

[TheFeniX]

Again, it's not just specification.

You say this as if it means something. You keep acting like there's some supernatural part of the Apple line that gives them their value because you don't want to admit that the parts suffer from shitloads of markup. The problem is, I can put numbers to everything Apple offers and it doesn't add up unless you start factoring in "lifestyle" costs.

Please pay attention to every Apple thread ever in this forum.

What the fuck do I care about Apple threads? I'm in this particular thread (about Windows and Gabe freaking out) because of hilariously stupid shit like "any laptop under $1000 will end up compromised in some way." I post evidence to the contrary and some people just decided "even though he was pointing out the flaws in Apple's supposed awesome reliability, well, I'll just say reliability isn't everything and consider the point refuted." I was actually laughing that the first defense of Apple in this thread was comparing Macs barebones laptop (which is pretty hefty in the hardware department considering) to high-end gaming laptops (which murder them in that department and manage to be even more reliable). Then dipshits start telling me hardware isn't everything. Get your shit together.

I thought trackpads sucked, too, until I got a Mac.

They suck. It's a trackpad. They all do what they're designed to do: click on shit when you don't have the room for a mouse. The best made, most precise trackpad still sucks. We just put up with it because, aside from combining it with a touchscreen, there's really no other way to go unless you plug in a mouse.

ThinkPads used magnesium honeycombs inside as load-bearing, independent of the plastic shell. That's what I compare against, not a plastic shell, even if interlinking and with struts. The milled metal case of a Mac is strong, light and pretty good at heat dissipation (too good at times, it's a design fault of them in how much they sink heat into your lap!). Their screens tend to be brighter and with more accurate (and deeper) color than non-business competition and the Retina display is leagues above anything else on the market except maybe specialized medical displays that cost five figures USD.

ASUS has tablets pushing 200PPI and I'm sure if that pixel density catches on, we'll see laptops like that at a much lower price. There's nothing really fancy about Retina, it's not anything new. Other laptops dissipate heat and are strong enough to not explode when moved around and they don't cost $2000.

No, because Apple actually has value-add for its cost, unlike Bose, Monster Cable, etc. You yourself simply ignored some of the excellent things they do, above (e.g. Retina display). You can't say "I'm ignoring this interesting thing" and then go "they don't produce anything interesting for the money, like these other well-marketed brands".

I "ignored" retina because it wasn't relevant and it pushes Macs into the $2500-$3000 range. The MacBook uses the same fucking parts every other manufacturer does, yet they charge on average twice the price for pretty much everything, such as RAM being $100 per 2 gig compared to sub-$50 for everyone else. Whoops, I just brought up hardware, my argument is invalid!

No, people who have the urge to paint Apple as "sizzle, no steak" or "style and no substance" shit up the thread.

It's always nice to leave a post laughing. Your entire post (besides Retina) is giving Apple shitloads of credit for things other laptop manufacturers do just as well in order to justify their price point. I will grant that even though they're hella-expensive, Macbooks as a whole come together better than many other laptops. As in, the sum of the parts works well together. That said, I've used many other laptops (even some ::GASP:: exploding case Dells) that did the same. That's the thing: Apple makes quality, average to above-average products and market the shit out of them to make people pay luxury prices for them. They don't sell cheap-shit to go after other markets like other manufacturers do. But that is completely irrelevant to what I'm discussing anyway.

[Tribun]

Reading all this reminds me of something I learned at university (I plan a degree in economics). The professor described the "snob effect", where certain people would only buy something if its price is high enough that a big enough number of people could not buy it, so that these certain people could show off and feel superior. The whole cult around Apple is just that, a giant snob effect where certain people, who buy from Apple, want to show off their own supposed superiority towards others.

[Block]

Just a small note, the cost for the hardware is almost nothing compared to whatever most medium sized companies pay in tech support staff etc.

Macs being produced and delivered by one company only, ie apple, is a huge advantage here to medium and smaller businesses. Especially if they work in a field where they rely on the computers being available while not necessarily having a computer savvy work force. Like advertising, design, layout etc.
It is definately worth it paying extra for hardware knowing that everything is easily compatible without any configuration or similar.

Add to that some levels of user friendlyness and a looks good factor and its clearly worth it for a lot of businesses, regardless of tech disparity.

However if you are in a field targetting engineers like mine then the advantages become disadvantages. Not being able to customize or jury rig ad infinitum with old and new stuff in all possible configurations makes it nearly impossible for us to have macs. To the point of specifically trying to cater to managers who want apple products for the cool value by giving them substitutes but with a heftier price tag so they still get the cool factor.

Except Dell and IBM are much better at this for businesses than Apple.

[Stark]

Man Block somehow you ate my reply to Tribun. Nevermind, repeating basic marketing concepts wasnt that important.

I'm curious about the more ignorant posters in this thread - does Apple's success both brand wise and market wise threaten you? Why do you care? Is it just that believing people different to you are wrong or whatever makes you feel better about your own purchasing decisions? Obviously the very stupid are simpy motivated by tribalism, bu I'm curious what motivates the middle ground people. I don't know any real people who give a shit beyond 'will it do what I want' so the Internet made-up war is bemusing to me.

[Tribun]

Actually, the whole debate is not really my thing, I just found it interesting to point this fact out.

Personally I don't buy from Apple because (even though I do have the money) I feel it's overpriced. That's all.

[Stark]

And that's totally fair and Apples strategy means they know that. It shouldn't offend you that a manufacturer doesn't care about 'your' market share - I mean Ferrari doesn't care about you either. Some guys trade on high volume, low margin and some trade on high margin, low volume. The two approaches lead to and create different marketing approaches, which I think is what people react to. But Apples strategy wouldn't work if they didn't create and maintain high brand values, just as low margin guys can't afford the kind of marketing Apple uses. If you do economics you'll learn all about these kind of structures.

It's the hostility towards ba Apple for being expensive and bad consumers for 'falling for it' I don't understand. I own a Samsung TV instead f a Palsonic one. OH NOES I FELL FOR IT?

[Block]

Man Block somehow you ate my reply to Tribun. Nevermind, repeating basic marketing concepts wasnt that important.

I'm curious about the more ignorant posters in this thread - does Apple's success both brand wise and market wise threaten you? Why do you care? Is it just that believing people different to you are wrong or whatever makes you feel better about your own purchasing decisions? Obviously the very stupid are simpy motivated by tribalism, bu I'm curious what motivates the middle ground people. I don't know any real people who give a shit beyond 'will it do what I want' so the Internet made-up war is bemusing to me.

My only objection is the kind of marketing apple does, like the actual commercials they use. The marketing to the hipster cult that "we're better than PC users" irritates the shit out of me because it bleeds over into every single part of their lives and makes dealing with them insufferable, and their smug arrogance makes important causes I agree with less appealing due to their involvement, and I KNOW it drives people away from being more progressive in this country. I'm not in any way blaming Apple alone for this, but anything that reinforces that line of thinking, which Apple's marketing does heavily, is infuriating to me.

[Stark]

At least you can admit it. I used to be the same way in the 90s. Then I used a MacBook and there is no fucking way I will ever use a PC laptop again. Saying there are no 'values' or 'experience' is just wrong; the most common thing I hear about Apple products is that they work and require less user knowledge. People will pay extra to not have to give a shit about that stuff.

[General Zod]

Man Block somehow you ate my reply to Tribun. Nevermind, repeating basic marketing concepts wasnt that important.

I'm curious about the more ignorant posters in this thread - does Apple's success both brand wise and market wise threaten you? Why do you care? Is it just that believing people different to you are wrong or whatever makes you feel better about your own purchasing decisions? Obviously the very stupid are simpy motivated by tribalism, bu I'm curious what motivates the middle ground people. I don't know any real people who give a shit beyond 'will it do what I want' so the Internet made-up war is bemusing to me.

My only objection is the kind of marketing apple does, like the actual commercials they use. The marketing to the hipster cult that "we're better than PC users" irritates the shit out of me because it bleeds over into every single part of their lives and makes dealing with them insufferable, and their smug arrogance makes important causes I agree with less appealing due to their involvement, and I KNOW it drives people away from being more progressive in this country. I'm not in any way blaming Apple alone for this, but anything that reinforces that line of thinking, which Apple's marketing does heavily, is infuriating to me.

So your counter to what you perceive as apple being smugly arrogant is to be . . . smugly arrogant?

[Block]

Man Block somehow you ate my reply to Tribun. Nevermind, repeating basic marketing concepts wasnt that important.

I'm curious about the more ignorant posters in this thread - does Apple's success both brand wise and market wise threaten you? Why do you care? Is it just that believing people different to you are wrong or whatever makes you feel better about your own purchasing decisions? Obviously the very stupid are simpy motivated by tribalism, bu I'm curious what motivates the middle ground people. I don't know any real people who give a shit beyond 'will it do what I want' so the Internet made-up war is bemusing to me.

My only objection is the kind of marketing apple does, like the actual commercials they use. The marketing to the hipster cult that "we're better than PC users" irritates the shit out of me because it bleeds over into every single part of their lives and makes dealing with them insufferable, and their smug arrogance makes important causes I agree with less appealing due to their involvement, and I KNOW it drives people away from being more progressive in this country. I'm not in any way blaming Apple alone for this, but anything that reinforces that line of thinking, which Apple's marketing does heavily, is infuriating to me.

So your counter to what you perceive as apple being smugly arrogant is to be . . . smugly arrogant?

In what way?

[phongn]

Again, it's not just specification.

You say this as if it means something. You keep acting like there's some supernatural part of the Apple line that gives them their value because you don't want to admit that the parts suffer from shitloads of markup. The problem is, I can put numbers to everything Apple offers and it doesn't add up unless you start factoring in "lifestyle" costs.

In fact, I know what Apple's markup, and it's extremely high (thank you documents from Apple v. Samsung!). I never claimed that they weren't highly marked up. I said that there is value in their product despite their high cost and that it is often worth the price premium paid. And yes, there's a host of other factors like user-interface, user-experience, even how the product box is arranged which is of value, even if it's not easily delineated on a specification sheer.

Please pay attention to every Apple thread ever in this forum.

What the fuck do I care about Apple threads? I'm in this particular thread (about Windows and Gabe freaking out) because of hilariously stupid shit like "any laptop under $1000 will end up compromised in some way." I post evidence to the contrary and some people just decided "even though he was pointing out the flaws in Apple's supposed awesome reliability, well, I'll just say reliability isn't everything and consider the point refuted." I was actually laughing that the first defense of Apple in this thread was comparing Macs barebones laptop (which is pretty hefty in the hardware department considering) to high-end gaming laptops (which murder them in that department and manage to be even more reliable). Then dipshits start telling me hardware isn't everything. Get your shit together.

You make it sound like those contending the anti-Apple point-of-view are one monolithic bunch. We aren't.

My argument was only that inexpensive laptops are inevitably compromised one way or another; it's not an indictment of everything that isn't Apple (and my general history is to recommend business-grade laptops from Lenovo, HP or Dell, none of which are particularly inexpensive).

They suck. It's a trackpad. They all do what they're designed to do: click on shit when you don't have the room for a mouse. The best made, most precise trackpad still sucks. We just put up with it because, aside from combining it with a touchscreen, there's really no other way to go unless you plug in a mouse.

Again, you generalize your specific trackpad-disliking experience. I have room for any input device I could desire at my work desks. I even have a nice little wireless Microsoft mouse with laser-pointer and presenter buttons for when I need to present. It's well-made, precise, accurate and ergonomic (and the drivers let me do all sorts of customizing). And you know what? I hardly use the thing in favor of the primary trackpad. I know people who've replaced their mice with the big Bluetooth trackpad that Apple sells! Don't just claim "trackpad always sucks and is used only because it uses less volume": it doesn't have to suck, and can be a very good input device.

ASUS has tablets pushing 200PPI and I'm sure if that pixel density catches on, we'll see laptops like that at a much lower price. There's nothing really fancy about Retina, it's not anything new. Other laptops dissipate heat and are strong enough to not explode when moved around and they don't cost $2000.

Uh, it was new. Nobody else was pushing pixel-density to the Nyquist limit until Apple bothered to go ahead and pay the LCD manufacturers to do it. Yes, other companies are doing it now - in direct reaction to Apple pushing the bar higher. Which is good, because it's long overdue.

I "ignored" retina because it wasn't relevant and it pushes Macs into the $2500-$3000 range. The MacBook uses the same fucking parts every other manufacturer does, yet they charge on average twice the price for pretty much everything, such as RAM being $100 per 2 gig compared to sub-$50 for everyone else. Whoops, I just brought up hardware, my argument is invalid!

First, you seem to think that pricing is on a cost-plus basis, which it never is in a capitalist society. And shock! RAM being overpriced from an OEM! That's the oldest trick in the book, and if you think that's expensive you should look at how servers are priced out. Also, no, a considerable amount of parts on a Mac are specifically engineered for it (custom battery designs, fans designed to push noise into the white-noise arena, custom motherboard, etc.)

Secondly, you simply claim a high-resolution display is irrelevant - why? I argue it should be standard on every decent computer there is, Mac or PC.

[noncredible]

My two cents about resolution:

I have a 21 inch LCD at 1080p. I sit about half a metre away from it, and the resolution is fine for me. Even at a quarter of a metre, the resolution is fine. The rMBP is, IMHO, overkill.

As for mobile devices, I have an iTouch 4 and an HTC Raider. The Raider has a 4.5 inch screen with a qHD resolution. When using them normally, I usually can't tell the difference between the two screens resolution-wise, though if I look close there is a clear difference. On mobile devices, retina is a pretty good standard to aim for.

[General Zod]

So your counter to what you perceive as apple being smugly arrogant is to be . . . smugly arrogant?

In what way?

How is "lol Apple users are all hipster douchebags that want to look cool" any different from what you claim Apple commercials do?

[TheFeniX]

I'm curious about the more ignorant posters in this thread - does Apple's success both brand wise and market wise threaten you? Why do you care? Is it just that believing people different to you are wrong or whatever makes you feel better about your own purchasing decisions? Obviously the very stupid are simpy motivated by tribalism, bu I'm curious what motivates the middle ground people. I don't know any real people who give a shit beyond 'will it do what I want' so the Internet made-up war is bemusing to me.

No one gives a shit about Harley. No one gives a shit about people who buy Harleys. No one cares when a Harley guy pulls up at a bike rally. People care when a Harley pulls up to a Honda bike rally and the owner starts saying stupid shit like "Hondas break down all the time" or "Your Honda will breakdown in 500 miles unless you paid as much as I did for it." We don't think Harley is bad for selling their bikes for what they do. We merely mock the buyers who come up with bullshit to justify their purchase rather than just enjoying it.

Apple isn't trying to justify their price point: their customers are. Get your shit straight.

In fact, I know what Apple's markup, and it's extremely high (thank you documents from Apple v. Samsung!). I never claimed that they weren't highly marked up. I said that there is value in their product despite their high cost and that it is often worth the price premium paid. And yes, there's a host of other factors like user-interface, user-experience, even how the product box is arranged which is of value, even if it's not easily delineated on a specification sheer.

As you said to me earlier, that's your opinion. I look at dollars vs how much I can get out of hardware over time. Apple isn't for people like me and I don't buy Apple.... so I've just stated the blindingly obvious.

You make it sound like those contending the anti-Apple point-of-view are one monolithic bunch. We aren't.

There's no anti-apple POV here. There's just one guy trying to debunk bullshit. I have no problem with people who buy Apple. I don't spit and cuss at my wife for owning a Mac desktop and an iPhone. I have problems with liars and people who try to fool others into thinking you can't put a $ to what Apple offers.

it doesn't have to suck, and can be a very good input device.

Trackpads. Suck. I've used 100s (including 6-7 Macbooks) over my years in IT. There's a reason I carried a USB mouse in my bag. We could go back and forth on this until the end of time.

Uh, it was new. Nobody else was pushing pixel-density to the Nyquist limit until Apple bothered to go ahead and pay the LCD manufacturers to do it. Yes, other companies are doing it now - in direct reaction to Apple pushing the bar higher. Which is good, because it's long overdue.

This isn't Plasma screen tech in TVs that was forced out well ahead of the maturity of the technology, higher DPI tech has been around for quite a long time.

First, you seem to think that pricing is on a cost-plus basis, which it never is in a capitalist society. And shock! RAM being overpriced from an OEM! That's the oldest trick in the book, and if you think that's expensive you should look at how servers are priced out.

Dude, they come with ATI Radeons. They aren't even really servers, just Mac Pros with a few more HDDs thrown in. And RAM is just one example, but a terrible one. Apple somehow thinks that 32GBs of Desktop RAM is worth $975. It's actually worth ~$200. There is no other manufacturer that could get away with that. And they do this on all their parts across all their products. Just deal with it.

Also, no, a considerable amount of parts on a Mac are specifically engineered for it (custom battery designs, fans designed to push noise into the white-noise arena, custom motherboard, etc.)

Um.... that's a SHITLOAD of laptops once manufacturers learned that cramming microATX boards into a box was a baaaad idea. I would be interested to actually see how much per unit Apple spends on costs because they're likely saving a shitload what with FOXCONN making all their stuff. I never understood why MS and Sony basically had to come out and tell everyone they were losing their shirt on Xbox and Playstation manufacturing but we don't see that for other electronics manufacturing.

Secondly, you simply claim a high-resolution display is irrelevant - why? I argue it should be standard on every decent computer there is, Mac or PC.

For the cost of what Apple is pushing Retina for, I could buy like 3 ASUS 24" monitors. If other manufacturers pick it up, I'll likely get it for the cost of 1. They can keep rolling on that. I also like that Apple made tablets viable after HPs flop in ~2003. That way I could get an ASUS Pad for $250. Kudos to them.

[Stark]

I gotta thank you for that honest post. I think your obvious rage and narrow perspective is both valid and interesting.

Frankly I don't think your perceived victimization by Apple owners is relevant to the pros and cons of Apple, but thats just me. It's kind of sad that people who don't even use Apple products regularly can make covet arguments about their strengths and weaknesses while others are basically limited to 'do expensive' and 'all trackpads bad RAR'.

[TheFeniX]

I gotta thank you for that honest post. I think your obvious rage and narrow perspective is both valid and interesting.
Frankly I don't think your perceived victimization by Apple owners is relevant to the pros and cons of Apple, but thats just me.

"u mad" would have been much shorter to type and would have made your point (no matter how stupid) much faster.

Your thought process makes for good comedy though:
1. Ask question about topic A
2. Get answer
3. "But your answer isn't relevant to topic B!"

It's kind of sad that people who don't even use Apple products regularly can make covet arguments about their strengths and weaknesses while others are basically limited to 'do expensive' and 'all trackpads bad RAR'.

Well, I could go the "provide no argument at all, just stir shit up in between stating the obvious" route, but you've got us covered on that part.

Let's stir some shit up anyway: how fucking bad is your QA, when you control every aspect of your device, and you still get beat in reliability by Toshiba?

[Spoonist]

Macs being produced and delivered by one company only, ie apple, is a huge advantage here to medium and smaller businesses. Especially if they work in a field where they rely on the computers being available while not necessarily having a computer savvy work force. Like advertising, design, layout etc.
It is definately worth it paying extra for hardware knowing that everything is easily compatible without any configuration or similar.

Except Dell and IBM are much better at this for businesses than Apple.

Nope, they don't. We used to have Dell and now we have IBM,trust me, nope they don't.
How could they?

[phongn]

Apple isn't trying to justify their price point: their customers are. Get your shit straight.

People, like yourself, say "Apple is not worth the money" and some people, like me, come in and say "it is worth the money". The very fact that it sells means it is (to some people). Furthermore, Apple selling its goods in a competitive, supply-demand market is an implicit stake in the ground saying "our goods are worth this much." This is a capitalist market!

Trackpads. Suck. I've used 100s (including 6-7 Macbooks) over my years in IT. There's a reason I carried a USB mouse in my bag. We could go back and forth on this until the end of time.

Again, your opinion. Many people like them; you don't. That's fine. What isn't fine is to declare "trackpads suck" as fact.

Uh, it was new. Nobody else was pushing pixel-density to the Nyquist limit until Apple bothered to go ahead and pay the LCD manufacturers to do it. Yes, other companies are doing it now - in direct reaction to Apple pushing the bar higher. Which is good, because it's long overdue.

This isn't Plasma screen tech in TVs that was forced out well ahead of the maturity of the technology, higher DPI tech has been around for quite a long time.

Not in the consumer market, which is what I've been referring to all this time! The last one remotely available was the IBM T220/T221 ($8400 MSRP), which was never intended for the consumer market, or high-resolution medical imaging displays. Further, I don't just mean high-pixel density, but pixel density at or above the Nyquist limit.

Dude, they come with ATI Radeons. They aren't even really servers, just Mac Pros with a few more HDDs thrown in. And RAM is just one example, but a terrible one. Apple somehow thinks that 32GBs of Desktop RAM is worth $975. It's actually worth ~$200. There is no other manufacturer that could get away with that. And they do this on all their parts across all their products. Just deal with it.

I was talking about PC servers, not the Mac Pro (which I have not defended; the model is long-overdue for a major refresh and uncompetitively priced for what it is, even given the general superior user experience a Mac offers).

Um.... that's a SHITLOAD of laptops once manufacturers learned that cramming microATX boards into a box was a baaaad idea. I would be interested to actually see how much per unit Apple spends on costs because they're likely saving a shitload what with FOXCONN making all their stuff. I never understood why MS and Sony basically had to come out and tell everyone they were losing their shirt on Xbox and Playstation manufacturing but we don't see that for other electronics manufacturing.

Overall margins are in their 10-K. Detailed margins are in the released court documents for Apple v. Samsung.

Microsoft and Sony's corporate structure place their Xbox and Playstation products in their own division, IIRC; from there you can pretty much figure out their costs in their financial reports. The two companies are also under considerable shareholder pressure and are forced to be more public about these things, particularly Microsoft (who was trying to gain a foothold in a new market).