What's so fantastic about Apple?

[bit_pattern]

**** Apple

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...pple_n_1243369.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Samsung Electronics lost a bid to overturn a ruling barring its local unit from selling its Galaxy 10.1 tablets in Germany, handing a symbolic legal victory to Apple Inc in efforts to keep its lead spot in the tablet computer market.

A higher regional court in Duesseldorf, Germany, said on Tuesday that Samsung may not sell the older version of its Galaxy tablet in Europe's biggest economy.

Apple is fighting several rival makers of smartphones and tablet PCs in courts worldwide over intellectual property.

Its battle with Samsung, whose tablets are based on Google Inc's Android software, has been especially bitter, with the Galaxy range of devices seen as among the biggest challengers to Apple's mobile products.

Apple has claimed the Galaxy line of mobile phones and tablets "slavishly" copied the iPhone and iPad and has sued the Korean company in the United States, Australia, Japan and Korea as well as in Europe.

In September, Apple won a temporary injunction barring Samsung Germany from selling the Galaxy 10.1 tablet in most of Europe, as the court found the overall design of the tablet was too similar to Apple's iPad.

 

[banquetbear]

That's the bumpf, as I said I went to the online stores and I showed you above what you get.



That was not what I was pointing out, what I was pointing out and showed to be true is that if someone is like you and knows nothing about hardware at all it is the Dell store that describes what the laptops can do/are for without the lingo that you don't understand.

Have a look above at the screen grabs, under the Apple store you immediately have to decide what processor you want, what GPU, RAM and so on, go to the Dell equivalent and it tells you what the different laptops can do without the lingo that you don't understand.

Which is the point I was making - Apple throws you straight into a screen that you need to know what all the lingo means before you can decide which one to order, Dell does it in a "lingo free" manner. (Of course both of them open out to much more detailed screens that require you to choose using the lingo.)

...but this is wrong. As I showed up above: this is the first screen you get when you click on Macbook Pro: not your screenshot:

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/

Apple doesn't throw you straight into a screen where you need to know all the lingo unless you went straight to the shop: and why would you go straight to the shop before looking at what you wanted to buy first?

 

[John Albert]

Here's a hypothetical....

A software company comes out with a clone of the Mac OS. No legal issues, they've reverse-engineered a wide variety of programs that run on the Mac OS to create an original OS that can run all the same programs that a genuine Mac can.

Now let's say that they put this OS on a bootable DVD with a simple self-install program, and put in on the market for about $30 a disk, allowing anyone to effortlessly turn a PC into a hackintosh.

My question is... Would this be a devastating blow to sales of Macintosh computers, or would this only result in a moderate downturn?

This is an excellent question, for a number of reasons.

As I pointed out numerous times, a Mac is a PC, fundamentally. The only significant difference between Macs and any other computer is the Mac OS. Other than that, it's just another PC with in a fancier case with an Apple on it.

But do most consumers realize this? Of course not.

I think most consumers have been misled by Apple's advertising to think that a Mac is a completely different animal. I think most computer consumers believe the quality of the electronics is somehow better. I think most consumers don't realize that the internals of a Mac are no different from the internals of a PC, and all the electronics are made by all the same manufacturers (Intel, IBM, Asus, ATI, etc.) that make the parts for other PCs, and that the only real difference is in software.

The vast majority of this is of course marketing and product design. Macs look different, Mac OS looks different, they're sold in stores that look different, or else sequestered away from all the other computers, in special areas or rooms in the computer/electronics store that are made to look different from the rest of the store. Apple's marketing campaign is built around the perception that they're "different," and their users are "different."


To answer your question, I think your underpriced hackintosh OS business would start out not being successful. I think people would be dismissive at first. I imagine some consumers on a budget who would otherwise buy real Macs (starving artists, and parents of college students perhaps) would be the first make the switch, and it would probably also draw a lot of customers away from Microsoft as well. I think it would take awhile to build a head of steam, but once it did, would eventually end up being a terrible blow to Apple.

Eventually, more people would catch on that the main difference in a Mac is the OS, and if you can have that for $30, then why pay double the price of your computer just for a titanium box? That would shatter the grand illusion that Apple has created around its products. I think the general public would begin to perceive Apple as just another tech company. I think that if such a thing actually happened, Apple would eventually consider their personal computer division to be a liability, and withdraw from that market altogether.

I don't believe such a company would ever become successful by doing that, though. Being a parasitic business model and then eventually killing off its own host? Not a good move.

Unfortunately it would mean the extinction of yet another great computer OS, but Apple the company would continue selling mobile phones, overpriced boutique gadgetry and toys, markets which already constitute the vast majority of their business. That's my guess.

 

[Darat]

...but this is wrong. As I showed up above: this is the first screen you get when you click on Macbook Pro: not your screenshot:

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/

Apple doesn't throw you straight into a screen where you need to know all the lingo unless you went straight to the shop: and why would you go straight to the shop before looking at what you wanted to buy first?

Because when I want to buy a product I usually go to the store.

 

[John Albert]

Thank you, banquetbear, for making my point for me that marketing is the primary reason why Apple charges 150-200% of the price of any comparable computer.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

All you need to do is go to the Apple website, price their computers, mp3 players, tablets, peripherals, accessories, etc., and then compare those prices to the prices of comparable products made by the competition, while resisting the urge to make a special pleading in favor of the Apple Corporation.

Well, I don't need to do it, because it's not my claim.

Frankly, I still don't understand how priced too high is a fact and not an opinion. Once you can clear that up for me, then it might be worthwhile to discuss prices.

Banquetbear had the right of it for pointing out that apple products seemed to be priced appropriately, and windows systems too low. Obviously, if they were priced too high, sales wouldn't continue to climb.

Unless, of course, goddidit. Oops, I mean marketing.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm trying to imagine a reason where 4 would be better than 8.

If 2 for muscle aches is good, 10 advil all at once must be 5 times better ?

How about understanding what make 4 more than adequate for the daily use of the machine and when 8 is overkill ?

Does that help your imagination ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Honestly, this is just argument for the sake of arguing. Or are you attempting to claim that Apple should be allowed to overprice their goods because they've done the hard work of selecting a set of components for you already? You do realize that most other laptop manufacturers offer the exact same service for quite a lower price, right?

Allowed by who ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Thank you, banquetbear, for making my point for me that marketing is the primary reason why Apple charges 150-200% of the price of any comparable computer.

Your claim is incorrect. Please stop it.

Macbook Air vs Sony VAIO

 

[kajata]

Your claim is incorrect. Please stop it.

Macbook Air vs Sony VAIO

and while we're at it...

top tablets

 

[John Albert]

Your claim is incorrect. Please stop it.

Macbook Air vs Sony VAIO

I see what you did there!

Just like with the Apple vs Samsung USB plug a few pages back, you picked the cheapest Apple product up against the most expensive product from the competitor.

Why didn't you pick a comparable machine to compare it to? Why do you need to be so dishonest to make your point?

Well, I don't need to do it, because it's not my claim.

Frankly, I still don't understand how priced too high is a fact and not an opinion. Once you can clear that up for me, then it might be worthwhile to discuss prices.

Banquetbear had the right of it for pointing out that apple products seemed to be priced appropriately, and windows systems too low. Obviously, if they were priced too high, sales wouldn't continue to climb.

Unless, of course, goddidit. Oops, I mean marketing.

Yep, exactly. Goddidit. I mean, "marketing."

It's the same mechanism at work in both cases, ie. some fast-talking charlatan feeding you a line of touchy-feely BS to make you believe something that simply is not objectively true.

There's simply no physical difference, no objective reason why Macs shouldn't be priced roughly the same as any other comparable home computer of the x86 platform. As I pointed out, the hardware is exactly the same.

I'd go so far as to say Macs ought to be priced similarly to one of the other high-end systems with the fancy, fashionable cases, like a Sony VAIO or something. But even if you compare Apple's prices with the Sony VAIOs, even the cheapest Macbook AIR is more than twice the price of a comparable Sony VAIO laptop with the same kind of processor and same amount of RAM. And if you look at the specs, the Sony's specs blow the Mac's out of the water by nearly every metric. The processor speed is faster, the screen is bigger, the storage capacity is greater, it comes with a built-in CD/DVD burner, etc.

That's the "Apple Tax." The computer is twice as expensive, for no good reason other than the marketing that's convinced a lot of suckers that it's really worth paying that much extra for. Just like religion.

 

[kajata]

Why didn't you pick a comparable machine to compare it to? Why do you need to be so dishonest to make your point?

Well, then you should do the same. Here's the Macbook Air's competition. Not Sony's cheapest laptop.[/QUOTE]

 

[Darat]

...snip...

There's simply no physical difference, no objective reason why Macs shouldn't be priced roughly the same as any other comparable home computer of the x86 platform. As I pointed out, the hardware is exactly the same.

I'd go so far as to say Macs ought to be priced similarly to one of the other high-end systems with the fancy, fashionable cases, like a Sony VAIO or something.

...snip...

There is another cost that Apple doesn't have - it doesn't pay a licence fee for the OS it ships with its PCs.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I see what you did there!

Just like with the Apple vs Samsung USB plug a few pages back, you picked the cheapest Apple product up against the most expensive product from the competitor.

Why didn't you pick a comparable machine to compare it to? Why do you need to be so dishonest to make your point?

I really don't understand why you called me dishonest.

I linked to the macbook air page. It's an ultrabook. It's a distinct class of notebook computer. I didn't choose or point out any particular model of the 4 on the page.

I chose a sony VAIO ultrabook series of computers that are in the same class of notebook computers. Again, not a specific machine. No matter how you configure them, the comparable apple models are NOT 150 - 200 percent more.

Your claim was " Apple charges 150-200% of the price of any comparable computer." - and it's simply wrong.

ETA:

Please answer this - In what way is the sony VAIO Z series not an appropriate comparable laptop ????

 

[TheL8Elvis]

There is another cost that Apple doesn't have - it doesn't pay a licence fee for the OS it ships with its PCs.

Don't they have to pay for the development of the OS somehow though ?

 

[Darat]

and while we're at it...

top tablets

I think in the tablet sector it is hard to argue that Apple's offerings are overpriced.

 

[kajata]

I think in the tablet sector it is hard to argue that Apple's offerings are overpriced.

Yeah, but John could and I just wanted to present him with some actual data, especially since the iPad (and iPhone, another competitively priced product) make up quite a bit of their revenue.

All you need to do is go to the Apple website, price their computers, mp3 players, tablets, peripherals, accessories, etc., and then compare those prices to the prices of comparable products made by the competition, while resisting the urge to make a special pleading in favor of the Apple Corporation.

 

[John Albert]

Your claim was " Apple charges 150-200% of the price of any comparable computer." - and it's simply wrong.

OK I'll admit that was an exaggeration. Those kinds of discrepancies are mostly seen in their desktop machines, where 150-200% difference is standard. Apple definitely appear to gouge their customers less on the low-end laptops, though those are still vastly overpriced as well.

Please answer this - In what way is the sony VAIO Z series not an appropriate comparable laptop ????

The VAIO Z Series, being an ultra-high-end laptop, is more appropriately compared to the Macbook Pro, not the much cheaper Macbook AIR (which competes with low-end laptops and high-end netbooks).

You've compared the cheapest Apple product you could find with the most expensive competitor's product you could find, just like you did a few pages back with the Apple vs. Samsung USB cable example you posted.

That's dishonest.

You also appear to have ignored the rest of my post above, where I made the more appropriate comparison to Sony VAIOs:

Well, I don't need to do it, because it's not my claim.

Frankly, I still don't understand how priced too high is a fact and not an opinion. Once you can clear that up for me, then it might be worthwhile to discuss prices.

Banquetbear had the right of it for pointing out that apple products seemed to be priced appropriately, and windows systems too low. Obviously, if they were priced too high, sales wouldn't continue to climb.

Unless, of course, goddidit. Oops, I mean marketing.

Yep, exactly. Goddidit. I mean, "marketing."

It's the same mechanism at work in both cases, ie. some fast-talking charlatan feeding you a line of touchy-feely BS to make you believe something that is not objectively true.

There's simply no physical difference, no objective reason why Macs shouldn't be priced roughly the same as any other comparable home computer of the x86 platform. As I pointed out, the hardware is exactly the same.

I'd go so far as to say Macs ought to be priced similarly to one of the other high-end systems with the fancy, fashionable cases, like a Sony VAIO or something. But even if you compare Apple's prices with the Sony VAIOs, even the cheapest Macbook AIR is more than twice the price of a comparable Sony VAIO laptop with the same kind of processor and same amount of RAM. And if you look at the specs, the Sony's specs blow the Mac's out of the water by nearly every metric. The processor speed is faster, the screen is bigger, the storage capacity is greater, it comes with a built-in CD/DVD burner, etc.

That's the "Apple Tax." The computer is twice as expensive, for no good reason other than the marketing that's convinced a lot of suckers that it's really worth paying that much extra for. Just like religion.

Well, then you should do the same. Here's the Macbook Air's competition. Not Sony's cheapest laptop.

So you've picked another overpriced machine to put up against Apple's overpriced machines. OK then, fair is fair. Let's compare them.

I see that the entry-level Acer with the 13.3" screen is priced at $899.99,

Whereas the entry-level Mac with the 13" screen is priced at $1299.00.

But what do you get for your money, from each of these machines?

Let's compare the specs, shall we?

The $900 Acer Aspire S:

CPU: Intel® Core™ @ i5 Processor 1.6GHz
RAM: 4GB DDR3
Storage: 320GB hard drive + 20GB SSD storage
Screen size: 13.3"
Video: Intel® HD Graphics 3000
Audio: Mobile Intel® UM67 Express with Dolby Home Theater® v4 audio
Battery: Replaceable 3-cell battery


The $1300 Macbook AIR:

CPU: Intel® Core™ i5 @ 1.7GHz
RAM: 4GB DDR3
Storage: 128GB SSD storage
Screen: 13"
Video: Intel® HD Graphics 3000
Audio: Realtek high definition audio chipset
Battery: Non-replaceable battery​

The baseline specs are comparable, but the Acer blows the Mac away in the audio department. Instead of the puny 128GB solid-state drive, Acer opts for a hybridized storage solution (SSD for the OS, to provide speed, and a hard drive for large capacity) that amounts to well over twice the storage capacity for far less money. The hard drive will certainly cut into your battery life if you tend to use it a lot, but since most often-accessed files will be stored on the SSD drive, that's probably not much of an issue. Plus, the Acer (like most laptops) features a battery you can replace yourself, without the need to shlep or ship the unit in for servicing, plus you can carry extra batteries for long trips, etc. Plus the Acer costs 30% less than the Mac.

If you look at the top of the line models in both the Acers and the Macbook AIRs, you see the discrepancy is even greater.

For one dollar more than the price of the entry-level Macbook AIR shown above ($1299.99), you can get a top-of-the-line Acer which the far more expensive Macbook AIR (at $1599.00) doesn't touch in terms of specs:

The top-of-the-line $1300 Acer:

CPU: Intel® Core™i7 Processor 1.7GHz
RAM: 4GB DDR3
Storage: 240GB solid state drive
Screen: 13.3"
Video: Intel® HD Graphics 3000
Audio: Mobile Intel® UM67 Express, Dolby Home Theater® v4 audio
Battery: Replaceable 3-cell battery


The top-of-the-line $1600 Macbook AIR:

CPU: Intel® Core™ i5 @ 1.7GHz
RAM: 4GB DDR3 memory
Storage: 256GB SSD storage
Video: Intel® HD Graphics 3000
Audio: Realtek high definition audio chipset
Battery: Non-replaceable battery​

Again, the RAM and storage are comparable, but the Acer has a far superior i7 processor, over the i5 in the Macbook AIR. Instead of a hard drive, this time the Acer has a big solid-state storage unit comparable to the Mac. But it also features the much nicer sound system and batteries you can replace yourself without having to send the unit in for servicing. Clearly a huge advantage over the Mac, for 20% less money.

Even the most overpriced non-Apple laptops still cost 20-30% less than the closest comparable Macs.

 

[kajata]

So you've picked another overpriced machine to put up against Apple's overpriced machines. OK then, fair is fair. Let's compare them.

I see that the entry-level Acer with the 13.3" screen is priced at $899.99,

Whereas the entry-level Mac with the 13" screen is priced at $1299.00.

But what do you get for your money, from each of these machines?

Let's compare the specs, shall we?


The $900 Acer Aspire S:

CPU: Intel® Core™ @ i5 Processor 1.6GHz
RAM: 4GB DDR3
Storage: 320GB hard drive + 20GB SSD storage
Screen size: 13.3"
Video: Intel® HD Graphics 3000
Audio: Mobile Intel® UM67 Express with Dolby Home Theater® v4 audio
Battery: Replaceable 3-cell battery


The $1300 Macbook AIR:

CPU: Intel® Core™ i5 @ 1.7GHz
RAM: 4GB DDR3
Storage: 128GB SSD storage
Screen: 13"
Video: Intel® HD Graphics 3000
Audio: Realtek high definition audio chipset
Battery: Non-replaceable battery


The baseline specs are comparable, but the Acer blows the Mac away in the audio department. Instead of the puny 128GB solid-state drive, Acer opts for a hybridized storage solution (SSD for the OS, to provide speed, and a hard drive for large capacity) that amounts to well over twice the storage capacity for far less money. The hard drive will certainly cut into your battery life if you tend to use it a lot, but since most often-accessed files will be stored on the SSD drive, that's probably not much of an issue. Plus, the Acer (like most laptops) features a battery you can replace yourself, without the need to shlep or ship the unit in for servicing, plus you can carry extra batteries for long trips, etc.
.

And for the extra money you get a faster computer (see "Performance and Graphics") with a higher-resolution display and better battery life.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I'm trying to imagine a reason where 4 would be better than 8.

Lymph node involvement?