What's so fantastic about Apple?

[John Albert]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought a "critical thinker" had a better rebuttal than 'your argument is poop'. My bad. Carry on.

You made an assertion, then when I asked you to back it up, you said "I didn't bother to check."

What would you call that, besides a load of crap?

 

[banquetbear]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought a "critical thinker" had a better rebuttal than 'your argument is poop'. My bad. Carry on.

...I wouldn't worry too much about John's arguments: he's just talking out of his ass.

 

[banquetbear]

Anyway, you can get a Lenovo T520 or a

A quick google shows the battery life isn't as good even with the smaller display. Again, that may matter to some people.

Then I assume you can show some evidence that all the machines I cited have significantly less battery life?

Nope, I didn't bother looking at all of them.

So you're basically just talking out of your ass again, as you've been doing throughout this entire discussion.

You made an assertion, then when I asked you to back it up, you said "I didn't bother to check."

...an abject lesson to all in the creation of a strawman.

TheL8Elvis was very clear that he was talking about the stats of the Lenovo T520. His assertion was about that particular computer: and no other computer. You asked him to show you evidence that all the machines had significantly less battery life: however TheL8Elvis never makes that claim nor seeks to defend that claim. You then accuse him of talking out of his ass: then accuse him of making an assertion that he never made, and not backing up a claim he never stated.

 

[John Albert]

It's not a strawman.

He said he did "a quick Google search," but didn't provide a link or anything. When I asked him if the other machines I posted stats for (all of which were superior to the MacBook in all specs besides the 1920x1200 display) he said he didn't even bother looking at all of them.

It's not the first time he's made references to things without providing links, or indeed even bothering to read the items he's posting as evidence.

 

[Brian-M]

You're confusing me with someone else. I haven't insisted on him producing ANY specs.

Sorry. This thread has gone on far too long.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You made an assertion, then when I asked you to back it up, you said "I didn't bother to check."

What would you call that, besides a load of crap?

You asked me to back something up and I didn't? Quote please ?

Here is what you posted:

Then I assume you can show some evidence

As to this:

It's your choice whether or not to get all butthurt and take it personally.

I'd have to respect your opinion before it meant enough to bother me. Also - butthurt ? Really ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's not a strawman.
He said he did "a quick Google search," but didn't provide a link or anything.

Right. Because:

a) I assumed you could also search for t520 battery life and see the results if you cared to
b) I didn't want to go further down the rabbit hole and start arguing about battery life

When I asked him if the other machines I posted stats for (all of which were superior to the MacBook in all specs besides the 1920x1200 display) he said he didn't even bother looking at all of them.

At the time I responded, you had 2 examples. I looked at the lenovo and assumed the dell would be similar. Was it ? Yes ? Then why did I need to look at the dell ?

Guess what ?

I agree with you that it's possible to find technically similar machines at a lower price. Shocking !

I already told you that what I disagree with you about is how you 'value' these machines.

When comparing two products, one of them marginally better in a single spec, but the other excelling in every other spec at half the price, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one is a better value for the money.

You are conflating technical specs with value.

For example: If the least expensive device technically superior didn't run windows and you preferred windows as an OS, would it still be the best value for you ?

If it costs less and is technically superior spec-wise but doesn't run flash, for example, is it still a better value ?

If generic cola has the same ingredients as coke and costs less but tastes horrible, is it a better value ?

I am also still waiting on your definition of overpriced. Based on what you have posted, I conclude that your definition is :

• Any item I can find of which a comparable item can be found from a different manufacturer or distributor for a lower price should be termed overpriced. And people should not purchase overpriced items.

Correct ?

It's not the first time he's made references to things without providing links, or indeed even bothering to read the items he's posting as evidence.

Are you Kreskin that you know what I have and have not read ?

 

[John Albert]

Right. Because:

a) I assumed you could also search for t520 battery life and see the results if you cared to
b) I didn't want to go further down the rabbit hole and start arguing about battery life

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your own claims. That's the way things work around here, in case you hadn't noticed.

I looked at the lenovo and assumed the dell would be similar. Was it ? Yes ? Then why did I need to look at the dell ?

Why would you make such an assumption, that the Dell also has less battery life? Remember what you told me about "making assumptions"? What was it you said?

I agree with you that it's possible to find technically similar machines at a lower price. Shocking !

I already told you that what I disagree with you about is how you 'value' these machines.

As I said, I 'value' them based on the objective, quantifiable specs, benchmark performance, reliability ratings, etc., and then comparing those against the MSRP.

Perhaps you'd like to suggest a different method, like maybe watching a number of Apple ads or a Steve Jobs product launch on YouTube first, to get myself all hyped up before making the decision?

You are conflating technical specs with value.

We aren't arguing "value," which is a subjective matter. We're arguing whether Apple products are overpriced.

The whole point of this pissing contest about specs was to prove that Macs are overpriced, which means that when you buy a Mac you pay a much higher price (more than twice the price of other machines in some cases) for the same basic hardware.

For example: If the least expensive device technically superior didn't run windows and you preferred windows as an OS, would it still be the best value for you ?

Can you show me an example of a current x86 computer that won't run Windows?

Some of these machines—maybe even most of them—cannot run Mac OS, because they contain hardware for which drivers are not available under Mac OS. Does that make them less of a "value"? Perhaps for some, but that still doesn't mean the Mac isn't overpriced. The hardware is the same and they're charging an extremely inflated price for it, and the OS itself simply does not justify a 4-figure price difference.

The reason Macs are overpriced is because Apple deliberately makes an OS that only works with some hardware, so they can justify charging a premium price for their machines pre-installed with that OS. It's a business model designed to gouge consumers.

I am also still waiting on your definition of overpriced.

Yet again, it's obvious that you haven't been paying attention to the thread. We've already been over this.

Based on what you have posted, I conclude that your definition is :

• Any item I can find of which a comparable item can be found from a different manufacturer or distributor for a lower price should be termed overpriced.

Correct ?

Wrong. I already posted the definition of overpriced, way back on page 11.

Here it is again:

overpriced

past participle, past tense of o·ver·price

Verb: Charge too high a price for: "overpriced hotels".

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=overpriced+definition​

And people should not purchase overpriced items.

I never said that. Show me where I said "people should not purchase overpriced items."

Why should I give a tinker's damn if people purchase overpriced items? I'm not Suze Orman. People can buy whatever the hell they want. It's none of my business how others choose to spend their money.

You see, this thread is not about whether people should purchase Apple stuff. This thread is about whether Apple stuff is so overwhelmingly great as so many people seem to think it is, to justify all the hype and inflated prices.

This is a skeptic forum, remember. We're supposed to be applying critical thinking here.

Are you Kreskin that you know what I have and have not read ?

I've determined, simply by observing the way you've been discussing matters in this thread, that you fail to attentively read what others say if they happen to challenge your own opinion. That much is blatantly obvious, based on the number of wild misconceptions and strawman arguments you've made, and the way you've flown off the handle with crazy presumptions about things that have already been clearly stated by others. Another clue is your own proclaimed ignorance of evidence that others have posted, such as your ignorance that I'd already posted a definition of the word "overpriced," and the numerous times you've denied that people posted examples of comparable machines that cost significantly less than Macs. I can tell that you've even failed to read the stuff that you yourself have posted as evidence, because I did read it and so I know that it did not support the points you were trying to make.

So in answer to your question: No, one does not need to be "Kreskin" to make simple observations.

 

[CosCos]

wordswordswords

We aren't arguing "value," which is a subjective matter. We're arguing whether Apple products are overpriced.

blatherblatherblather

bwahahahahahahahaha. Of all the truly moronic statements you've made in this thread, this one takes the cake.

 

[John Albert]

Why don't you put up some evidence instead of childish playground taunts?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Now THIS is the last word...

"Overpriced" has very little meaning here.

Setting a price on something is more an art than a science.

If a company prices something "too high", they'll suffer from lack of sales.

If a company prices something "too low", they may have supply problems and lack of margin to make a profit.

Those terms only become somewhat objective after the fact. For instance, GoogleTV was much anticipated. It was entering a market already served by the Apple TV ($99) and the ROKU box ($59 and up). At $249 the market decided it was "overpriced" relative to the competition and stayed away in droves. Read up on it in the Wikipedia entry for an example of what happens when an item is truly overpriced. To be fair, Apple's Lisa probably fits into that class and Apple learned a lesson about pricing.

To take any product out of context (a MacBook Air, for instance) and label it "overpriced" is really not saying much.

Apple's prices are what they are. $30 for Lion compares pretty favorably to what Microsoft charges for a major software upgrade. The aforementioned Apple TV is a screaming bargain @ $99, and the iPad itself got attention when it was released for a lower-than-expected price.

 

[CosCos]

Why don't you put up some evidence instead of childish playground taunts?

Evidence of WHAT? "Overpriced" IS subjective. There are no objective means to determine whether something is overpriced. If you were to try you would have to bring value into the equation which you admit is subjective which brings us right back to square one. You've been reduced to arguing that your opinion is more valid than others just because! And the way in which you argue....you are Dunning-Kruger personified.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

In a free market, I still hold that commodities, including stocks, can never be over- or under-priced.

But check this out:

1) I'll be coy about how many shares I own, but check out that basis!

2) Check today's move as of a few minutes ago when I took the screenshot.

3) Its yet another reason I remain an Apple fanboy!

 

[kajata]

In a free market, I still hold that commodities, including stocks, can never be over- or under-priced.

But check this out:

[qimg]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7153/6842907165_074edbbe8a.jpg[/qimg]

1) I'll be coy about how many shares I own, but check out that basis!

2) Check today's move as of a few minutes ago when I took the screenshot.

3) Its yet another reason I remain an Apple fanboy!

I won't be coy. Sadly, I only own 20 shares. And more sadly, I didn't buy them in 1999 but in 2009. But still, doubling your money is fun.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

But still, doubling your money is fun.

You have a two-bagger - you can be proud.

WAY off topic, but "One Up On Wall Street" by Peter Lynch is a good first read about investing.

 

[John Albert]

Now THIS is the last word...

You really think so?!?

Because I have my doubts...

"Overpriced" has very little meaning here.

Setting a price on something is more an art than a science.

If a company prices something "too high", they'll suffer from lack of sales.

If a company prices something "too low", they may have supply problems and lack of margin to make a profit.

That's because pricing is largely dependent on the subjective whims of consumers.

The art market is an excellent example to illustrate that. A piece of art (made of non-precious materials, for the sake of argument) that I would never want to display in my home might sell at Christie's for half a million dollars. Even if I had 100 million dollars in my art budget, I would never buy that particular piece for my own home, because for me the piece itself is not simply an investment, but something I'm going to have to live with every day. Now that's a rare example where the subjectivity factor of the value of a particular product is maximized.

Now I'm not saying it's fair to valuate art purely on the cost of the raw materials. I'm not arguing that the Mona Lisa is worth no more than the cost of a few bottles of linseed oil and some varnishes and pigments. I'm simply pointing out that "value" is largely subjective in nature.

Now the computer market is very different from the fine art market. Computers are mass-produced, manufactured durable goods, not objets d′art. There's a complicated economics behind the value-added parts, and also a baseline interest of functionality which changes the entire dynamic. It's kind of pointless buy a computer with the idea that it'll hold its value on resale because the depreciation on computers is so very high, relative to their initial cost. As I've pointed out many times, the same hardware used for Macs is also used for other brands. The main exception is that other companies' computers will not run Mac OS right out of the box.

Now if you're looking for a computer and Mac OS is an absolute requirement, then chances are a Macintosh is going to be your only option, though there may be alternatives. Of course you can spec and build a "hackintosh" machine yourself that will run OSX, but that's not practical for a laptop. If you look around, you might find a notebook that can run OSX, but your options are going to be severely limited.

On the other hand, there is very little software for Mac that is not also available in a Windows version which operates exactly the same as the OSX version. Most major applications are available for both platforms. Final Cut Pro is the only important software package that immediately comes to mind, that has no Windows analog. So if you absolutely have to run something like Final Cut Pro, then there's no question: you need to get a Mac (or at least build yourself a hackintosh).

But none of those restrictions mean that the machines cannot be objectively valuated, based entirely on the market prices of the technology they're constructed from. If you break down a computer into its component parts and spec out those parts, you can make a rough but objective comparison of the relative "value" between two machines that ignores all the extrinsic overvaluation due to marketing.

If you do that, it's obvious that, spec-for-spec, Macs are priced significantly higher than comparable machines from other manufacturers, by as much as a 2:1 price difference.

How much of that overvaluation is due to the OS? It's tough to say exactly without a peek at Apple's development budget, but I'm willing to bet it's nowhere near several hundred dollars per unit sold.

Those terms only become somewhat objective after the fact. For instance, GoogleTV was much anticipated. It was entering a market already served by the Apple TV ($99) and the ROKU box ($59 and up). At $249 the market decided it was "overpriced" relative to the competition and stayed away in droves. Read up on it in the Wikipedia entry for an example of what happens when an item is truly overpriced.

As I just pointed out, you're talking about market forces that are largely based on subjective public opinions about a given product, whereas I'm talking about evaluating the actual physical product in terms of other comparable physical products. If the process I'm describing was invalid, then there would be no way to compare any two similar things on any other basis than market price, and that's just absurd. Market price is not the only measure of value.

To take any product out of context (a MacBook Air, for instance) and label it "overpriced" is really not saying much.

I'm not taking them out of context. I'm comparing them to other machines that are physically comparable, with the same parts and components and comparable objective specs and market values.

Apple's prices are what they are.

Yeah, they're extremely overpriced, due mostly to artificial overvaluation created through the use of misleading marketing tactics.

$30 for Lion compares pretty favorably to what Microsoft charges for a major software upgrade.

But $2500 for a MacBook Pro does not compare favorably at all with the $1500 price of a comparable Dell or Lenovo.

And the OS apparently costs roughly the same as Windows, so how do you account for the roughly $900 outstanding price discrepancy?

The aforementioned Apple TV is a screaming bargain @ $99

"Screaming bargain," you say? The Apple TV is twice the price of the Roku box, which provides equivalent performance and a far better selection of programming.

the iPad itself got attention when it was released for a lower-than-expected price.

It's still far more expensive and far less powerful than the competition.

 

[John Albert]

In a free market, I still hold that commodities, including stocks, can never be over- or under-priced.

But check this out:

[qimg]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7153/6842907165_074edbbe8a.jpg[/qimg]

1) I'll be coy about how many shares I own, but check out that basis!

2) Check today's move as of a few minutes ago when I took the screenshot.

3) Its yet another reason I remain an Apple fanboy!

So you have a vested interest in promoting the company.

So much for objectivity.

 

[kajata]

It's still far more expensive and far less powerful than the competition.

The base iPad 2 is $499. That's what most tablets in its class go for. Some for a bit less. Some for a bit more. What are you comparing it to? A Kindle Fire? I want to know what tablet is far less expensive and far more powerful than the iPad 2.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I've determined, simply by observing the way you've been discussing matters in this thread, that you fail to attentively read what others say if they happen to challenge your own opinion. That much is blatantly obvious, based on the number of wild misconceptions and strawman arguments you've made, and the way you've flown off the handle with crazy presumptions about things that have already been clearly stated by others. Another clue is your own proclaimed ignorance of evidence that others have posted, such as your ignorance that I'd already posted a definition of the word "overpriced," and the numerous times you've denied that people posted examples of comparable machines that cost significantly less than Macs. I can tell that you've even failed to read the stuff that you yourself have posted as evidence, because I did read it and so I know that it did not support the points you were trying to make.

So in answer to your question: No, one does not need to be "Kreskin" to make simple observations.

IOW -

Because you don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about, and I do.

I'm not the one ranting and name calling in the thread. I've not flown off the handle. Stating that overpriced means 'priced to high' is a tautology and useless for determining if something is overpriced.

You aren't interested in an honest debate, just rhetoric.

Check-box technical feature comparison thinking is why apple eats its competitors lunch. They scream and moan about how they are better on paper, then fail to sell because reviewers and consumers despise it.

 

[John Albert]

I'm not the one ranting and name calling in the thread.

I'm not ranting or name calling either.

I'm making reasoned arguments backed up by evidence, that you don't particularly like to hear, so you're just labeling them as 'ranting.'

That's called "an "appeal to ridicule," and it's a logical fallacy.

Stating that overpriced means 'priced to high' is a tautology and useless for determining if something is overpriced.

Posting a definition is not a "tautology." You asked for a definition and I posted one. Quit blaming me because you asked for a definition that is self-evident.

You aren't interested in an honest debate, just rhetoric.

Ad hominem.

Check-box technical feature comparison thinking is why apple eats its competitors lunch.

Unless you can provide some objective evidence to back that up, it's nothing more than an unsupported assumption.

They scream and moan about how they are better on paper, then fail to sell because reviewers and consumers despise it.

Hasty generalization, baseless assumption, appeal to popularity, appeal to ridicule... another cluster-**** of illogical nonsense.