$1700 for the next to lowest end offering is too high. Dell doesn't even break $1000 territory until you get to their upper end offerings. For $1700 you could buy two computers and a laptop (or two computers and two netbooks).
I would get a Dell 27-inch 2560 by 1440 LED display if there's one too. Just wish that Dell can manufacture one with great energy savings. That will be the deal winner.
Currently, I'm using a 2006 Mac Pro. It's still freaking powerful but I really can use with more pixels on my screen.
I was talking about the computers. $1700 is far too much for a low end system, monitor or no monitor. Those specs (sans display) are available for <$500. I'd put the price on this system at no more than $1400 at the high end. Apple is making a very nice margin on this kit.
But to that end the iMac isn't a LED display either, it's LED backlit.
If I could find a $1000 27" 2560x1440 LED or O-LED display I'd be in line in front of you.
$800 for the display
$500 for the computer components
$100 for the aluminum case
$100 for the wireless keyboard and hi-tech mouse
$100 for OS X and iLife
$100 for beautiful industrial design
$1700 sounds like a fine deal to me.
I'm tempted to buy one right now, but I'm forcing myself to wait for the first component refresh that will come in 6 or 8 months. Core 2 Duo is about to go obsolete.
No, you get a 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo as standard. The 27" model can be upgraded to Core 2 Duo 3.33 Ghz, i5 or i7. Read the page you linked to one more time :)
You can keep lowering your component prices on your list till this makes sense to you. But let's be honest, you'd buy this machine no matter what because that's simply what you are into. The value proposition argument doesn't factor into fanhood.
not a knock, just an observation, I'm thinking these look pretty sexy as well
I find it hilarious that just a short way up the page someone is telling me you don't have to buy one because I so obviously loathe Apple products, while you're telling me my love for them is so strong that you'd buy this machine no matter what.
Looks and form factor matter to me and are something I'm happy to pay for. I'm not saying they should matter you. If you'd rather save $300 and buy a computer in a standard plastic box, with trash peripherals that are only rated 1 egg, then you're welcome to it.
The number of people who spend $300 on just a case + power supply from newegg when doing a custom pc build is not small.
But even when I threw together my last monster home machine from newegg I don't think I spent more than $150 on case and power, and I even went hog wild with lights and all kinds of fans and other sexy things.
Just because Apple felt that they needed to spent who knows how much R&D on a new plastic unibody mold that nobody is impressed with much, in order to house perfectly stock budget hardware doesn't mean that I think I should pay for that.
Have you been following the news at all? I know many non-technical people (and technical people also) who are absolutely ecstatic about getting a MacBook with the new body. People care about this shit - in fact I'd say it's the minority that does not.
By the way, don't knock the unibody till you use one. My unibody MacBook Pro has got to be the most solid machine I've ever used - handily beats any other laptop on the market, including the venerable classic ThinkPads.
Did you really just link, as an alternative to Apple's keyboard/mouse, a product whose first review is "Garbage"?
You figure design into the cost equation all the time in your life - why would one wear anything except Wal-Mart t-shirts otherwise? Ease of use, quality of construction, and yes, even styling, is incredibly important in all aspects of life.
I've actually used that keyboard - it's nowhere near the quality of the Apple keyboard. Keys are mushy and soft, and even the chiclet keys have a more solid feel than that.
Not to mention the whole thing reeked of plasticy cheapness.
Let me put it this way. If I drive once a week, I'd save money and get a little econobox Toyota. If, however, I spent 8 hours a day behind the wheel, I'd invest in a BMW or something else nice.
In the same way, I spend at least 8 hours in front of a computer every single day - why in the world wouldn't I spend $100 on a keyboard/mouse combo? That's dirt cheap considering the mileage I get out of them. It just doesn't make sense to skimp on hardware when you spend so much time with it (and also, if it's your primary moneymaking machine).
> I spend at least 8 hours in front of a computer every single day - why in the world wouldn't I spend $100 on a keyboard/mouse combo?
Well put. I actually think that this logic justifies spending much more -- or at least buying products further along the price/feature curve -- on interface devices that have a comparatively long lifespan, than on devices that get upgraded frequently.
To each their own, of course, but I've never regretted spending money on a good keyboard, good mouse, good monitor, or good chair. You can expect 5+ years out of a mouse (sometimes more), probably 5-10 on a monitor unless your needs change significantly, 10+ on a keyboard unless you have a tendency to spill into it (and even then, if it's a buckling spring you can basically hose it out), and who knows on a good chair -- I'm still on my first "good" one.
I've found that it's the things that some folks cut corners on, things that on the surface can look like extravagances, that easily pay for themselves in terms of productivity and comfort. (Especially the chairs. Seriously, if you make your living sitting down, you deserve a good chair.) They don't have the same e-penis factor as a hotrod CPU, but it's a better use of funds in my book.
(Although with all this said, I'm not a huge fan of the latest Apple keyboards; I think they peaked back with the AEKII. But that's a matter of preference; I like one with long key travel.)
There is no other mouse like the new Apple mouse, so there's nothing to compare it to. High quality wireless mice from Logitech or Microsoft are usually around $50 though.
HN won't let me reply direct...so I'm replying to myself.
If I spend $30 on a keyboard mouse/combo. And it breaks in 6 months, I can just throw it away and get a replacement and still have coffee money. And in 6 months, the keyboard/mouse combo I buy for $30 will be better than the one that I could have bought 6 months prior for $70. No matter what I bought, I'd likely be in the market for a replacement (or would just end up with one anyways) a year later.
You've used the word "investing" in a way that makes no sense. A BMW is not an investment anymore than is a computer. Unless they are really something special (like a Veyron), both cars and computers loose value over time.
The comparison to cars is apropos, similar to the subject at hand, I could buy two or three Toyota Corollas for one BMW 3xx, get to where I want on time, more reliably, with better gas mileage (read: lower TCO), and the only thing I'll suffer for it is not looking like a pretentious prick will doing it. And I'd still have one or two backup cars for demolition derby or loaning out to friends.
The real difference is that computing technology looses value so fast (even faster than cars) that to think of them as anything other than nearly disposable is a fallacy. AND at any rate, an Apple is not a BMW as a PC is to a Corolla. They are both Corollas, just one has a bit more chrome on it, for which you'll happily pay a 40% markup for.
Apple wants you to think that what they are making is so fantastically special that you'll buy their overpriced commodity hardware thinking you will keep it forever. Only until next year when they come out with the same thing but case colors and an extra USB port.
"If I spend $30 on a keyboard mouse/combo. And it breaks in 6 months, I can just throw it away and get a replacement and still have coffee money."
And through all of this you're still using a cheap $30 keyboard. Why buy something cheap and disposable just to replace it 6 months later? Sure, your TCO is still lower than the nicer keyboard - but the ease of use and satisfaction is easily worth the difference, not to mention a hell of a lot less wasteful. Why I would skimp on my primary interface to the computer (your hands are on that damn thing all day, after all), is a mystery to me.
"You've used the word "investing" in a way that makes no sense."
Of course it doesn't make sense to you - you appear to think that "investment" can only occur in a monetary sense. This explains your focus on TCO without regard for the quality of the product. When I "invest" in a nice suit, I'm not expecting my garments to appreciate in monetary value - I'm expecting to receive some tangible non-monetary benefit (landing that job, for example, or better networking) for it. In the same way, "investing" in tech gear is about greater satisfaction, reduced frustration, etc etc. It is not about my computer somehow appreciating in value.
"I could buy two or three Toyota Corollas for one BMW 3xx, get to where I want on time, more reliably, with better gas mileage (read: lower TCO), and the only thing I'll suffer for it is not looking like a pretentious prick will doing it."
Your objection against Apple is apparently more about its image than any tangible complaint. This is fine - and is in fact the most common argument against Apple products ("but you look like a hipster douche!").
Question: have you driven a BMW? Or are you presuming that there's no tangible difference except the image component? I've worked in the auto industry - and have done work for both cheapo Pontiacs as well as $100K+ Mercedes Benzes. The quality difference is extreme, but of course invisible on any consumer spec sheet. This is why spec sheet tunnel vision is generally a bad idea when it comes to purchases - there's more to a car (and computer) than its engine size, mileage, CPU speed, L2 cache size, etc etc.
If you've ever been behind the wheel of a BMW you'd know the difference between it and a Corolla. It's a far more satisfying machine to drive than a Corolla, by a really, really wide margin.
But by all means, cling to your unfounded prejudices about BMW drivers and Mac users. We'll be out there enjoying our products (in a non-douchey way, I promise). It seems you're willing to deny yourself better quality products simply because you don't want to be associated with the few people who act like dicks about having them.
+1 for non-monetary/intangible benefits. Even my ancient (early 90s) 3 series is an amazing drive, and well worth the disintegrating door panels and various other problems. I've driven a variety of cars, old and new, and this is my favorite so far.
There are some products that, because of attention to detail or other design features, are a pleasure to use, even if their performance on paper is worse.
Disintegrating parts of a car does not speak to "attention to detail". :)
But I agree, there is sometimes a visceral, non-quantifiable "feel" to a product that makes it worth using. My favorite car was my late 70's Mercury. Stupid big, ate gas like there was a hole in the tank, small tasks like getting out of the driveway had lots of engine drama. But man it drove like a dream.
> Why buy something cheap and disposable just to replace it 6 months later? Sure, your TCO is still lower than the nicer keyboard...
Thanks for answering your own question.
> you appear to think that "investment" can only occur in a monetary sense
Well, we're obviously not talking about "the act of putting on vestments". So yes, "investment" only is defined in this sense as an outlay of resources or capital with an expectation of a greater return.
Buying something because it's pretty is not an investment.
You really really want to try and stretch the definition so that "can bring about higher productivity/efficiencies on a current process" which I think is reasonable since those higher efficiencies can directly lead to a greater return. But you provide no examples that an Apple branded keyboard can allow me to type at, for example 130wpm vs. 90wpm. I would be willing to put dollars down that said Apple branded keyboard would not demonstrate any increase in productivity or efficiencies over a $5 Taiwan built no-name bargain-bin keyboard. And since we both agree that the TCO is lower on the latter device, it's the better investment.
>Your objection against Apple is apparently more about its image than any tangible complaint.
To be clear, my objection against the entire Apple ecosystem is twofold:
1) Apple charges too much money for their kit. There is no sense in paying Two Thousand Dollars for a system I can find for less than half that. Unless said Apple system does bring about a massive productivity increase, it is not a rational purchase. Experience has shown me that Apple systems do not bring about any productivity increases.
2) Apple fanboys offer irrational, circular reasoning to justify their computing purchases. They offer up "design" as the deciding factor, and when I say "design makes no difference" they offer up "productivity", and when I say "show me the statistics" they say "it's an investment", and when I say "investment doesn't mean that" they say "it's about the design".
The users of Apple products are far more the problem with the entire ecosystem than Apple ever will be -- actually to Apple they are the life's blood.
I can understand Apple's business model. They know they will never have more than low double digit market share. And they also know that that market share represents people who would purchase a pile of smoldering rubbish for a 200% markup if it had an Apple logo on it and a Jonny Ive's video spot proclaiming how this "was the best designed pile of smoldering rubbish...in the world". That's called "being smart". They can make loads of profit selling commodity hardware that the Dell's of the world make only 5-10% margins on simply by fanning the flames of rabid fanboyism.
>I've worked in the auto industry - and have done work for both cheapo Pontiacs as well as $100K+ Mercedes Benzes. The quality difference is extreme, but of course invisible on any consumer spec sheet. This is why spec sheet tunnel vision is generally a bad idea when it comes to purchases - there's more to a car (and computer) than its engine size, mileage, CPU speed, L2 cache size, etc etc.
That's correct. There is TCO. A Pontiac and a Benz (and a BMW) share one thing in common, poor TCO. Between poor build quality, reliability, trade-in value, gas mileage etc. those vehicles all demonstrate poor thinking on the part of the purchasers. The Pontiac is probably purchased for the initially low sticker price. But it will suffer from poor reliability, bad gas mileage and when the owner goes to trade it in after 5 years, a shockingly bad trade-in price. The Benz, while being built of the finest materials (leading to a high sticker price), suffers from some of the worst statistical reliability in the business across the lineup, and generally very poor trade-in value (a 2005 S500 4d in excellent condition goes for the same price as a stripped low end Accord, that's an $70,000 loss in value in 4 years).
It's no mystery why Toyota is now the #1 car maker. They don't offer anything particularly attractive, they don't use the best materials, they don't make the fastest cars or have the best handling. They don't even have a performance offering in their lineup!
The equation is simple, they make decent vehicles, that get you from A to B in the same amount of time it takes somebody in a Merc S500 or a BMW 540 or a Ferrari Enzo, it lasts longer between services than the more expensive cars and the cheaper-to-purchase cars, it offers reasonable comfort for the price, and when it comes time to trade in, you might loose only 40% of the price not 70-80%. The most important factor for the vast majority of people is TCO.
Rewrite that previous statement in computing terms and you have the reason why Apple is not a good investment. They do not offer a competitive TCO to the competing Wintel type systems.
But the comparison isn't between a Corolla and a 540. It's between a Corolla and a Civic -- only I'm going to charge you a 120% markup on the civic because I stuck a "type R" badge on the back. Applers want to compare their computing choices to higher end autos with higher end specs. But that simply doesn't jive with reality. Their systems have identical specs to any other consumer Intel style system out there.
> If you've ever been behind the wheel of a BMW you'd know the difference between it and a Corolla. It's a far more satisfying machine to drive than a Corolla, by a really, really wide margin.
Yes, it is :) I've always been happy to drive my rental BMWs and Audis whenever I'm in Germany. I've been loathe to drive the Opels I sometimes get. That being said, I would never say that I received a tangible benefit from those cars and could never justify buying one for myself along any rational lines.
>But by all means, cling to your unfounded prejudices about BMW drivers and Mac users. We'll be out there enjoying our products (in a non-douchey way, I promise).
Apple users are certainly ways less douchy than BMWers.
I think the answer to "why should I buy an Apple" should be "because I like it better". And the answer to "why?" should be "dunno, just do". All the superfluous justifications don't hold up to rational examination. But they don't really have to. I like Bach better than Beethoven, but I can't give a rational reason why.
Why would you not factor in the design? Goto NewEgg.com and price out some nice Lian-Li cases. They're expensive. Yes, you can get a junky finger slicer case with loud fans and tacky lights for ~$50 but that's not what I want
Why does th design matter beyond "look at me, I'm using an overpriced collection of stock hardware". It's the old saying "you can't polish a turd". Commodity hardware is always going to be commodity hardware no matter how shiny the case is.
