Apple's Pricing Premiums Never Cease to Impress

[Rob Williams]

From our front-page news:

Apple updated both its MacBook and iMac line-ups yesterday, and though I have little interest in the company's products, I decided to head on over to its site and see what was new. At the same time, I also wanted to see what kind of "Apple tax" these new machines had, and whether or not the situation is as extreme as before. Well, I didn't have to look too far to get an answer. In this case, my answer laid with the 21.5" iMac's.

As is typical of Apple, there are two models per size. One retails for $1,199, while the upgraded version sells for $1,499. Prices like these don't seem so bad for an all-in-one machine, especially the $1,199 model, but when you consider the hardware under the hood, you might think twice. In both models, the CPU included is a 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo. Yes, that's a dual-core, not a quad. Oh, but you can upgrade it to a 3.33GHz for only $200 (give me the quad-core Q8200 at $150 any day).

The fact that Apple, and others, charge insane premiums on hardware is nothing new, but Apple takes things to the next level. I noted two different models, with the "higher-end" costing $300 more. After meticulously looking over the specs pages for both, I found only two differences. That $300 will get you an upgrade from a 500GB hard drive to a 1TB offering, and also upgrade the integrated graphics from the NVIDIA 9400M to an ATI HD 4670 256MB.

I use bold there because the 256MB version of the card isn't even for sale anymore on any e-tailer I checked. Only the 512MB version is, and it sells for $60. The premium on the hard drive? Going from a 500GB to 1TB in the real marketplace is a $25 - $30 premium. So overall, Apple is charging $300 for $90 "upgrades". I use the term upgrades loosely, because the HD 4670 is hardly a stellar GPU. For that premium, you'd expect to at least get a decent mid-range card capable of actually pushing graphics with the display's native resolution of 1080p.

Yes, I'm aware that the iMac is an all-in-one, and that in itself rules out certain GPUs, but there are better options than the HD 4670. Even ATI's brand-new HD 5750 would be a perfect drop-in. It not only uses less power and runs cool, it offers far better performance. Since those retail for just $109 to the end-consumer, Apple could have used it and still made a healthy profit.

The new iMac features stunning LED-backlit displays with a 16:9 aspect ratio, ideal for watching high definition movies and TV shows from iTunes, or editing and watching your own videos or photos using iLife. The new 21.5-inch iMac features a high resolution 1920-by-1080 pixel display. The 27-inch iMac features a beautiful 2560-by-1440 pixel display that offers 60 percent more pixels than the previous 24-inch model. Both 21.5 and 27-inch displays use IPS technology to deliver consistent color across an ultra wide 178 degree viewing angle.

Source: Apple iMac Product Page​

 

[Psi*]

BUT BUT BUT they never crash and don't get virus'

 

[MacMan]

Apple nit-picking again?

Why is it that you seem to love to bash Apple?

You are so quick to point out every little thing that you think is wrong, but rarely do you point out anything good. You compare the 21 inch based mostly on price, but you ignore the high end, which by the way, Computerworld says is very competitive not only in cost, but in power and performance with machines of greater cost! Did you not know that the majority, for instance, of iMac buyers prefer and buy the larger models? What's wrong - couldn't find anyting to complain about! At least , you would think, you could admit that it was nice looking or something, couldn't you, or praise its huge LED panel, the largest and only one currently available in its class?

Using your agrument, by the way, why everyone who buys a Mercedes, Lamborgini, Porsche, etc., are just as dumb to buy one of these cars too, because if you care to look, simply replacing a headlight or other part from one of these cars will cost you siignificantly more than replacing the same parts from a Ford Focus.

It's not just whats in the package, but how the whole package is put together. Obviously, if you look at the fact that Apple stock just hit a record $205 per share and is now has the second highest market cap of any tech company, and is predicted to surpass the first, Microsoft in the next six to eight months for first place, well, you have to admit they are doing something right - right? Apple has more money in the bank than Microsoft and is bigger than General Electric, Intel, Sony, Hp, and five times bigger than Dell (financially)! You know, Apple hasn't to my knowledge put guns to people's heads and made anyone buy a Mac. People buy them because they want to, because they think they are worth it. Serioulsly, why is it that you write about Intels recent quarterly profits, and yet, you fail to mention that Apple, a bigger company, worth more money, just reported a bigger and more fantastic quarter?

I like to see you compare the real imac, the 27 incher, with any other all-in-one, and especially you know the high-end ones that cost as much, if not more, than the premimium iMac, like the Sony Vaio top-of-the-line!

Apart from your iPod, Techgage has never, to my knowledge, ever brought in an Apple product and done a real world comparison, yet you SEEM to love to knock Apple down at every chance you get - at least thats the impression you leave! You review simple computer cases, yet the one company that has influenced every other company the most, you ignore and refuse to ask Apple for product for review, because as you told me - your too busy writing articles about simple computer cases, etc.! Come on, whether you hate or love Apple, the very fact that every thing that Apple does will be copied six months down the road, by every one else, is reason enough, I would think, to review Apple products.

The old joke that if you want to know what Microsoft and Windows will be bringing out in the next six months, all you have to do is - just look at a Mac and OS X today, rings true. Just look at Complz, look at Windows Vista and Windows 7, and tell me where Microsoft got the inspiration for translucency, the new taskbar, Aero Peak, etc. What mpg player do you think inspired Microsoft to get into the music player business, and producee the new Zune HD? What phone do you think most smart phones these days copy from,? Oh, I don't know, but could it be possibly - the iPHONE?

While wer'e are at it, I wonder where Android, the Palm Pre and other companies got the idea for APP Stores? Yes, there were stores before, but none of them were really successful until Apple got the process right. Microsfot is opening new retail stores and next to Apple Stores.... hmmmm, but I'm quite sure they didn't get that idea from Apple, do you think?

When someone tells me that OS X is no good, because they played with it for a whole five minutes in an Apple store in NYC, I can't help but see an anti bias at work here. For once, I would love to see Techgage actually bring in a test Apple product before it bad mouths the company. This constant side-digging at Apple, when hypocritcally never having properly tested anything (apart from one iPod and iTunes) from Apple is just plain hypocritical and makes Techgage look anything but professional. And yes, I know, whenever some one says anything positive, or sticks up for Apple, they will brand you as fanboy, but that doesn't make it true - It just makes them look like biggots!

Oh, by the way, I think that Techgage is a great site, and very professional, so please take this as contructive criticism, which is my intent here.

Yes, it's certainly true that Apple charges more for peripherals, etc. but we all know that! All brand names charge more for less. Just check out the cost of a name brand drug compared to the generic verisons.

You make a good point, but the problem is, it all seems rather hollow since you never properly review or say anything positive about the most influential tech company on the planet - Apple. That just gives the impression that Techagage has an anti-bias, which I'm not saying it has, but, unfortunately, thats what it looks like some time.

How about the world's first multi-touch mouse? I'm sure that simply being the first would prompt a note, but no - it's always the nit picking that you concentrate on. You SEEM to love nagging about the so - called Apple tax! Did you not know there was also a Microsoft tax? Just look at what they charge for upgrades, let alone full versions of Windows. Yes, there is even a Linux tax too, one that comes in the form of a lot of debugging, and compiling, and time spent, etc. I've never read Techgage talk about those so called taxes, so why all the harping over something that everyone already knows about - that Apple, like Prada, BMW, Mercedes, etc., always charge more for their branded products than the generics. It's common knowledge, so for once, I would love to see a positive spin on Apple. Pointing out that Apple charges more for less is ok, but when you fail to mention the other points, be it the looks, the largest LED panels of any in the all-in-one categories, well, thats seems grossly unfair and bias.

Psi said it best: "What matters is not the length of the wand, but the magic in the stick."


Computerworld:

http://blogs.computerworld.com/1495...crown_jewel_of_computers?source=rss_weintraub

<object id="cnbcplayer" height="380" width="400" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" >
<param name="type" value="application/x-shockwave-flash"/>
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/>
<param name="quality" value="best"/>
<param name="scale" value="noscale" />
<param name="wmode" value="transparent"/>
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000"/>
<param name="salign" value="lt"/>
<param name="movie" value="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/1302061583/code/cnbcplayershare"/>
<embed name="cnbcplayer" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" height="380" width="400" quality="best" wmode="transparent" scale="noscale" salign="lt" src="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/1302061583/code/cnbcplayershare" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" />
</object>

 

[Psi*]

MacMan ... you sound like too many Apple users I know. You sound as if your 1st born works for them. It is just a computer. I know. I have been there & consulted for them and ... and ... and even eaten sushi in their cafeteria at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino. And, it was great.

Although, oddly enough, everyone I met puts their pants on like the rest of us ... 1 leg at a time.

If my software ran on their machines, an Apple anything would be of interest except they are too expensive & long ago killed off ... and still killing competitive clone system producers. Phrases such as "for anti-competitive practices, monopolistic behavior, and copyright misuse" come up too often relative to Apple. They have superb marketing and that is all that does separate them from a computer useful for general use.

I have had an Apple II, IIe, Lisa ... modified to a Mac, and even iPods. The Lisa was only machine bought for the software that was available on it.

The comment, "... why everyone who buys a Mercedes, Lamborgini, Porsche, etc., are just as dumb ...". Yes, actually. Take a look at cost of ownership.... ehhh! Take a look at reliability ... ehhh! Those brands are also merely status symbols. "Expensive" does not correlate to "best". I mean, what person who actually thinks about what they are doing would buy a $100K car to go to the golf course? Ok, a Dr or a lawyer which are not at the top of the list of high tech.

To beat this dead horse a little more. The iPod ... I played any mp3 music & video I wanted on pocket PCs in the mid to late 1990s, before the iPod ... marketing, that's all. But it is a lesson for all.

 

[MacMan]

Something is missing here...

PSI, how you can read my post and miss my point is beyond me!

My point is that Techgage SEEMINGLY always criticizes Apple, but never without ever actually bringing in an Apple product and putting them through its paces, like it does for other things like computer cases of all things! Other sites like PCMag, PCWorld, Computerworld, the Wall Street Journal, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc., both criticize and praise Apple, so why doesn't Techgage? What's with the always SEEMINGLY quick to point out the negatives, but slow to report on the plus's bent with its reporting of Apple?

If Techgage can do in depth testing and reporting on a company that makes nothing but simple computer cases, and a company that most people never had, or will hear of, why can't they be fair and do so for Apple, a company, that, by the way isn't dying or irrevelant, but growing and is now bigger than Intel, bigger than Dell, bigger than HP, Asus, Cisco, IBM, Xerox and has and is continuing to influence every other tech firm out there. How many companies are bending over backwards to copy a product like CoolIT that Techgage is currently reporting on? How big of an impact will that make on millions of Window and Linux users, as well as Apple users? But Apple, well, their only this little and insignificant 185 billion dollar company that is worth, apparently, in Techgages's eyes, little or nothing! Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that CoolIT is a great company and product, but if you can take the time to fully test and then report on it, why can't you do the same for Apple products and give them the same treatment; why always go out of its way to criticize?

I remember telling Rob what a great article he wrote on the GateWay ONE, and how great of a computer it was, even bettering the iMac in a few areas. But when I pointed out that the iMac not only had a larger and better screen, a faster and more powerful Intel CPU, was tested to run Windows faster than the GateWay ONE, ran ALL OSs and therefore more software, and all at a cost $149 dollars less then the GateWay ONE, he publicly thrashed me out, and asked why I always attacked what he wrote - and yet, here he goes bad mouthing Apple without ever laying hands on the machine he criticizes! Don't believe me, look up his post on the GateWay ONE and the comments.

In the end, all I'm asking is: why can't Techgage be more fair and far more balanced when reporting on Apple, mixing criticisms with praise, which Apple deserves in many cases, just as it deserves to be criticized in others areas; why always SEEMINGLY just point out the negatives? That's my point, but apparently you missed it!

 

[MacMan]

Tom's Hardware gets it right!

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-mac-imac-macbook-iphone,8902.html

Tom's Hardware as you can read above - gets it RIGHT! This article express's my point about Techgage and its readers, a lot of whom like to attack anything good I say about Apple, as if I'm a fan boy or something. I'm a Mac user, but I'm also a Windows user, planing on buying Windows 7 for my Macs, of course, as well as a Linux user, mostly ubuntu (because I like it, ok?). I hate this Apple bashing and personal attacks every time I try and put a positive spin on Apple.... give me a break already!

 

[Psi*]

PSI, how you can read my post and miss my point is beyond me!

Almost 1200 off topic words are at the top of that answer. Your point got lost in the forest ... as in, "can't find the forest for the trees... ".

My read on this & with a bit of the auto theme, is that this iMac is a product atypical of the undeniable and expected Apple creativity and innovation. There is nothing impressive under the hood ... but it has a great body. The unwary nontechnical buyer may think that they are, however, getting equal creativity and innovation with the packaging and not last year's technology with pricing strongly suggestive of new and great things. This product is dissapointment at best and even can be considered deceptive.

Apple ... I have little interest in the company's products, ...

This 1st line appears to capture the Editor's point of view. Why go to an auto forum on 'vettes and complain about how they critque Dodge Vipers? It is a different point of view ... this will happen in life with other things.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

Why is it that you seem to love to bash Apple?

Hold on thar, hoss... Are you saying that Rob's observations are factually incorrect?

Are not these price differences rather bloated compared to the improvements?

Can you provide any evidence that he's wrong?


Really... He's talking about hardware pricing, not an attacking your family's good name.
There is nothing for you to defend.

And Rob... FWIW... I would really love to see a MAC reviewed by the same standards as you do the rest. A PC vs MAC showdown would be truly informative.

 

[MacMan]

I never said he was wrong about the pricing of the 21.5 inch iMac, but that he only seems to highlight the negatives in Apple products. How about the fact that the 27 inch iMac has i7's, why didnt' he mention that? Why always the negatives? Regardless of what your saying, Macs are selling in the millions every quarter; iPods in the tens of millions; iPhones in the millions and yet, apart from one post on his personal iPod and his experience with iTunes, where are the Apple related reviews - that's my point!

As far as the older Intel Duo Core, it's the fastest you can get 3.02 Ghz; and by the way, Apple isn't the only company still using them, check out Gateway and some of the other PC manufacturers - they are still using them, are they not? I keep seelng them advertising them, so I guess they are! Check out, I believe, the Dell Studio One. Think it has the most powerful i7's or something? I don't think so.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

I never said he was wrong about the pricing of the 21.5 inch iMac, but that he only seems to highlight the negatives in Apple products.

That may well be the case. I've been to Mac forums where PCs are trashed big time day in and day out... surprisingly, I've learned a lot from those places... it's about where you are.

What I don't get is why this is so personal to you... It's just hardware... It's not like someone is discriminating against you or anything.

The question remains... Were Rob's comments correct or not?

 

[MacMan]

Aggh......

That may well be the case. I've been to Mac forums where PCs are trashed big time day in and day out... surprisingly, I've learned a lot from those places... it's about where you are.

What I don't get is why this is so personal to you... It's just hardware... It's not like someone is discriminating against you or anything.

The question remains... Were Rob's comments correct or not?

How many times do I have to say the problem isn't whether he's right or wrong about Apple's pricing, but rather the fact that he almost SEEMS to be looking at Apple for the sole purpose of bringing out something that is less then flattering! In other words: he's trolling for hits and a reaction! A lot of sites do that, because they know that Apple is one of the highest generating inquiries on the net.

When he treats other companies the same way, and complains about the equal, or in most cases, higher prices of high end PCs, like the Vaio and Envy, computers with less punch, yet higher cost, then maybe it wouldn't be so hypocritcal! Why say that the iMac has yesterdays technology, like the Duo Core running at 3.02 GHZ and say nothing about all of the new PCs that also use the Duo Core, but at 2.0 GHZ like the new Windows 7 equiped Lenovo A600? Why ignore the fact that its also available with i7's? Is that suddenly yesterdays technology as well?

All I'm saying, is why always SEEMINGLY pick on Apple's weak points? Why does Techgage publish reviews on companies that almost no one has ever heard of, and yet, ignores products from the most talked about, loved and hated, tech company in history! Did it not ever occure that maybe, that original Apple reviews would generate a lot more hits for Techgage? Take a look on Google and tell me which company gets the lion share of attention on the net and in the press?

Thats right - Apple!

Rather than just nic-pic on pricing all the time, why not get an iMac loaner from Apple and do a real and un-bias look at the product! I could be wrong, but I think it would BOOST Techgages ratings. I mean, how can it not - Apple has proven to be the one company that acts like a lighting rod in the press - why not use Apple's huge influence to help Techgage generate more hits, rather than just bash them at every opportunity?

Why do I care so personally?

Well, there are millions of passionate Apple users - but did you ever wonder why? And please, don't give me a biggoted answer like were all crazy, because in that case President Obama should be inpeached, as well as hoards of other world leaders and important people! There is a reason, and maybe if Techgage gave Apple a fair shake and actually brought in review items they might figure out why Apple is famous for having such devoted fans, and, in the process, help also broaden its appeal to millions and millions of growing and passionate Apple fans! This is a group that is far bigger than Techgage's normal audience goes, so why not tape into it and boost Techgages ratings? It boogles the mind that Techgage is not tapping into that market, and one who's popularity could also boost that of Techgage'! Maybe Techgage just doesn't want to grow, I guess? You tell me?

I may be wrong, but I doubt it, but Apple reviews, fair and unbias ones, would help Techgage a lot more than hurt it, so where are the official Apple reviews, with Techgage benchmarks? Surely, Techgage's image would be boosted if they did that, rather than just pulbishing negatives on how Apple over charges. The Apple so-called tax means nothing to Apple users, obviously, or Apple wouldn't be breaking sales records 18 out of the last 20 quarters! Criticizing a company they ignore to properly review only puts Techgage in a bad light. Simply knocking Apple and its products, nilly willy, all the time makes Techgage look bias so why do it?

What in hell is Techgage afraid off, except maybe picking up more readers? Maybe they will discover that there is more to Apple than high prices on low specs, and finally answer that question: why are Apple users so happy to pay more for less? Yes, the prices may be higher, and the specs (not in all cases) might be lower, but obvidously, there is something else that Apple is offering here that others just don't get. Maybe Techgage might find some value for its readers, and especially in potential future readers that Apple devotes woud surely bring to Techgage if it covered Apple the same way that it does others!

Oh, by the way, did you ever notice that I use the words, SEEM in caps a lot? I don't know "if there's an app for that:", but there is certainly a reason for it, but can you figure it out?

 

[Psi*]

And Rob... FWIW... I would really love to see a MAC reviewed by the same standards as you do the rest. A PC vs MAC showdown would be truly informative.

HAHAHA ... we can't get past this 1 item without getting flamed

Seriously, I cannot imagine how that could be done w/o really making a lot of people cranky-er.

Take the iPhone & compare it to what? Another phone takes forever to turn on? Ugh! I swear my next cell phone will be completely simple minded. I am tired of splash screens & taking a minute to boot ... I want my instant on from 5 years ago.

Then there is the GPS built into cell phones. My son has an iPhone FWIW & I have a LG Incite. His phone cost me ... hundreds as it was "gift", mine was free. Both have GPS. I have Google maps & can customize it yadda yadda yadda. Yet when either of us are in a poor ATT coverage area the GPS does not work!!! This is "assisted" from the cell phone system GPS, thank you. So when we need GPS the most & cannot call anyone due to lack of signal ... we also don't have a functioning GPS. This is just a universally stupid idea.

I have been into my phones registry (it does run a Windows Version after all so this is somewhat familiar territory) and have disabled the GPS assist. Great! Now it takes forever to the phone to find the satellites as this is a crap GPS receiver. "Son" is looking into doing the same with the iPhone.

Therefore, back to what to compare to what, should the ... iPhone GPS ... be compared to a stand alone GPS? Of course that will instill al-l-l-ll kinds of whining (not to mention even more long winded rants from moi) as even the 5 y/o GPS (I have) works better than either phone.

 

[MacMan]

Hahaha... you can't answer a simple question!

HAHAHA ... you cant' give me a straight answer as to why Techgage constantlly belittiles Apple, or why they don't do a hands on review like they do with everybody else's product! And since you can't , you simply ignore the question and give a lame answer to another totally different question completely - and one not asked for! Since you can't answer and you simply ignore my questions by changing the subject, I see no point in continuing this subject any further. After all, you can talk to a wall all you want, but just don't hold your breath expecting to get an answer back!

For the record, despite the fact that my question was NOT directly about the iPhone, and despite AT&T's lousy service, the iPhone just happens to have the highest satifaction rate among all smart phones, - you know as compared to the likes of the Android, Palm Pre and BB Storm, etc., and all of whom copy its features and looks, but hey..... that's not my point - the question above was!

Oh, and pleaseee..... don't take my word on the iPhone, you can read these professionally obtained results below when your willing to face the truth:

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/08/16/iphone-3gs-satisfaction-rate-at-99-percent

http://technologizer.com/2008/09/30/iphone-satisfaction/

http://www.vpico.com/articlemanager/printerfriendly.aspx?article=279934

 

[Rob Williams]

Why is it that you seem to love to bash Apple?

I love to bash Apple? That's a new one on me. I bash (for the lack of a better word) whatever I feel is worth bashing. I'm not making up stories to my own ends here... I state absolute fact.

I never said he was wrong about the pricing of the 21.5 inch iMac, but that he only seems to highlight the negatives in Apple products.

I suppose all of the news posts I've made praising iTunes don't exist. Or the posts where I lauded Snow Leopard prior to its release. Or the netbook rumor post? I also have to assume that all of the posts I've made regarding records that Apple has continually set with iTunes and its App Store are also just a figment of my imagination.

everyone already knows about - that Apple, like Prada, BMW, Mercedes, etc., always charge more for their branded products than the generics.

This is not the same thing. In the post, I compared two iMac 21.5-inches head-to-head. Both are the same computer, except one had two extra components priced at $85 - $90 on the market, yet cost $300 to the end-consumer from Apple. In this case, Apple isn't charging more for the PC itself (the baseline model is $1,199), but is rather charging more than 300% of the retail value of these two parts to its customers. You must be Mr. Moneybags to find this as a non-issue.

And Rob... FWIW... I would really love to see a MAC reviewed by the same standards as you do the rest. A PC vs MAC showdown would be truly informative.

A showdown is just too tough, as the points to cover are far too vast. Each platform has its pros and cons, and it's impossible, like Psi* said, to please everyone in the same article. I should note, I have little against OS X, and in some cases, I quite like it. The reason I personally have no interest in purchasing a Mac is because A) Like this post proves, you pay way more for the actual components inside of the machine than you would anywhere else, and B) You can't freely choose to pop in any piece of hardware you want. Everything I want for my PC works in both Linux and Windows, and as an hardware enthusiast, I have to have that.

If I had to come up with a comparison, I'd say Apple's computers have the look of a high-end Mercedes, but the guts of a Hyundai. Don't believe me? Just look at the store page for the Mac Pro, which starts at $2,499:

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTAyNTQwMTk

That $2,499 model includes a $250 processor, 3GB of RAM, a 640GB HDD, NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 (you can of course upgrade this already-lackluster card to an outdated HD 4870 for only 133% the retail value), and other stuff. Quite the stellar deal!

In all seriousness, anyone here (well, aside from Mac fans) could build a PC for half of the price that could kick the shit out of that one. I was about to go price components or look at the competition's products to prove it, but I'm doubtful it needs to be done (and I have before to no avail). Only the most vehement Mac addicts would bother refuting it.

Oh, but I would like to add... if the Mac Pro's chassis happens to cost $1,250, then my facts above are void.

As far as the older Intel Duo Core, it's the fastest you can get 3.02 Ghz; and by the way

No, there are two models faster, a 3.16GHz and 3.33GHz. The former is $190 retail, and the latter is $270 (huge rip-off).

HAHAHA ... you cant' give me a straight answer as to why Techgage constantlly belittiles Apple

You are so blind to the facts... it's just sad. I stand behind everything I say against Apple, because I always, 100% of the time, have the facts to back me up, like in the case of the subject here. What comes to mind over the course of the past few months with me "belittling" Apple comes down to A) Pointing out the Snow Leopard security hole (fact), B) Pointing out the company's ridiculous habit of rejecting good apps for the App Store (fact), C) Apple deliberately breaking Palm support (fact), D) EVGA's GTX 285 "For Mac" costing $80 - $100 more than the PC version of the same thing (fact), E) and ∞.

I didn't read most of what was said in this thread, so if I missed anything, I apologize.

 

[Kougar]

Macman, as Psi pointed out there is a difference between "hating" on Apple and simply criticizing their actions. Also, Please don't use disruptively sized font again, as that isn't going to help get your point across any more effectively than otherwise.

Rob, I think they used the ATI 4650 because it's a mobile card... no mobile parts exist for the ATI 5000 series or NVIDIA GT200 series, mobile parts tend to lag behind a generation. I completely agree that it should've been a 512MB card though!

I never said he was wrong about the pricing of the 21.5 inch iMac, but that he only seems to highlight the negatives in Apple products. How about the fact that the 27 inch iMac has i7's, why didnt' he mention that? Why always the negatives? Regardless of what your saying, Macs are selling in the millions every quarter; iPods in the tens of millions; iPhones in the millions and yet, apart from one post on his personal iPod and his experience with iTunes, where are the Apple related reviews - that's my point!

The 27" iMac only ships with a Core i5, which I find to be appalling for a $2,000 machine. It costs $200 to upgrade it to a Core i7 860, which is $120 more than doing the same at Newegg. In fact that extra $200 would buy a second Core i5 750.

If you want to see Apple reviews, then Apple would have to send or loan Techgage what they would like to see reviewed. I'm sure Rob would be willing to do so given his penchant for non-Windows OS's.

As far as the older Intel Duo Core, it's the fastest you can get 3.02 Ghz; and by the way, Apple isn't the only company still using them, check out Gateway and some of the other PC manufacturers - they are still using them, are they not? I keep seelng them advertising them, so I guess they are! Check out, I believe, the Dell Studio One. Think it has the most powerful i7's or something? I don't think so.

The Core 2 Duo E8400 is not the fastest model, there is the E8500 and E8600. At Newegg there is a $100 difference, but Apple doubles that to $200.

The issue isn't that Apple is using Core 2 Duos, but the price of the machines that they are being used in. You should compare an iMac to the Dell XPS One, not the Dell Studio One. The Dell XPS One starts with Quads at the base model, but the price differences aren't so bad... 3" larger display, larger HDD, and discrete graphics balances out the price difference.

Comparing XPS One $2,099 model to the iMac $2,000 model, the iMac gives a far better value spec-wise. Not to mention I've never seen a 27" display with 2560x1440 resolution before! The Dell does offer Blu-Ray, but given the price difference the user can just buy a BD drive.

For standalone desktops, it's back to Dell offering better value. But for high-end all-in-ones, the iMac does win.

 

[Rob Williams]

Rob, I think they used the ATI 4650 because it's a mobile card... no mobile parts exist for the ATI 5000 series or NVIDIA GT200 series, mobile parts tend to lag behind a generation. I completely agree that it should've been a 512MB card though!

Ahh, that could be. Not that this can be considered a plus. The HD 4670 on the desktop isn't too impressive, and a mobile card is likely to offer only half of the performance of that one.

If you want to see Apple reviews, then Apple would have to send or loan Techgage what they would like to see reviewed. I'm sure Rob would be willing to do so given his penchant for non-Windows OS's.

Apple's one of the worst companies to deal with regarding samples of any sort. I've e-mailed them in the past many times, and have always received the same churned-out response. I laid out the exact story ideas listed in this thread, and they just had no interest. I think the situation is even worse today, given the sheer amount of competition out there.

Comparing XPS One $2,099 model to the iMac $2,000 model, the iMac gives a far better value spec-wise. Not to mention I've never seen a 27" display with 2560x1440 resolution before! The Dell does offer Blu-Ray, but given the price difference the user can just buy a BD drive.

Apple's high-end machines are usually the exception to its own rule in that when a new release comes out, it's priced right for the given specs. The problem, is that this changes a month after a product launches, because Apple will keep the same configuration for many months. So while it's on par with the competition now, it won't be for the majority of the time it's available on the market.

I agree though... that high-end iMac looks quite good from a features/specs standpoint as it is today.

Blu-ray, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't work in OS X, so if someone purchased a ROM drive, it'd be for Boot Camp.

 

[Kougar]

Well, it did floor me a little when I did notice that, I would have expected Dell to be at least a little price competitive with their XPS Studio series. I then for kicks tried the crème de la crème Mac Pro against Dell's Alienware brand... given the price range of $3.4K Apple's system again simply delivers more.

As ya point out though, it's only the top high-end where Apple begins to win. Midrange setups easily go back to Dell or whomever, and so on. Still, I think this is an improvement though? I don't remember Apple's best systems even having direct competition at their own price points before.

You're spot on about Apple being slow to update their hardware... their laptops weren't price competitive before, but now they really aren't since Dell's Studio models have Lynnfields in them. I started drooling just building a $2k Studio 17", even if the battery life will still suck worse than an Apple's. That's a very interesting factoid about Blu-ray... seems there are issues with true hardware acceleration in OS X as well, after a quick look.

 

[MacMan]

Sorry about the fonts

Macman, as Psi pointed out there is a difference between "hating" on Apple and simply criticizing their actions. Also, Please don't use disruptively sized font again, as that isn't going to help get your point across any more effectively than otherwise.

Rob, I think they used the ATI 4650 because it's a mobile card... no mobile parts exist for the ATI 5000 series or NVIDIA GT200 series, mobile parts tend to lag behind a generation. I completely agree that it should've been a 512MB card though!



The 27" iMac only ships with a Core i5, which I find to be appalling for a $2,000 machine. It costs $200 to upgrade it to a Core i7 860, which is $120 more than doing the same at Newegg. In fact that extra $200 would buy a second Core i5 750.

If you want to see Apple reviews, then Apple would have to send or loan Techgage what they would like to see reviewed. I'm sure Rob would be willing to do so given his penchant for non-Windows OS's.



The Core 2 Duo E8400 is not the fastest model, there is the E8500 and E8600. At Newegg there is a $100 difference, but Apple doubles that to $200.

The issue isn't that Apple is using Core 2 Duos, but the price of the machines that they are being used in. You should compare an iMac to the Dell XPS One, not the Dell Studio One. The Dell XPS One starts with Quads at the base model, but the price differences aren't so bad... 3" larger display, larger HDD, and discrete graphics balances out the price difference.

Comparing XPS One $2,099 model to the iMac $2,000 model, the iMac gives a far better value spec-wise. Not to mention I've never seen a 27" display with 2560x1440 resolution before! The Dell does offer Blu-Ray, but given the price difference the user can just buy a BD drive.

For standalone desktops, it's back to Dell offering better value. But for high-end all-in-ones, the iMac does win.

yes, your right about the fonts kougar, sorry about that. I meant to make them smaller, but at the last minute I forgot - silly me!

 

[MacMan]

I love to bash Apple? That's a new one on me. I bash (for the lack of a better word) whatever I feel is worth bashing. I'm not making up stories to my own ends here... I state absolute fact.

I love to bash Apple? That's a new one on me. I bash (for the lack of a better word) whatever I feel is worth bashing. I'm not making up stories to my own ends here... I state absolute fact.



I suppose all of the news posts I've made praising iTunes don't exist. Or the posts where I lauded Snow Leopard prior to its release. Or the netbook rumor post? I also have to assume that all of the posts I've made regarding records that Apple has continually set with iTunes and its App Store are also just a figment of my imagination.



This is not the same thing. In the post, I compared two iMac 21.5-inches head-to-head. Both are the same computer, except one had two extra components priced at $85 - $90 on the market, yet cost $300 to the end-consumer from Apple. In this case, Apple isn't charging more for the PC itself (the baseline model is $1,199), but is rather charging more than 300% of the retail value of these two parts to its customers. You must be Mr. Moneybags to find this as a non-issue.



A showdown is just too tough, as the points to cover are far too vast. Each platform has its pros and cons, and it's impossible, like Psi* said, to please everyone in the same article. I should note, I have little against OS X, and in some cases, I quite like it. The reason I personally have no interest in purchasing a Mac is because A) Like this post proves, you pay way more for the actual components inside of the machine than you would anywhere else, and B) You can't freely choose to pop in any piece of hardware you want. Everything I want for my PC works in both Linux and Windows, and as an hardware enthusiast, I have to have that.

If I had to come up with a comparison, I'd say Apple's computers have the look of a high-end Mercedes, but the guts of a Hyundai. Don't believe me? Just look at the store page for the Mac Pro, which starts at $2,499:

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTAyNTQwMTk

That $2,499 model includes a $250 processor, 3GB of RAM, a 640GB HDD, NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 (you can of course upgrade this already-lackluster card to an outdated HD 4870 for only 133% the retail value), and other stuff. Quite the stellar deal!

In all seriousness, anyone here (well, aside from Mac fans) could build a PC for half of the price that could kick the shit out of that one. I was about to go price components or look at the competition's products to prove it, but I'm doubtful it needs to be done (and I have before to no avail). Only the most vehement Mac addicts would bother refuting it.

Oh, but I would like to add... if the Mac Pro's chassis happens to cost $1,250, then my facts above are void.



No, there are two models faster, a 3.16GHz and 3.33GHz. The former is $190 retail, and the latter is $270 (huge rip-off).



You are so blind to the facts... it's just sad. I stand behind everything I say against Apple, because I always, 100% of the time, have the facts to back me up, like in the case of the subject here. What comes to mind over the course of the past few months with me "belittling" Apple comes down to A) Pointing out the Snow Leopard security hole (fact), B) Pointing out the company's ridiculous habit of rejecting good apps for the App Store (fact), C) Apple deliberately breaking Palm support (fact), D) EVGA's GTX 285 "For Mac" costing $80 - $100 more than the PC version of the same thing (fact), E) and ∞.

I didn't read most of what was said in this thread, so if I missed anything, I apologize.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but my whole my point was primarily: why do you not review Apple products, and why only mention the negative of pricing - what about the new Apple Magic Mouse? Moss Wallberg said the Macs were nice, but evolutionary, but that the mouse "worked fine and was.. revolutionary!" Yet rather than saying something positive, on something that will eventually filter down to all platforms, you remain mysteriously silent.... why?

As far as Apple's pricing - your spot on, but your also so totally and utterly wrong!

I say your wrong because you keep viewing everything based on the vantage of lower prices and higher specs.

Obviously, rather than asking why Apple charges more for components with less specs, you should be asking the bigger question: why are Apple users HAPPY to pay and put up with it? Apparently, you are blind to the bigger questions, because you are too focused on pet views like prices and specs.

One thing I fear that is blinding you is the fact that a computer or other device is more than just the sum of its parts - it's the whole experience and how the thing works together to achieve its intended purpose.

The iMacs, for instant, don't have the latest and greatest specs for the simple reason - their not needed!

Do you really need to put a 3 GB graphic card and the fastest and latest CPU, and what not, for a machine who's intended purpose is for people who primarily want to use it just for surfing the net, playing music and videos, writing and the odd simple game? Of course not, thats over kill.

When reporting on the iMac, this is the view you should keep in mind - its intended purpose and its intended market, and not simply the cost, even though your 100% correct on that aspect, yet you utterly miss the point concerning the iMac! After all, most people know that Apple charges a premium for its premium products, so why belabor the point? After all, so do HP, Dell and others do the same for their premium products - charge more for what you could put together yourself! Even the Simpson's did a rant on the show about Apple's outrageous prices with their "Maple Store" skit! Oh, that, by the way, was a hell-of-a-lot funnier than the Windows 7 Family Guy plot, even though I'm not attacking either Windows 7 or Family Guy, which I think is too un Christian!

Now, we all know that your a smart cookie - your young, intelligent and your a good writer, but thats why I'm puzzled that you seem to ignore the bigger questions, like the one above. I'm surprised that such an intelligent young man never connected the dots - Apple users are a fanatically loyal bunch, numbering in the millions and growing by millions every year, and who are hungry for news on Apple, and various different perspctives and reviews - so, why not then, as the chief editor responsible for growing your readership, tap into that enormous market by offering Techgages's own and unique reviews? It automatically would give Techgage the opportunity to add potentially thousands of new daily readers from out of the millions of new and older Apple fans, as you can easily verify with Google web tools, that Apple, the Mac, OS X and the iPod and iPhone are among the highest traffic generaters on the web!

Seriously, if you can review a fine machine like some of the Asus laptops, then why can't you also be fair and reveiw a MacBook Pro? Why is it that Techgage's reviews Linux and Windows products, but not the popular Apple ones, as well, as if the Mac user base was small and insignificant market to simply ignore?

Try using a MacBook Pro for a change, and then, after getting use to the elegent multi-touch track pad, tell me, after you go back to using any other laptop, if you notiice something missing , something intangible?

I know that every time I thought about buying one of those cool looking HP or Toshiba Satelites, that once I start using them..... ugh...... , I noticed it almost instantly, each and every time that I do! Maybe, just maybe, if you did that you might finally realise why Mac users are more than happy to pay for a machine with less specs, but comes at higher cost, and why its more, a lot more than just the sum of its parts and price points.

PS. If your going to mention things like Apple's recent security hole, then please be fair and updated by also reporting that its been fixed already, and that it only effected a few of the millions of upgraders who only did a partial upgrade. It didnt' effect everyone who did a partial backup either, because as some sites have tried in vain to produce the same result - but failed - and after many attempts to replicate the bug! I think if more people, like myself, had experience this problem, like myself, they would have made their thoughts forceablly known by now, especially considering how pronounced it was!

 

[Rob Williams]

why do you not review Apple products,

Because Apple doesn't send us products. I have no interest in them myself, so why waste the money just to get a review up? We've tested with Apple-related content in the past, and it didn't do near as well as our other content, or our Linux content for that matter, so there's no immediate reason for me to believe we need to put much focus there. If we were to publish Apple-related content, we'd want to get in a regular habit of it, and I don't see that happening soon due to various reasons (primarily the lack of manpower, and the lack of someone willing to write such content).

what about the new Apple Magic Mouse?

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but due to the lack of time and manpower, we only get up a few news postings per day, and mice isn't high on my list of things to post about. That, and I honestly find the Magic Mouse unbelievably ugly. I'm not just saying this to fan the flames... it looks horrid. I certainly don't expect many people to agree with me.

Obviously, rather than asking why Apple charges more for components with less specs, you should be asking the bigger question: why are Apple users HAPPY to pay and put up with it? Apparently, you are blind to the bigger questions, because you are too focused on pet views like prices and specs.

Because the vast majority of people don't realize how much they're getting ripped off. They don't know one processor from the next, so of course they're going to be happy with it. If all you do is e-mail, design and light gaming, the extra power isn't going to be too noticeable (but Apple still charges a premium for this lack of power).

Do you really need to put a 3 GB graphic card and the fastest and latest CPU, and what not, for a machine who's intended purpose is for people who primarily want to use it just for surfing the net, playing music and videos, writing and the odd simple game? Of course not, thats over kill.

There doesn't exist a 3GB graphics card (nor will there ever be), but I digress. You are making the argument that there's no sense of having more power for such light tasks... but you are ignoring the fact that people are paying MORE for their lower-end parts.

When reporting on the iMac, this is the view you should keep in mind - its intended purpose and its intended market, and not simply the cost, even though your 100% correct on that aspect, yet you utterly miss the point concerning the iMac!

I am not missing the point at all. I know what the iMac is and who it's designed for. This has absolutely nothing to do with any argument I've made up to this point, so stop accusing me of overlooking such menial facts.

After all, so do HP, Dell and others do the same for their premium products - charge more for what you could put together yourself!

Apple's premiums are higher. I haven't recently seen Dell charge consumers $300 for $80 - $90 worth of parts.

as the chief editor responsible for growing your readership, tap into that enormous market by offering Techgages's own and unique reviews?

When we tested the waters with Apple content in the past, I expected a good flow of traffic, because the content was both interesting and informative. The results were less than stellar, and truth be told, even light Linux content had about 10x as much traffic. So with that known, it seems foolish to put focus on it, unless we're to have someone who is dedicated to Apple and is able to regularly write content. If we're not known as being a reputable Apple news/reviews site, we're not going to get the traffic numbers that other Apple-related sites get. If manpower was no issue, we'd undoubtedly have more Apple content. From what I've seen in the past, and with the insane lack of manpower right now, it would hurt the site more than anything to shift focus to content that hasn't proven to do well in the past.

Seriously, if you can review a fine machine like some of the Asus laptops, then why can't you also be fair and reveiw a MacBook Pro?

You seem to have ignored the fact I stated above that Apple has not been kind enough to send such a product our way. I've asked in the past many times, and nothing ever became of it. I'll follow-up within the next few months and gauge the company's interest.

Why is it that Techgage's reviews Linux and Windows products, but not the popular Apple ones, as well, as if the Mac user base was small and insignificant market to simply ignore?

I can tell you one thing... if we posted a 100% perfect MacBook Pro review on the Internet, the traffic from it wouldn't match our other notebook reviews. We're simply not known for our Apple content, and as a result, people are going to read reviews on the notebook elsewhere. Our already-established readerbase aren't heavy Mac users, so we wouldn't exactly be catering to them with such a review.

This entire thing is rather strange to me, because about 5% of our readers are on Macs, and it's been that way for a while. Yet when that content was published, it didn't get the reads I expected, and in all honesty, we'd never be able to sustain the site based on that content... the result just wasn't that good. I'd like to try again in a few months if the site situation improves, and see if anything has changed.

PS. If your going to mention things like Apple's recent security hole, then please be fair and updated by also reporting that its been fixed already, and that it only effected a few of the millions of upgraders who only did a partial upgrade.

I didn't see news of this anywhere, but I admit last week was horrible for news (as is obvious). I had so much going on throughout the week that I didn't get a chance to do much news reading/posting. The next two weeks aren't going to be stellar either, but I hope they'll be a lot better than the past two...