To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Kroc, that argument is so old and inherently flawed I'm amazed people still use it.
If computer A costs 300 EUR, and computer B 400 EUR, computer A is cheaper, whether it has more features or not. What you, and so many other Mac people, are referring to with this argument is value. 400 is more than 300, but if the customer thinks he's better off with the 400 machine, it's better value for him - but it's still not cheaper than the 300 EUR machine.
And buying a computer that doesn't have the feature you need is useless, no matter what the cost. Value is what actually matters. If your budget does not stretch beyond X, and Apple do not offer feature Y in price range X, then don't buy Apple hardware. But also, don't blame Apple for being "expensive". It's completely wrong terminology and reasoning.






Member since:
2005-11-10
The problem isn't being cheap, the problem is being a) dodgy, and b) assuming that just because a knock-off costs less $, that that means that Apple is over priced. Feature for Feature Apple is priced equal to Dell &c. PsyStar is cheaper because it has less features, pure and simple, not because Apple is expensive.
People are drawing very wrong conclusions from this article, conclusions that would have them fail basic economics or math exams.