Linked by Universal Mind on Fri 6th Aug 2010 16:16 UTC
Apple The "Macs are too expensive" argument is one of the most tiresome and long-lived flamewars in internet history. Obviously, Apple makes a premium product and charges premium prices, and you can always find a computer from another vendor that seems to match or exceed specs that costs less. But if you look at Apple's Mac Pro line, and compare it not so much to other vendors, but to the past lineup of Mac Pros, you discover some very unpleasant truths that help explain why Apple is enjoying record earnings for their Mac line, but doing so to the detriment of some its most loyal and valuable customers.
Thread beginning with comment 435730
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sat 7th Aug 2010 05:36 UTC
Member since:

I'm a die hard Mac user and wouldn't trade me iMac or MacBook Pro for anything in the world but the one thing I could never understand about the Mac Pro is the pricing of it. I say this in contrast to back when there was the PowerMac - sure it was never bargain basement but it was possible to pick up a low end PowerMac and a screen for around NZ$3,000 without too many problems. These days NZ$3,000 doesn't even buy you a low end Mac Pro - I'd love someone to explain to me what the hell has happened to their Pro line? their laptops are great, their iMacs are pretty good, I never really caught onto the whole Mac mini but hey what ever floats your boat (the MacBook Air seems to be a rip off designed for people with more dollars than sense) - the Mac Pro always seems to be the odd man out.

Are Apple trying to slowly kill it off? maybe pushing iMac instead of a low end Mac Pro? even if they did have a lower end Mac Pro they do need to provide a VESA driver for Mac OS X so that when one upgrades their video card it is possible to do a re-install without having to install the old card, install the OS, install the driver then install the new piece of hardware again.

Edited 2010-08-07 05:38 UTC

Reply Score: 3