Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Jun 2012 22:23 UTC
Apple Marco Arment: "After two years, the Mac Pro was 'updated' today, sort of: now we can choose slightly faster two-year-old CPUs at the top end, and the other two-year-old CPU options are cheaper now. That's about it. No Xeon E5 CPUs, no USB 3, no Thunderbolt. They're even shipping the same two-year-old graphics cards. Same motherboard, slightly different CPU options from 2010. That's it. The message is clear: Apple doesn't give a shit about the Mac Pro." Paint, red, scout, girl.
Thread beginning with comment 521720
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: But why?
by plague on Tue 12th Jun 2012 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: But why? "
plague
Member since:
2006-05-08

The problem with that statement is most people compare a Macbook to the cheapest possible PC notebook. (why?)
Ofcourse the cheapest possible PC notebook won't be nearly as fast or nearly as reliable or nearly as sturdy. It's like a third of the price, so you get a third of the value, or even less since it's the cheapest possible, meaning the crappiest possible. Compare a PC notebook with the same price as a Macbook, and things get more interesting. In that segment you can choose from either hardware with way more power than the Mac, or a sturdy, reliable chassis, or a nice design, or in many cases a pretty nice mix of everything. Many people praise the new Macbook Pro with Retina Display. But the damn thing cost a shit-tonne of money, so _ofcourse_ it's going to have a nice display. Anything less would be insane. There are PC notebooks with insanely high resolution displays aswell, but they also cost alot of money.

Edited 2012-06-12 17:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: But why?
by MOS6510 on Tue 12th Jun 2012 17:05 in reply to "RE[5]: But why? "
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I think the people for which the retina MacBook is intended have loads of money. They're most likely photo and video professionals.

The only thing your buying is the display, it's just a ordinary MacBook Pro otherwise.

It's the same as with the first MacBook Air. IIRC it was even more expensive and the only thing you would buy was less weight and less size. The only people that would tend to buy it were people who fly a lot, meaning they probably had money too.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: But why?
by plague on Tue 12th Jun 2012 17:12 in reply to "RE[6]: But why? "
plague Member since:
2006-05-08

Yea, although that won't stop my annoying collegue from going on and on how "Apple innovated again! PC's suck!", etc.. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: But why?
by libray on Tue 12th Jun 2012 19:47 in reply to "RE[5]: But why? "
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

Macbooks are very unreliable

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: But why?
by moondevil on Wed 13th Jun 2012 06:18 in reply to "RE[5]: But why? "
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

There are PC notebooks with insanely high resolution
displays aswell, but they also cost alot of money.


True, but they are still cheaper than Macs when comparing overall technical specs.

Just check this Lenovo ThinkPad W520 mobile graphics workstation. It has the same price range as Apple's offerings, yet it offers the double the juice in computing power and connectivity.

http://tinyurl.com/cgfcvvp

Reply Parent Score: 2