Most people need/buy Wintel laptops. Those are in much higher demand than Apple laptops.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Silicon is Overpriced and over valued in technology market
- Thread starter trevpimp
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Take a look at the i9/32GB RAM price
I think Apple is no fool in this regard. They know where their own Macs stand compared to the other PCs in the market and so price them to be competitive with other alternatives.
This doesn’t mean Macs will be cheap, but it’s doubtful you will find something both cheaper and better.
Yup, people seem to think that Macs are expensive, and they are compared to the low end market.
But when you actually try to find something that checks all the boxes a Mac does, including frankly insane screen brightness, it becomes hard to see something that doesn’t already get you into the “premium” or “luxury” market price.
What you’ll get is a ton of people who don’t care about X or Y, but a lot of these features are a one way street. You certainly didn’t care before, but switching to something else like a 400 nit screen (which at that 400 nits will drain the battery like crazy) you realize that Apple has put together a really winning *spread* of creature comforts you really don’t want to go back from…once you’re in the pool.
And Fords are bought more than BMWs. Which doesn't mean they're in demand or offer something people need. By my definition the profit margin (and not market share) is a measure of what people really want and are willing to pay for. If you can make more profit selling a tenth of the units, how are you not the market leader? If your competition sells at cost while you are able to charge twice as much per unit, should you lower the price only to worsen your own financial strength? Or should you forget about market share and innovate yourself to an even uniquer selling proposition? Wintel laptops are bought by people, who in the past feared they can't afford a Macintosh and now fall for the sunk cost fallacy over losing their prior investment into Windows. They should listen to Elsa and let it go!
This is such a strange take.
I think you might be able to make a case that few people need more than a few hours of battery life, but one of the most frequent praises of new Apple Silicon owners is they love the amazing battery life. I didn't really care that my M1 Pro was faster than my Intel MBP because my Intel MBP was already fast enough where it mattered the most.
The battery life was my sole reason for upgrading way ahead of my usual upgrade cycle. Battery life was huge for me because there are times when I've had to limit the kind of work I would do when I was away from a power source because I was worried about running out of power.
Now it doesn't matter where I am. I don't have to plan my day around my battery anymore. I just do whatever I feel is most important to get done.
Last edited:
I upgraded from the 2016 15 inch to 2021 14 inch and I largely agree. I upgraded my 2016 because they keyboard was going bad and the fix was to "replace the logicboard" at almost 1K. GMAFB. If I was not buried 6 ft deep in the Walled Garden over the last 20 years, I would've used that purchase as an opportunity to diversify my technologies. But it's hard to break away from Apple once you're in for this long.
im ok with that price IF that thermal envelope can sustain that i9+4070
It’s definitely not an outrageous price, but it reaffirms my statement earlier in the thread that the “you can get the same thing for 1/2 the price” crowd are talking nonsense.
As for the thermal envelope, I’ve got some unfortunate news for you in this chassis…
of course...after 2-3 minutes that will perform like an i7 with 4060 ...but i will have to see it first
I 've already seen the inside and that thing cannot sustain that 45Wi9+4070, and also if you are on the go a lot...that battery for the 16" top spec is ridiculous...i think nobody should pay more than the base spec
It can't. Thermal throttling is guaranteed with all fan-cooled Intel CPUs. What now?
Yes, that's the praise but it is really accompanied with an explanation why (or if) they care. Objectively, most people shouldn't, unless they tend to use their laptops exclusively in the Starbucks (and spend the entire day over there).
Car analogies are lame. BMWs and Fords have the same features, Windows and MacOS do not. Only Windows qualifies as an enterprise OS thus it has orders of magnitude more software. Only Windows PCs offer thousands of models in wide range of prices and applications. Have you ever seen a Mac in industrial use? Me neither. Only stupid people buy something only because they can afford it. BTW, one can find much more expensive PCs (those normally would be called workstations) than Macs. By your logic then those who buy Macs are the cheapskates.
That's Apple's business model. They aren't afraid to make existing products obsolete. This is resulting in a lot of new Apple customers. I see them on r/Mac - basically Windows customers that are looking at Apple Silicon and what a migration would entail.
I agree on not needing to upgrade for a long time but I worked that way with Apple products before.
I can't see upgrading to M2 with my Studio and M1 Pro MacBook Pro. M3 might be worthwhile but it won't be a need. I can see these two systems lasting my 5-7 years. One other area that Apple has a big advantage is power consumption and that's become an important factor with electricity prices doubling in my part of the country.
My experience is the opposite. The people who spend all day at Starbucks seem to always have a power adapter with them. I rarely spend time working outside of my office so in the times I do, I'm not always prepared to work without a power source.
The things I do will deplete an Intel laptop's battery in about 90 minutes. Worse, these speed drain sessions were murder to battery health. My batteries rarely lasted longer than 2 years.
Apple Silicon was a game changer. I now have the freedom to work without restrictions wherever I want and whenever I want.
Last edited:
Absolutely. "Buy cheap, buy twice!" For most products there is a cheaper and better brand, which actually gets the job done. Which one is the right for you depends on your finances and how much you're going to use the product. I'm not driving nearly enough to afford a German car. But if I was a taxi driver in Berlin, I would of course drive a Mercedes. Like all taxi drivers do. So Macs are for people, who actually use computers and can't waste time to babysit them.
And that's why most car analogies are so bad. You can check the reasons why many taxi cars in Germany (and, essentially, only in Germany) are Mercedeses - https://www.quora.com/Why-are-taxis...-Cyprus-predominately-Mercedes-E-Class-sedans. Among other interesting reasons there are these two:
- Mercedes was the first brand in Germany to build cars with diesel engines.
- "The interesting part is Taxi licence in Germany costs around 60,000 Euros. If a driver purchases expensive car like Mercedes, then they have to pay less taxes. If they purchase low cost car, they have to pay more tax. If you compare both the option - then they find expensive car option as a better option. Hence u find many expensive cars as TAXI."
Are you kidding? Price is the only reason Windows even exists. IBM-compatible PC clones from Asia made Windows a viable platform. And back when CPUs doubled in speed every year, it was even a smart choice to buy as cheap as possible. I myself was on the Windows bandwagon for most of my life. Only iPod, iPhone and iPad turned the tide. PC makers simply couldn't innovate with razor thin profit margins and no control over both hard- and software. Now it's over for Intel and Microsoft. They can't come back from having missed mobile computing.
I mean, not really, right? Apple basically just replaced all of their Mac chips with custom silicon and are selling them for the same price as the old Intel computers. The MacBook Air is the best example of this. The Intel MBA is obviously way slower than the M1 MBA, but—when they each first came out—both were selling for roughly $1000. That means there's actually not a real Apple Silicon tax.
If anything is overpriced, it's Apple products (which I think is generally true, more for phones than computers). But everyone buying Apple products knows that. And I think that's actually less true with Apple Silicon, given the massive performance and efficiency gains, than it was with Intel. With Intel Macs, you were getting outdated Intel chips in the same price package you're now getting Apple Silicon chips with.
It will take "many years" to get an upgraded chip that's way more powerful than M1 because M1 is already very advanced. That's not a bad thing.
The usual simplifications by fans of Macs and Windows (especially of Macs, but it's normal in Macrumors...)
People don't buy many times more PCs just because they have lower prices points (although that's probably the number one reason) but also because many software applications only run on Windows, especially business apps.
Also some people want some features that are simply not available on Macs (e.g. pen support, cellular)
It's all a matter of priorities, which change from a person to the other...
For instance for me silent operation is a huge priority and Windows fanboys often come with remarks like "computers have always had fans, they have never been an issue". Well they also used to have terrible screens and slow HDDs, things have changed.
For me silent operation is more important than performance.
But I also have other priorities, like cellular. Apple fanboys say "who needs cellular when you can tether to your iPhone?!". Well I don't have a iPhone, I don't want it and I don't want to tether at all.
Battery life is an obvious benefit for a laptop, but in a world where USB C powerbanks are a thing and where you can find a 13" Thinkpad (or other brand) that weighs as much as 12" MacBook, bringing a compact 99wh powerbank that can double your battery life when you need more is not a huge deal...
So things are not as black or white as fans of each side make them seem
People don't buy many times more PCs just because they have lower prices points (although that's probably the number one reason) but also because many software applications only run on Windows, especially business apps.
Also some people want some features that are simply not available on Macs (e.g. pen support, cellular)
It's all a matter of priorities, which change from a person to the other...
For instance for me silent operation is a huge priority and Windows fanboys often come with remarks like "computers have always had fans, they have never been an issue". Well they also used to have terrible screens and slow HDDs, things have changed.
For me silent operation is more important than performance.
But I also have other priorities, like cellular. Apple fanboys say "who needs cellular when you can tether to your iPhone?!". Well I don't have a iPhone, I don't want it and I don't want to tether at all.
Battery life is an obvious benefit for a laptop, but in a world where USB C powerbanks are a thing and where you can find a 13" Thinkpad (or other brand) that weighs as much as 12" MacBook, bringing a compact 99wh powerbank that can double your battery life when you need more is not a huge deal...
So things are not as black or white as fans of each side make them seem
They are actually brilliant and get better the more you test them. Mercedes might have special rebates for taxi drivers, but so has Apple for the education sector. And Macs aren't nearly as prevalent in German universities as they are in the US. A hundred bucks off doesn't change the fact that Macs are still very expensive. You can however order your Mercedes with taxi equipment pre-installed, just like a Mac with Final Cut Pro. And their customer service will often go above and beyond to get a taxicab back on the road − reminiscent of old anecdotes from the Genius Bar.
Wether you buy a car or a computer for work, you can offset both purchases against your taxes in Germany. Of course you don't get all your money back, just a fraction of it. Otherwise everybody's work computer would be a 16-inch MacBook Pro. And a Mercedes isn't darn cheap after taxes either. There are also minor tax reasons to prefer diesel over petrol, especially if you refuel a lot. Those are comparable to the power savings of arm64 vs x86. But if you'd ask, should I buy a Mercedes Diesel? The first answer always is, you should never ever buy a new car. The price depreciation over the first year of ownership is brutal.
Only longevity, reliability and comfort over the whole lifetime can make up for the initial premium price you inevitably pay. After you have the first 500.000 kilometers on the road in your bones, you know exactly why you didn't buy a Samsung cab. It's not the economics of the deal, it's the merits of a product which you use every day. If the Windows user experience was supreme, professionals would pay any price and keep their old Vista PCs for decades.
I loathed to give up my Intel Mac for an M2. Being able to run x64 Windows and iTunes (yes, I still use iTunes) was important for me. Apple TV and the Books app (especially) are awful. But with Retroactive, you could run iTunes on the latest MacOS versions. Not so with Mx.
But the writing is on the wall for Macs and Intel. Already we are seeing features that are Mx only. But the thing that bugged me the most was that when an Intel is connected to an external monitor (like mine was for 99 percent of the time), it will only use the discreet video card. Meaning that even idle, it ran hot - 60-65c. The top part, by the base of the screen, was very hot. That can't be good long term.
I like Windows, but I prefer Mac and I really don't want to switch. But if the M2 doesn't work out, I may be forced to go Windows.
But the writing is on the wall for Macs and Intel. Already we are seeing features that are Mx only. But the thing that bugged me the most was that when an Intel is connected to an external monitor (like mine was for 99 percent of the time), it will only use the discreet video card. Meaning that even idle, it ran hot - 60-65c. The top part, by the base of the screen, was very hot. That can't be good long term.
I like Windows, but I prefer Mac and I really don't want to switch. But if the M2 doesn't work out, I may be forced to go Windows.
One way to improve the price and value of Macs is to double the RAM & SSD without changing MSRP or the SoC like below.
Future Macs could look like this
I did not add a future Mac Pro as the 2019 base model SKU starts at $5,999.
By comparison the June 2020 Developer Transition Kit had
- 8-core Apple A12Z Bionic SoC with 8 MB L3 cache
- 16GB RAM
- 512GB SSD
The Apple A12Z Bionic originally used in a March 2020 iPad Pro 11" & 12.9". 2021 & 2022 model came with a M1 & M2.
Apple knew from a use case point of view that 16GB RAM & 512GB SSD should be the norm.
| Mac model | MSRP | Chip | RAM (GB) | SSD (TB) | CPU (Core) | GPU (Core) |
| Mac Studio | $3,999 | M1 Ultra | 128 | 2 | 20 | 48 |
| MBP 16" | $3,499 | M2 Max | 64 | 2 | 12 | 38 |
| MBP 14" | $3,099 | M2 Max | 64 | 2 | 12 | 30 |
| Mac Studio | $1,999 | M1 Max | 64 | 1 | 10 | 24 |
| MBP 14" | $2,499 | M2 Pro | 32 | 2 | 12 | 19 |
| MBP 16" | $2,699 | M2 Pro | 32 | 2 | 12 | 19 |
| MBP 16" | $2,499 | M2 Pro | 32 | 1 | 12 | 19 |
| Mac mini | $1,299 | M2 Pro | 32 | 1 | 10 | 16 |
| MBP 14" | $1,999 | M2 Pro | 32 | 1 | 10 | 16 |
| Mac mini | $799 | M2 | 16 | 1 | 8 | 10 |
| Mac mini | $599 | M2 | 16 | 0.5 | 8 | 10 |
| Macbook Air | $1,499 | M2 | 16 | 1 | 8 | 10 |
| MBP 13" | $1,499 | M2 | 16 | 1 | 8 | 10 |
| MBP 13" | $1,299 | M2 | 16 | 0.5 | 8 | 10 |
| iMac 24" | $1,699 | M1 | 16 | 1 | 8 | 8 |
| iMac 24" | $1,499 | M1 | 16 | 0.5 | 8 | 8 |
| Macbook Air | $1,199 | M2 | 16 | 0.5 | 8 | 8 |
| iMac 24" | $1,299 | M1 | 16 | 0.5 | 8 | 7 |
| Macbook Air | $999 | M1 | 16 | 0.5 | 8 | 7 |
Future Macs could look like this
Mac model | MSRP | Chip | RAM (GB) | SSD (TB) | CPU (Core) | GPU (Core) |
Mac Studio | $3,999 | M2 Ultra 5nm | 128 | 2 | 24 | 60 |
Mac Studio | $1,999 | M2 Max 5nm | 64 | 1 | 12 | 30 |
Macbook 12" | $699 | A17 Bionic 3nm | 8 | 256GB | 6 | 5 |
Mac nano | $299 | A17 Bionic 3nm | 8 | 256GB | 6 | 5 |
I did not add a future Mac Pro as the 2019 base model SKU starts at $5,999.
By comparison the June 2020 Developer Transition Kit had
- 8-core Apple A12Z Bionic SoC with 8 MB L3 cache
- 16GB RAM
- 512GB SSD
The Apple A12Z Bionic originally used in a March 2020 iPad Pro 11" & 12.9". 2021 & 2022 model came with a M1 & M2.
Apple knew from a use case point of view that 16GB RAM & 512GB SSD should be the norm.
I've always argued that Macbooks weren't overpriced, even the Intel Macbook Pros. Once you configure anything that has a screen that matches Apple quality and resolution, you usually end up with a Windows laptop that is the same price or more expensive.
Not to mention with Apple, you know the build quality, and the little details such as speakers will be top notch.