Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is such a FUD dealing (fear, uncertainty, doubt...just learned that term!) post. Are the specs underwhelming? Well they seem to have designed a machine with a 5k display that can satisfy the needs of nearly every 'home' professional creative person working today. There are specialized applications that may need a beefier machine, but those users are free to get those machines. The iMac in it's current state can handle photo files from the highest end cameras without problems (i.e. the Hasselblad H6D 100mp back or Phase One IQ3 100). It can edit 4k for everything from home projects to independent features, and that's not even getting into the fact that 4k is hugely overrated for most applications (Star Wars the Force Awakens was widely distributed in 2k, for instance).

So basically if you're Annie Leibovitz working with the best possible equipment, the iMac will work for you. If you're the next Tarantino working on an independent film, the iMac will work for you (even if you shoot film, or 4k!).

The iMac may not work for YOU, but you can't apply that thinking to everyone else. I would venture to say that the iMac actually works for the vast majority of creative professionals, which IMO was always it's high end target market.
 
I don't recommend people to go for a PC over a Mac because what isn't being mentioned, is Windows.

I can't think of anything less user friendly and all around abysmal than the Windows operating system.

So even given the fact that Macs in terms of hardware are not such a good value, I still will only recommend Mac and will never recommend a Windows PC under any circumstances.


I think that depends on the user. For anyone commenting on a tech blog, I'm going to assume they can easily handle switching between the two OS's. Windows 10 and 7 aren't really that bad. Sure, there's some quirks, just like there are on OS X. Do I prefer OS X? Yes, but I also have to use a Windows 10 PC at work and if you are using Adobe, Office, etc. there's no difference between the two. Windows 10 even has basically the same notification setup as OS X at this point. And the built in mail and calendar apps operate the same way as well.
 
im not saying the build is inherently better, i acknowledge the iMac has several advantages over the build, especially if we compare the 5K model. im not doing this out of spite for the iMac, i just enjoy speccing out machines and i actually wanna know myself how much a whitebox costs compared to an equal iMac. i know we wont come to a point where we agree in unison that either is better, i just think its fun to compare


Also for @throAU

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/sFbnsY

i have updated the list to include speakers, wi-fi and monitor usb ports. as well thunderbolt. as for the SSD, please tell me what iMac SKU we are comparing with. according to apple`s own site, no iMac comes with a non-sata SSD as default. the model ive been comparing with is the $2,299.00 Radeon R9 M395 5K iMac seen here http://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac

also, why bring up Windows? its true that non-pro Windows is lacking and all, but you told me to waiver Windows so assumed we were only comparing hardware. though we can of course throw Windows pro in there as well
If you're wanting to equal an iMac 5K, you're going to need this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081827-REG/dell_up2715k_27_5k_5120x2880_computer_monitor.html. That's $1,569 just for a comparable display.

Also, the 2015 iMac comes with 1866 MHz DDR3, not 1600. And a PCIe SSD, not SATA (the $2,299 3.3/M395 model comes with a 2 TB SATA HDD+128 GB PCIe SSD or 256 GB PCIe SSD which can reach speeds of over 1.5 GB/s).

The 5K iMac is not a low-end computer. And IMO, the cost is justified more than any other Mac in the lineup because of the 5K display, discrete GPU, PCIe 4x SSD, and quad-core CPU.
 
If you're wanting to equal an iMac 5K, you're going to need this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081827-REG/dell_up2715k_27_5k_5120x2880_computer_monitor.html. That's $1,569 just for a comparable display.

Also, the 2015 iMac comes with 1866 MHz DDR3, not 1600. And a PCIe SSD, not SATA (the $2,299 3.3/M395 model comes with a 2 TB SATA HDD+128 GB PCIe SSD or 256 GB PCIe SSD which can reach speeds of over 1.5 GB/s).

The 5K iMac is not a low-end computer. And IMO, the cost is justified more than any other Mac in the lineup because of the 5K display, discrete GPU, PCIe 4x SSD, and quad-core CPU.


The person in question requested a 4K ips display, i guess to give the PC a fair chance. as for the RAM. the iMac RAM has a CAS Latency of 11 according to this site https://www.macramdirect.com/imac.html

while the G.Skill RAM has a CAS Latency of 9. so the pc ram might actually be faster. in addition, it can be overclocked to 1866MHz. so the pc build does have equal or better RAM.

however, you are right about the 5K iMac being a good value. factoring in the 5K display, its just about impossible to make a cheaper pc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU
You have to buy Apple devices at the right time when they are appearing first time with brand new features. I bought the 2014 i7 4GHz 5K iMac with 256 GB SSD and at that time it was top notch spec wise and priced right. I upgraded cheap with 32GB RAM and 1 TB Thunderbolt SSD and that iMac has the same performance and price than the actual 2016 iMac (the 2015 update did not change that much) but I used it for nearly two years now.

You may have to wait for the next iMac with some ground breaking new features and upgraded specs to get a better price/performance ratio....
Between releases that will change, but there's nothing wrong with taking it on a per release basis.

Sometimes pinpointing for the best possible release doesn't coincide with the time you actually need the machine... however if it is determined to be the optimal year to buy it (in addition to the optimal period of time after the release itself), then you've just made the best purchase you could.

I think anyone would strive for that (myself included).
 
The 5k iMac might be value for money and all but it is not definitely not long lasting. If it breaks and if you are not covered under warranty, you are pretty much toast. You want to upgrade the spinner to a SSD cause there is a sale on and you can get one for cheap? All then get ready to open up that monitor ...adhesive and all. So while the iMac might be a good initial buy, it definitely does not work out in the long run.

I don't recommend people to go for a PC over a Mac because what isn't being mentioned, is Windows.

I can't think of anything less user friendly and all around abysmal than the Windows operating system.

So even given the fact that Macs in terms of hardware are not such a good value, I still will only recommend Mac and will never recommend a Windows PC under any circumstances.

While I am in the Apple ecosystem only for OSX, I will switch to Windows if Apple continues to sell disposable computers...desktops and laptops. I have personally lost 3 macbook pros in the past and I am on the 4th one. If this one breaks, I am done. Windows 10 is not all that bad. It is not OSX...sure but at least it can get the job done. I will of course develop on a nice Linux distribution that I can easily spin up, multiple instances of them, on a Windows based 32gig RAM DIY PC :)
 
Premium PCs, and by 'premium' I don't mean specs, I mean build quality, screen, etc - cost as much as Macs. Just take a look at a quality keyboard from, say, Razer, it can cost $100 or more. A great Logitech mouse is also $100 (like the Performance MX or MX Master). It all adds up (high end laptops cost the same or even more than MacBook Pros, for example). Sure, you may not like Apple keyboard/mouse/trackpad but they ARE premium (for example, if you want optics of the same quality of a Magic Mouse, you have to get a Dark Field Logitech mouse for a similar price) iMacs also come with that 10-bit 5K screen (even if you want 'just' 4K, a 10-bit 4K Dell is expensive). Then you have thunderbolt ports, fast Wifi, etc. Also, how much does it cost to get a PCI-e SSD for a PC? A typical Samsung 850 EVO SSD is has around 400-500Mbps speeds, new iMacs have them around 1200Mbps.

Add all that and you'll see that PCs cost just the same, even more.

HOWEVER - most people don't really need those things. You can get a great CPU/GPU combo for a lot less money, put an 'ordinary' SSD in there, get serviceable peripherals for $50 total and have a computer that works great.

It really comes down to what you like, what you can afford, etc. People pay insane amounts of money for watches, clothes, jewelry, even stuff like dishes - but they somehow have a problem with expensive computers (not just Macs, same goes for fancy PCs). I guess it comest down to this - do you think of your computer as a tool, something like a hammer, or do you consider it a device you're passionate about?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: throAU
I've been watching this conversation play out on the Mac Pro, iMac and Mac Mini forums for over the past year now and I have conclude that the Mac is an appliance meaning once you buy it your stuck with what you have. There is no path to upgrade it. A PC has access to the motherboard and processor, power supply, ram and drives.

The old Mac Pros and Mac Minis and even the iMacs use to have this advantage then also and made them worth the premium price. Now that they are appliances they no longer can compete with a PC.

You can especially see this with the Mac Pro people switching back to PC workstations. If you prefer the premium pretty iMac and don't care to upgrade or fix it if it breaks then buy the appliance.

If you want a computer that is user serviceable and upgradeable buy a PC. They both will do the same job in the end.
 
I've been watching this conversation play out on the Mac Pro, iMac and Mac Mini forums for over the past year now and I have conclude that the Mac is an appliance meaning once you buy it your stuck with what you have. There is no path to upgrade it. A PC has access to the motherboard and processor, power supply, ram and drives.

The old Mac Pros and Mac Minis and even the iMacs use to have this advantage then also and made them worth the premium price. Now that they are appliances they no longer can compete with a PC.

You can especially see this with the Mac Pro people switching back to PC workstations. If you prefer the premium pretty iMac and don't care to upgrade or fix it if it breaks then buy the appliance.

If you want a computer that is user serviceable and upgradeable buy a PC. They both will do the same job in the end.


Fewer people than ever require even a desktop computer in the home. This makes sense. I use my iMac for my business but most people I know who have regular jobs don't need anything more than a Macbook, if that. An iPad works for many of them too. Given that I've gotten 7 years out of my iMac as it is now and I'm still editing 2k pro res and 51.1mp raw files without too many problems, I'm still satisfied with my initial investment. I agree with you that users how want to tinker with their machines will not be satisfied with a Mac, but I don't think that Apple needs to address it. It would cost them a ton of money to build up pro level workstations and their return would be minimal compared to everything else they do.

Keep in mind this is a company that used to be known for the iMac, and Mac Pro towers, and will soon be releasing a freaking CAR. They're just not nor do they need to be worried about a handful of disgruntled forum posters.
 
This is such a FUD dealing (fear, uncertainty, doubt...just learned that term!) post. Are the specs underwhelming? Well they seem to have designed a machine with a 5k display that can satisfy the needs of nearly every 'home' professional creative person working today. There are specialized applications that may need a beefier machine, but those users are free to get those machines. The iMac in it's current state can handle photo files from the highest end cameras without problems (i.e. the Hasselblad H6D 100mp back or Phase One IQ3 100). It can edit 4k for everything from home projects to independent features, and that's not even getting into the fact that 4k is hugely overrated for most applications (Star Wars the Force Awakens was widely distributed in 2k, for instance).

So basically if you're Annie Leibovitz working with the best possible equipment, the iMac will work for you. If you're the next Tarantino working on an independent film, the iMac will work for you (even if you shoot film, or 4k!).

The iMac may not work for YOU, but you can't apply that thinking to everyone else. I would venture to say that the iMac actually works for the vast majority of creative professionals, which IMO was always it's high end target market.

I get it that for techies and nerds who want to (and are capable of) building/upgrading their rigs that this is an inconvenience ... but I'd estimate off the top of my head that the extreme majority of iMac owners don't need all of the power that they are buying, and most likely aren't kvetching about one size hard drive/SSD over another or over the amount of RAM beyond 8GB (possibly even over 4GB).

It is somewhat "disposable" in the sense of buy it, use it until it no longer serves your needs and then replace it.
 
It is somewhat "disposable" in the sense of buy it, use it until it no longer serves your needs and then replace it.
This irks me to no end! We are already paying a premium...at least, lets not make them disposable. The whole idea was that you pay a premium and the fruity things last you a long time.

And also, a little hypocritical of Apple given their alleged focus on the environment. How are they helping the environment? By creating disposable equipment and then offering to recycle them? Better approach would have been to create long lasting equipment and hence a lesser need to recycle.

People need to start voting with their wallets I suppose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexGraphicD
This irks me to no end! We are already paying a premium...at least, lets not make them disposable. The whole idea was that you pay a premium and the fruity things last you a long time.

And also, a little hypocritical of Apple given their alleged focus on the environment. How are they helping the environment? By creating disposable equipment and then offering to recycle them? Better approach would have been to create long lasting equipment and hence a lesser need to recycle.

People need to start voting with their wallets I suppose.

I just retired a 2010 white unibody MacBook - that's 6 years old... and handed down my 2012 rMBP to my son when I bought my iMac... also, still running a 2010 Mac Mini as my home media server... not sure how long your Windows machines continue to be functional and useful, but I have no problem with a $500 Mac Mini still serving its appointed function after 6 years (and no end in sight).

Just curious - if 6 years and still going strong is not "long lasting equipment", please provide your definition.
 
I just retired a 2010 white unibody MacBook - that's 6 years old... and handed down my 2012 rMBP to my son when I bought my iMac... also, still running a 2010 Mac Mini as my home media server... not sure how long your Windows machines continue to be functional and useful, but I have no problem with a $500 Mac Mini still serving its appointed function after 6 years (and no end in sight).

Just curious - if 6 years and still going strong is not "long lasting equipment", please provide your definition.

Irrespective of the manufacturer, all gadgets are prone to failure. It is not a question of if but when. Equipment become long lasting when, after failure, they can serviced easily at a respectable price point.

Macs are not infallible. What is the plan if the SSD is shot in the current MacBooks or iMacs ? Or perhaps the RAM modules? And just to make it interesting, lets say you are out of the warranty period.

You are lucky that your fruit things have lasted you long. I, on the other hand, have not been so lucky. I had to dispose 3 MBPs cause of graphic card failures (the last one I sold it dirt cheap to a willing buyer). I am very intimately familiar with Apple's ability to fail.

I have both the MBP 2015 (my 4th one and probably the last one) and the Dell M4800...different class of machines but Dells allow for the user to service the machine on his own in case of a failure. This is the case even for the Dell XPS 15 which is the current MBP's competitor in terms of dimensions and specs.

I prefer OSX to Windows (and that explains why I am on the 4th MBP) but I think Apple will do well to tweak their designs for the Macbook Pros. IMO, more often than not, people who buy the 15" MBP are technically aware. People that are not too aware (or are aware but don't need the extra performance) will probably plonk in money for the Airs and MacBooks. I just pulled this out of thin air - no stats so this can be argued. Nevertheless, the audience for the 15" would probably not mind a slightly thicker case if it allowed some user serviceability.

Apple is choosing to build hardware this way and they don't have to. Laptops and desktops are not mobile phones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU
I'm sick of this crap with everyone's responses. When you buy a "Desktop" CPU irregardless of the design. You are supposed to get "Desktop" parts inside the machine whether it's a tower or an all in one.

I think we should all ban together and file a "Class action lawsuit", This is fraudulent and the goddamn iMac costs warrant real desktop internals for the price. If I'm going to drop $3k on a new CPU, Then it better have $3k worth of components inside and not $900 worth of laptop crap internally. That is what the iMac has at this time. Un-acceptable for what were paying for.
 
but I'd estimate off the top of my head that the extreme majority of iMac owners don't need all of the power that they are buying, and most likely aren't kvetching about one size hard drive/SSD over another or over the amount of RAM beyond 8GB (possibly even over 4GB).

Oh, but you're reading the wrong sources. A proper computer is built around the video card, with the other components minimally specified in order to not "bottleneck" your shiny new GTX 1080. Also, water cooling is neato.
 
If Windows wasn't user friendly, it wouldn't be on 90% of computers.

So how do you explain DOS running on over 90% of computers back in the day then? It had a far larger market share than Mac OS, Amiga, Atari ST, etc.

There were plenty of far more user friendly alternatives.


edit:
And yes, I said 4k IPS display because last i checked you can't actually buy a 5k display for a PC. But looks like someone found one above. At a significant percentage of the iMac cost. So that's kinda screwed your BOM, yes? Also, not clear if that 5k monitor is only 30hz - AFAIK the standard for >4k @60Hz (like the iMac 5k does) doesn't exist on the market yet... but i could have outdated knowledge on that.

[doublepost=1462685292][/doublepost]
See that's the thing though. Apple puts all those awesome and expensive features on the iMac with an underwhelming 5200 rpm spinner. Just why? It doesn't make sense.

Only if you choose the spinner. No, it doesn't make sense, but some people obviously order it because of cost or maybe they just don't trust SSDs, or need the space but can't afford terabytes of SSD?

I suspect the spinner disk option will go away within a generation as SSD is now cheap enough.

I brough up the Pro vs. Home windows discussion because someone asked based on a previous post I made.

OS X is OS X - there's no pro version other than the server app. Windows home has quite a lot of features crippled or removed from it that you get for free in OS X. Sure, not many people use bit locker, but you get file vault on OS X for free... just for one example.



AS to the specs Apple pick - no, they never put the highest spec available in stuff. They generally pick the sweet spot in terms of bang for buck for the middle model, and go up/down slightly for the cheaper/better models.

You may not like the choices but for the majority it makes reasonable sense and enables them to split their model lineup into clear segments. If the iMac 5k doesn't do what you want, you become a Mac Pro customer. No you may not like it, but then you have the opportunity to buy something else.


My point with the price comparison suggestion was to illustrate how close it is, even with a PC built from parts that you have to assemble, that doesn't include the same quality peripherals, doesn't even include an OS, and has no single source of support. People struggle to build a comparable machine based on parts cost alone, when they actually include everything supplied... the remaining things (OS X, single source of support, the nice all in one unit with 5k display), etc. are all gravy.

if the spec doesn't exactly match what you want, you have 2 choices: buy/build something else, or suck it up and accept the price premium as the cost of using OS X (and the features it includes), getting Apple's best in the industry support.

Again, i stand by the fact that for what you actually get, Apple machines are good value. If you do not value decent support, good quality peripherals and pleasant aesthetic design, then fine. Don't buy them. But to assume that this stuff costs nothing and can be excluded from a PC build to "prove" that Apple is overpriced is just being silly.

May as well ague that people are stupid for buying red cars because you don't like red.
[doublepost=1462685822][/doublepost]
I'm sick of this crap with everyone's responses. When you buy a "Desktop" CPU irregardless of the design. You are supposed to get "Desktop" parts inside the machine whether it's a tower or an all in one.

I think we should all ban together and file a "Class action lawsuit", This is fraudulent and the goddamn iMac costs warrant real desktop internals for the price. If I'm going to drop $3k on a new CPU, Then it better have $3k worth of components inside and not $900 worth of laptop crap internally. That is what the iMac has at this time. Un-acceptable for what were paying for.


Good luck with that. The cost of an iMac is (as described above) not the sum cost of the internal components only. That's not what you're buying.

Oh yeah, not sure on iMac SSD speed, but i've seen over 1400MB/sec sustained out of my MBP. to get that with SATA SSDs (to do it cheaply without using a PCIe card on a PC) you'd need a 3x RAID0 stripe. And thus have 3x the potential failure rate, assuming equal quality SSDs to the Mac.
[doublepost=1462686413][/doublepost]
This irks me to no end! We are already paying a premium...at least, lets not make them disposable. The whole idea was that you pay a premium and the fruity things last you a long time.

Not all people buy Macs on the basis of them lasting a long time. I still assume mine will need replacement after 3-4 years once the warranty runs out and they will potentially break outside of warrant, just like any other PC. Because that's what the components inside are. There's no magical apple secret sauce to defend against hardware failure.

The reason I pay a premium is for OS X, trackpads that don't suck, an OS that doesn't suck (and you have no idea, Windows in the enterprise is my day job - i use windows because i have to, i use OS X and pay the premium because i WANT to).

After 3-4 years time has moved on enough anyway that if you're the type to be whining about spec, you'd be upgrading or replacing your PC anyway. Most likely replacing almost all of it, as CPU sockets change, RAM sockets change, PCIe standards change, USB standards change, display port standards change, etc. Sure you might do it piecemeal instead of all at once, but that's just a personal budgeting problem - if you put the money away over 3 years to replace the hardware, be it a Mac or a PC, that should not be a problem to do all in one hit.
 
Last edited:
This is fraudulent and the goddamn iMac costs warrant real desktop internals for the price. If I'm going to drop $3k on a new CPU, Then it better have $3k worth of components inside and not $900 worth of laptop crap internally

The price of a i7-6700K is $339

The price of a m7-6Y75 is $393

which would you rather see in your computer?
 
So how do you explain DOS running on over 90% of computers back in the day then? It had a far larger market share than Mac OS, Amiga, Atari ST, etc.

There were plenty of far more user friendly alternatives.


edit:
And yes, I said 4k IPS display because last i checked you can't actually buy a 5k display for a PC. But looks like someone found one above. At a significant percentage of the iMac cost. So that's kinda screwed your BOM, yes? Also, not clear if that 5k monitor is only 30hz - AFAIK the standard for >4k @60Hz (like the iMac 5k does) doesn't exist on the market yet... but i could have outdated knowledge on that.

[doublepost=1462685292][/doublepost]

Only if you choose the spinner. No, it doesn't make sense, but some people obviously order it because of cost or maybe they just don't trust SSDs, or need the space but can't afford terabytes of SSD?

I suspect the spinner disk option will go away within a generation as SSD is now cheap enough.

I brough up the Pro vs. Home windows discussion because someone asked based on a previous post I made.

OS X is OS X - there's no pro version other than the server app. Windows home has quite a lot of features crippled or removed from it that you get for free in OS X. Sure, not many people use bit locker, but you get file vault on OS X for free... just for one example.



AS to the specs Apple pick - no, they never put the highest spec available in stuff. They generally pick the sweet spot in terms of bang for buck for the middle model, and go up/down slightly for the cheaper/better models.

You may not like the choices but for the majority it makes reasonable sense and enables them to split their model lineup into clear segments. If the iMac 5k doesn't do what you want, you become a Mac Pro customer. No you may not like it, but then you have the opportunity to buy something else.


My point with the price comparison suggestion was to illustrate how close it is, even with a PC built from parts that you have to assemble, that doesn't include the same quality peripherals, doesn't even include an OS, and has no single source of support. People struggle to build a comparable machine based on parts cost alone, when they actually include everything supplied... the remaining things (OS X, single source of support, the nice all in one unit with 5k display), etc. are all gravy.

if the spec doesn't exactly match what you want, you have 2 choices: buy/build something else, or suck it up and accept the price premium as the cost of using OS X (and the features it includes), getting Apple's best in the industry support.

Again, i stand by the fact that for what you actually get, Apple machines are good value. If you do not value decent support, good quality peripherals and pleasant aesthetic design, then fine. Don't buy them. But to assume that this stuff costs nothing and can be excluded from a PC build to "prove" that Apple is overpriced is just being silly.

May as well ague that people are stupid for buying red cars because you don't like red.
[doublepost=1462685822][/doublepost]


Good luck with that. The cost of an iMac is (as described above) not the sum cost of the internal components only. That's not what you're buying.

Oh yeah, not sure on iMac SSD speed, but i've seen over 1400MB/sec sustained out of my MBP. to get that with SATA SSDs (to do it cheaply without using a PCIe card on a PC) you'd need a 3x RAID0 stripe. And thus have 3x the potential failure rate, assuming equal quality SSDs to the Mac.
[doublepost=1462686413][/doublepost]

Not all people buy Macs on the basis of them lasting a long time. I still assume mine will need replacement after 3-4 years once the warranty runs out and they will potentially break outside of warrant, just like any other PC. Because that's what the components inside are. There's no magical apple secret sauce to defend against hardware failure.

The reason I pay a premium is for OS X, trackpads that don't suck, an OS that doesn't suck (and you have no idea, Windows in the enterprise is my day job - i use windows because i have to, i use OS X and pay the premium because i WANT to).

After 3-4 years time has moved on enough anyway that if you're the type to be whining about spec, you'd be upgrading or replacing your PC anyway. Most likely replacing almost all of it, as CPU sockets change, RAM sockets change, PCIe standards change, USB standards change, display port standards change, etc. Sure you might do it piecemeal instead of all at once, but that's just a personal budgeting problem - if you put the money away over 3 years to replace the hardware, be it a Mac or a PC, that should not be a problem to do all in one hit.

Wow the love for Apple really made you blind, and as mentioned before the specialist on this subjects. It's always refreshing to see how you guys stand up out of nowhere to tell the world how fair Apples product pricing is. Since you get all the inside information to actually make a claim like that. Say hi to Tim btw next Time your sitting get down with him.
Maybe he can also tell you where the multi billion profits come from? Probably from the people donating for the free OS. And think again as you put 350dollar on the counter at the apple store for a RAM upgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexGraphicD
Wow the love for Apple really made you blind, and as mentioned before the specialist on this subjects. It's always refreshing to see how you guys stand up out of nowhere to tell the world how fair Apples product pricing is. Since you get all the inside information to actually make a claim like that. Say hi to Tim btw next Time your sitting get down with him.
Maybe he can also tell you where the multi billion profits come from? Probably from the people donating for the free OS. And think again as you put 350dollar on the counter at the apple store for a RAM upgrade.

Oh i am convinced. You're correct.

:rolleyes:


edit:
On the contrary, i've owned a variety of machines since the 80s and use the right tool for the job. For me.

Apple make massive profits because they offer a product that people value. If people did not value it, they would not buy it - and apple would not be able to sell it.

You are free to disagree with the value for you (perhaps you do not value your time, and would rather spend it playing system builder/technician - i do that for my day job with Windows machines doing SOE development and testing), but for many people, they consider the combination of factors to be worth it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AZhappyjack
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.