Yeah, right. As if people use the same criteria for buying cars and computers. Perhaps some Apple fans do, normal people do not.
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.
Initial Hands-On Impressions of the New MacBook Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, right. As if people use the same criteria for buying cars and computers. Perhaps some Apple fans do, normal people do not.
my 3 year old laptop had a 64GB SSD that can read at 220MB/s, it booted windows 7 ultimate 64bit from power off to desktop with google chrome open in less than 32 seconds.
nearly all applications opened instantly with the exception of VMware (simply becuase i would have to wait for some guest OS's to boot)
I do not care what typical Apple user perceives. Their perception is usually shaped up by Apple brainwashing. If MBA user saves 5 seconds on boot time (once a day) and then loses 10 seconds on every command in PhotoShop, I'd say those users are really stupid if they think that they got "fast" computer.
Ah yeah, I keep forgetting. Apple gets to be the second largest company on the planet (by Market Cap). The most profitable cellphone manufacturer in the world. And now (I think) the most profitable PC manufacturer in the US.
All because it's customers, and no one else's, are stupid and brainwashed.
I keep forgetting that!
I wonder why these less-successful companies, don't follow Apple's example and try selling to these stupid rich people too?
C.
I just know the reason I want a fast computer is I don't want to feel like I'm waiting for the computer to do something. I just want it to do what I want when I want. Some loading time is a necessary evil, but less loading time makes me happier. And if the computer is so slow/out of date that it is lagging everytime it is given a command, then I think any average user is going to percieve it as too slow (I think most people will forgive some loading up time of applications long as it isn't a super long amount of time).
I like faster computers cause I like my stuff to just pop up and the computer to do it instantly. I think we are in general spoiled today that most computers can mostly handle that. Thing is newer programs that take more advantage of the more powerful computers come in and then make the computer seem slow again.
Though now that it seems that technology has slowed down some, you may see more programming actually trying to be efficient so the program doesn't take a long time for most computers to load.
But yeah, most people aren't going to care that htey have the fastest computer (unlike cars where some of that was social status posturing. Most non geeks don't use their computers to show how "cool" they are). They just want it to do the stuff they need it for. So I think more people are more practical about the computer they choose (unless you are a geek like me
).
Sorry, but that's not remotely enough space. 64GB? That might have been enough space in 1999....
What does a 500GB SSD cost these days? That's what I'm talking about.
Dude, my NETBOOK has 250GB in it for goodness sake. My MBP has 500GB and I wish it could hold at least 1TB. I don't know what your idea of "regular laptop activities" is, but I use my MBP for video editing (Final Cut Pro) and music production (Logic Pro). The latter requires mobility (I dock for the former). Yes, I have external storage for it as well, but I prefer mobility on the road. It came with 320GB and that wasn't cutting it. 64 GB wouldn't be enough for music production all by itself (not even using most other apps), let alone video editing and storage. All to get a shorter boot time? You've got to be kidding me. That's not where my priorities are. It wakes from sleep in a couple of seconds as it is.
Boot? I believe I was talking about loading apps. You said a couple of seconds. Safari loads in 2-3 seconds here already. OSX boots from power off in under a minute here anyway on my 7200 RPM drive. Most of the I'm waking from sleep which is nearly instant.
What exactly does this have to do with the technical merits of the computers? Also, check Yahoo finance. It shows that HP's gross profit (ttm) is 23B vs 17B for Apple so HP is a more profitable PC makers than Apple. Besides, most profits for Apple nowadays come from consumer electronics.
And some people just don't get quality and user experience
The way pc notebooks last and fly apart it's cheaper to own mac's in the long run plus you truly enjoy the machine and OS everyday you're using it.
Its not rich people who flock to mac's it's smart people
64 GB might as well be 16 GB. Maybe next year. Apple's warranty is fun with what you can do for only only $149 or even less.
And some people just don't get quality and user experience
The way pc notebooks last and fly apart it's cheaper to own mac's in the long run plus you truly enjoy the machine and OS everyday you're using it.
Its not rich people who flock to mac's it's smart people
Not rich? Are you sure? We all read the results of some research that said: "Multiple computer ownership is a common thread in Apple computer households, with 66 percent of households owning three or more computers, compared to just 29 percent of Windows PC households." Whether it is a smart thing to buy overpriced and under-performing computers it's hard to tell.
Sorry, but that's not remotely enough space. 64GB? That might have been enough space in 1999....
What does a 500GB SSD cost these days? That's what I'm talking about.
Dude, my NETBOOK has 250GB in it for goodness sake. My MBP has 500GB and I wish it could hold at least 1TB. I don't know what your idea of "regular laptop activities" is, but I use my MBP for video editing (Final Cut Pro) and music production (Logic Pro). The latter requires mobility (I dock for the former). Yes, I have external storage for it as well, but I prefer mobility on the road. It came with 320GB and that wasn't cutting it. 64 GB wouldn't be enough for music production all by itself (not even using most other apps), let alone video editing and storage. All to get a shorter boot time? You've got to be kidding me. That's not where my priorities are. It wakes from sleep in a couple of seconds as it is.
Boot? I believe I was talking about loading apps. You said a couple of seconds. Safari loads in 2-3 seconds here already. OSX boots from power off in under a minute here anyway on my 7200 RPM drive. Most of the I'm waking from sleep which is nearly instant.
You should re-read your post from the perspective of the other 90% of computer-using humanity -- people who don't play World of Warcraft and folks who don't make movies on their portable laptop. Read it from that perspective and it will seem pretty ridiculous.
There's an obvious market for the MBA. I've got multiple computers -- so, the fact that mine has 128GB (even 64) isn't the slightest issue. I only need what I need.
For a lot of people, MBA would be a great choice.
It isn't too bad if you consider the difference in price between the 128GB and 256GB SSD options in the MacBook Pro ($450).
Well, here's my perspective. I don't really play many games (I like stuff like Sims and Sim City when I do). And as much as I think I'd have fun video editing I don't do that either. My computer is basically for job searching/internet browsing/playing music/storing my pictures and videos I take with my iphone.
And 128 GB is too small if you ask me.
That being said, I agree with you that there is a market for the MBA (particularly the 11", I think the 13" competes too much with the MBP which really isn't that much bigger and has more RAM, hard drive, more ports, and is a much more suitable desktop replacement cause of all this as well as being pretty portable if not as portable as the 13" Air, and is cheaper to boot and on top of that has better battery life. I'm sure some people will pick it over the MBP, mainly those who are just buying a supplemental travel computer but even in that market I bet some will get swayed to just go ahead and get the MBP for the fact it has better specs, better battery, and cheaper price. If nothing else for the cheaper price).
I think it's for people who just want a second computer to take with them (that don't care that it be their main computer, just something to use while they are gone. I personally like being able to take my main computer with me which is why I replaced my desktop with my 13" MBP but got 13" cause the point of a laptop is to be mobile. I doubt the MBA is really marketed towards people like me though).
And honestly, I think it has some good stuff that hopefully they'll eventually take advantage of in the future 13" MBP (without getting rid of the stuff that makes it still suitable as a desktop replacement).
I went and looked at them in person today and I was pretty impressed. Snazzy computers, it's pretty impressive to have a full computer in that small pacakge. If I wanted a netbook (or an iPad) I personally think it would probably be worth it to spend more money and get one of those.
Gotta love these studies. Tell me, did the study actually make a link to household income? Did they actually go so far as to assess why these households bought the second or third computer?
If there is no link to household income the only conclusion you can reasonably draw is that the households were for all other purposes equal - so here is the conclusion I draw from it.
First computer enters the household, and the residents get to see what you can do with it, and what is like to use, and can then actually make on informed decision on wether they want to get one for themselves, and whether what they have to pay for that is worth while.
66 percent of households who buy Macs think they are value for money and go and buy more.
71 percent of household who buy PCs don't think they are value for money, and do not buy any more.
Is anyone concerned that because of Intel's hissy fit with NVIDIA that Apple is using way out of date processors?
we are paying a huge price for chips that are really not worth much at all when compared to Intel's new offerings.
I love the form factor and everything else, but please Apple give us the best when it comes to the chips.
we are paying a huge price for chips that are really not worth much at all when compared to Intel's new offerings.
I love the form factor and everything else, but please Apple give us the best when it comes to the chips.
Also,one may like to factor in the possibility that one or more of these "3 or more" computers in the household may be old Macs which are still happily chugging away years after their Windows counterparts have formed part of a landfill in some third-world country.
Perhaps you should read the post again. Apple make more money from PC sales than HP or Acer or Dell or Asus or Lenovo.
To establish this, you need to compare like with like. You should compare Apples' Mac sales against HP's PSG division (~$5B for Mac vs ~$450M for HP).
I ask again, if this is down to Apple customers being stupid, why don't PC manufacturers target the same stupid audience?
You see it's not about technical merit, its about consumer value. It the simple failure to comprehend that fact which causes engineering-led companies to have 5% profit margins.
C.
It was also three times the volume and nearly twice the weight. I think you're missing the point.
get over it
How insecure are folks that they must constantly belittle PC users and PC companies? This kind of made sense back in the powerpc days when macs and PCs had nothing in common. But these days macs are running on commodity hardware. The majority of the mac line is based on Intel notebook chips. The mac mini, Imac, macbook, macbook air, and macbook pro are all the same beast in different clothes. And as anyone knows that gear runs windows just dandy. So what seperates you elitist world from the dregs of PC loserness? Your OS. You are being elitists over an operating system.
Reminds me of BSD vs Solaris vs LINUX all over again.
Who cares? I only come to this site to learn about mac stuff not to gloat that I made a better buying decision than the 4/5ths of computer users out there.
As far as judging a company by what their gross receipts or profit statement is, wow, that basically means apple has been taking us to the cleaners right?
Huge profit compared to market share. (I believe they are still behind Dell and Lenovo on market share).
How insecure are folks that they must constantly belittle PC users and PC companies? This kind of made sense back in the powerpc days when macs and PCs had nothing in common. But these days macs are running on commodity hardware. The majority of the mac line is based on Intel notebook chips. The mac mini, Imac, macbook, macbook air, and macbook pro are all the same beast in different clothes. And as anyone knows that gear runs windows just dandy. So what seperates you elitist world from the dregs of PC loserness? Your OS. You are being elitists over an operating system.
Reminds me of BSD vs Solaris vs LINUX all over again.
Who cares? I only come to this site to learn about mac stuff not to gloat that I made a better buying decision than the 4/5ths of computer users out there.
As far as judging a company by what their gross receipts or profit statement is, wow, that basically means apple has been taking us to the cleaners right?
Huge profit compared to market share. (I believe they are still behind Dell and Lenovo on market share).
Absolutely ridiculously contrived reasoning there. Expect nothing less from an Apple fan. The study did make a link to household income, and I believe it was the same study showed that most Mac owners also have a PC too.
Explain how Apple make more profit than these other companies with smaller sales? The answer is of course far larger markups. This has nothing whatsoever to do with consumer value.
Last edited by a moderator:
Economics time!
How does a company manage to have a large mark-up? How exactly?
A company can only sell at a mark up if the consumers will pay.
They only pay if they think the product is worth it.
Apple's larger mark up = More value added.
HP only charges a $15 mark up per unit, because its customers won't pay a cent more. Why is that?
C.
You and others are presenting a logical fallacy that the parts equal the whole. This is like saying a new Lexus should be cheap because certain parts of the Lexus are inexpensive. How much does the MBA's aluminum unibody cost? (including mining and refining the metal?) The keyboard? The built-in camera? The speakers? The batteries? Trackpad? The screen? Etc. Etc. And, of course, if Apple's PR is correct, they're making sure it's all green stuff (recyclable and non-polluting) which might cost a bit more. Add that all up. Maybe it's still cheap. So, next question, could you buy all those parts and construct the MBA yourself for that cheap price? Most people can't or don't want to bother. So we do pay for someone to make it for us. Let's toss in the labor...
We know that's cheap because no one will pay for living-wage American labor, so all computers are made in China. That keeps the cost down even for Apple. Toss in all the shipping and handling and/or paying those who work at the store. And Apple does have a right to make a profit, that's why it's in business after all. It's not altruism. Adding all that together...how overpriced is it really? That $149 128 SSD is one component of the whole. The whole is $1200 (with 128). That makes it, what? 1/8th of the total price of the computer? Yet the computer isn't just that SSD, is it?
Now I'm not saying it's a cheap computer. As others have noted, there are plenty of cheap netbooks with more storage. But from the look of them, they don't have many other fine things. I don't know how well they run, how hot they get, how long their batteries last, how nice their screen is, how good the sound, if they have a camera, how long they'll last and how good their resale value will be, etc. All that has to be factored in if we're going to argue that the 11" MBA is grossly overpriced.
IMHO, while I'm sure it's at the high end, I'm not so sure that it's as obscenely overpriced as many here are making it sound. Of course, we all decide on what we're willing to pay for what. If you don't think anything that size with that little memory, only five hours of battery, etc. is worth $1,200, that's fine. You should buy the computer that gives you what you want at the price you're willing to pay. But, I think you're not being fair in your assessment of price by pointing out the price of 1/8th of the entire computer.
The parts do not equal the whole.