Merckx index said:
I meant the car analogy is valid in the sense that as speed/power goes up, both cars and computers increase in price. In this forum, another good analogy would be with bikes. The difference between a light racing bike that costs $2000 or more and a very serviceable commuter/sport bike that costs maybe $300-$400 is again, mostly speed, and maybe “feel” on the bike. But otherwise the cheaper model can do pretty much everything that the more expensive one can (and in fact is likely to be more durable).
IOW, in the higher end models, one is paying more and more for a smaller and smaller margin of superiority. The market is driven by discriminating consumers who become more and more sensitive to that small margin. Thus someone will pay 5-10x times more for a bike that can go maybe 5% faster. One issue, which I was discussing before (and you are right, this was sort of a tangent to what you were saying, but one I thought was important to go off on) was whether encouraging this kind of discrimination is really a good idea in a world where a large proportion of the population has always lacked even the basic necessities of existence. Should we accept people spending larger amounts of money for luxuries than would be required to feed people who don’t have enough to eat? Particularly when that attitude infects purchases of really big ticket items like cars, homes, airplanes, etc? It’s one thing to allow people to do this in a free market system. It’s another not to take any ethical stand against it. Particularly when there is so much evidence that these desires are manufactured.
But even for those like you, who apparently are quite comfortable with this endless pursuit of the faster and more powerful, in the specific case of Apple, there is a second question: does the technology they are using actually require that price? IOW, do Apple’s very high prices really reflect the costs of the features they are giving you, or are they just taking advantage of the loyalty of long-time customers (like me), who have used them for decades? Remember, Macs have always been 2-3x more expensive than PCs of equivalent size, RAM and HD space. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, I think the main advantage they had to offer was a much more user-friendly OS, but after Gates ripped that off, that edge was much reduced. That surely had much to do with the fact that for many years PCs outsold Macs by about 10:1, in fact, Macs used to be pretty rare outside of universities (where users, including me, could often get them at a discount, which offset some though not all of the differential vs. PCs and helped build our loyalty). Mac users were a cult of sorts.
Your argument is that what Apple is doing today justifies the price, that they couldn’t charge any less given what they are putting in the computer. Maybe you’re right, but based on their history, I have to wonder. Again, I think charging extra for that adaptor is very telling. They could easily bundle that in with the Air and still make a very decent profit, I'm sure. And since most of their well-to-do customers probably have modems at home, that adaptor is very useful to have.
I suspect that like other manufacturers of luxury items (if that's really what Apple products have become), Apple wants people to think of their products as so superior that people should be willing to pay whatever it takes to get them, that Apple is above the vulgar competitive pricing fray that characterizes the PC industry. "If you have to ask, it's not for you, you aren't part of the club." That attitude seems at odds with their roots.
let's start from the beginning....
i agree with almost everything in the first paragraph with the difference that
today's apple computers are viewed as the best constructed and the more resistant ones. you are the exception that confirms the rule.
about the second paragraph...
people must think with their heads and if they need a product (a computer) it's their responsibility to know what they truly need, what they desire and if the difference between needing that product and the desire for a more powerful product is worthy. they have their job and their money so they have the right to spend every cent of it and fulfill some desires. i don't know you, but i condemn what you said. i don't condemn apple or any other company (pretty much all of them that manufactures any sort of products) that goes to china because it's cheaper to manufacture their products there, it's thanks to that cheaper process that the majority of americans, germans, etc. are able to enjoy the amazing devices that are tablets, computers and smartphones, otherwise the prices would touch the sky and companies with less profit would have less motivation to work and less money to invest. the ones that are living well need the ones that have a hard life. you sounded just like the vatican and i am going to explain why. the vatican has a huge fortune in gold\money and studies say that if they sold it, they should end famine in the entire Africa for more than a year, but they don't do it since they prefer all the statues and gold for themselves. that's hypocrisy. how religious is that? you are complaining after spending at least 1000$ in a premium product and then you start thinking about ethics. you (and me) simply don't have the right to do it without looking hypocrite. we live in a world that needs the poor and the ones that are starving and ethical stances will never change that. if we keep doing what we are doing and if we keep social evolution this way maybe in 500 years or more there will be no one starving, as long as it is lucrative for the riches and not because of ethical stances. the society only does what is lucrative. if you want everyone with the same wealth you should know that mankind disappears in a few days, or are you going to tell me that if a rice farmer earns as much as bill gates did he is still going to produce rice and bill gates (or any other) will find motivation to evolve\create something or that the kids will find motivation to be doctors or engineers? that's an "utopia".
about the rest of your post...
i simple admire the best products in each category, in the tech industry the majority of the best products are apple products. that's my "professional" connection with the company. it could've been sony, but it's apple.
if you look at the competition prices, yes, technology requires that price. apple as a company isn't taking advantages of long times users because they (like you) are a minority of their huge income. Apple never participated in what was called "race to bottom" to produce the cheaper computer possible and because of that they gained some sort of magic view by costumers (since the majority of notebooks become very fragile and unreliable and overall quality wise they became sh*t.) and is today the most valuable company on earth (stock wise) and doesn't has to follow IBM or HP and quit.
PC's should outsell macs just like android should outsell iOS just like fiat should outsell ferrari, there's nothing wrong with it, it's normal and natural.
however again you are making a mistake.
today apple devices have the best prices, especially if you consider comfort and the fact that even if someone shows you a huge V10 8000cc truck engine, that truck won't be faster than a 4000cc porsche.
your luxury item (air) is the most recent example.
apple is fighting with dozens and still sells every tablet\iphone that can be produced.
other companies are desperate to produce devices similar to air computers or ipad and their goal is to produce something cheaper because if the prices are the same you know what company is going to sell (the one with magic). still the fact is that they can't even produce something at similar price. do you know why? that was Tim Cook's job. Apple is the master of supply chains, carriers, is the "owner" of the aluminium\magnesium unibody and even all competitors together can't fight with that, even after blatantly coping\trying to (hello samsung) apple's technology.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram