I hate to go all libertarian/free market on you, but there's no such thing as paying too much for a product. People will pay what they are willing to pay. By definition, that can never be "too much".
The thing is: Apple's main business is not selling computers, but gadgets/appliances.
Yeah, because garnering 10% of the world's computer hardware market is such a petty accomplishment compared to their "main" business.
If only every business on the planet had that problem...
Here's a hint: if iOS didn't exist, Apple would still sell millions of computers a year. The iOS ecosystem only helps the halo effect and spurns growth in their computer hardware divisions.
Every current Mac model (and most of them going back to 2007) will be able to run Server when it comes out next week or the week after. Even a white Macbook can be a "server". This is going to freak people out and really confuse the hardcore nerds around these parts.
When your paycheck is worth 2x as one in US Dollars because of the exchange rate, everything costing 2x as much balances out in the end. Taxes are another issue that, like I inferred, the Europeans have adapted to and we AMURRRRICANS! don't understand.
It's not a question of shipping either. You think it costs any more or any less to ship iPads from China to the US compared to shipping them to Europe?
When I lived in England, pretty much everything was the same number price
One of the many benefits of living in the States, my friend--cheap shit everywhere. Cheap as inexpensive (not cheap as in shitty, but that's a conversation that is already held daily on slashdot when all the cheap assholes complain about Apple prices and swoon over their latest generic commodity shitty electronic component).
I get really pissed off when cheap asses over here complain about $3.50 / gallon gas, $200,000 houses giant houses and $20,000 economy cars. Now we are sniveling about the economy for the past 10 years, yet everything here is still roughly 1/2 the cost of everything in Europe. The only difference is the Europeans have adapted, changed their habits and lowered their expectations. And life still goes on there, meanwhile back here people lose their minds when Wal-mart adds $0.30 to the price of a package of (fill in the really bad for you food that is an imitation of the real thing here).
So the low prices here come with some trade-offs. I see the benefit of living here and I see the benefits of living in Europe. I prefer Europe, but the economic reality keeps me here.
I've actually rented stuff from iTunes more lately because it wasn't available in Netflix streaming queue. Netflix might not have much competition in the one-fee-per-month category, but the definitely don't have a monopoly on streaming content.
Agreed, so long as we are talking about good conditions for the speed limit portion. The speed limits are already set too low, judging from the ease with which modest vehicles can exceed them with no valid concern whatsoever about losing control of the vehicle, failing to see an obstacle/hazard in time, etc.
Agreed that speed limits are too low, but I'm talking more about the inconvenience of a slow driver AND the sheer amount of traffic and havoc they cause by disrupting the normal flow of traffic. Plus, they are more of a hazard than they know because the difference in speed between two vehicles is often times the bigger danger than two cars going 15 mph over the speed limit (or in this case, everyone going 15 mph over the speed limit, for example).
I do all 4 of those things pretty much every time I drive, yet they don't threaten my safety. I never talk on my phone or text, because it's an immense danger.
Did the report actually infer that these things cause accidents too or is your logic stretching to levels not intended to be reached?
When is the last time the guy in front of you drove 20 mph in the 45 zone, swerved back and forth in the lane for two miles, or stopped at a green light for 10 seconds or more when listening to the radio? Considering these three things are immediate indication of somebody using their phone, I'd say that's a horrible comparison.
Or in the case of someone using their phone while driving; "any idiot going 10 mph or more under the speed limit or who fails to go on a green light within 5 seconds shall be guilty of lame driving and should lose their license forever".
Had to take a friend to traffic court about a year ago, and "far and away" the most common citation was for "failure to assure a safe distance, resulting in an accident".
Hah! You've fallen for great lie #2 (#1 being speed is the #1 cause of accidents). What you've cited is a lazy cop-out by law enforcement. Yeah, if you were going 2mph, you wouldn't have run into that other car.
Most accidents (somewhere in the 60% range in places without round-a-bouts) occur in intersections and unmarked parking lots. These are all due to failure to yield. The second most frequent cause of accidents is "following too closely" which gets bundled (erroneously) in with "failure to control speed". Think your average fender-bender rear-ender here. But since most of those never get reported, their numbers are lower. I imagine if every paint scratch rear-ender were reported, it would be the #1 cause.
It's also very easy to make a machine which can detect speeding.
I've never understood this. It's even easier to use the already installed dashboard camera to film: illegal lane changes, failure to yield, texting while driving and any myriad of other real-world threats.
In regards to the speeding thing (bear with me a second, my wife is an actuary)...
Less than 1-4% of accidents are caused by speeding, yet nearly all accidents are chalked up to "speeding". When you are traveling 25 mph in a 35 mph zone, cops will cite cause of accident as "failure to control speed" when they have nothing else to go on. In other words, if you were going slower, you would have stopped in time to avoid a collision.
The majority of accidents, according to my real-life actuary wife is "failure to yield". This generally has nothing to do with speed and everything to do with lack of education and courtesy.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to go all libertarian/free market on you, but there's no such thing as paying too much for a product. People will pay what they are willing to pay. By definition, that can never be "too much".
Normal consumers are already stupid, now imagine consumers who buy stuffs based on hype and look instead of actual performance.
Imagine the stupidity of the slashdot dork who uses "stuffs" as the plural for "stuff" instead of actual grammar.
That is the worst argument against a MacBook Pro I've ever heard.
The thing is: Apple's main business is not selling computers, but gadgets/appliances.
Yeah, because garnering 10% of the world's computer hardware market is such a petty accomplishment compared to their "main" business.
If only every business on the planet had that problem...
Here's a hint: if iOS didn't exist, Apple would still sell millions of computers a year. The iOS ecosystem only helps the halo effect and spurns growth in their computer hardware divisions.
Newb. I have a half-dozen RIGHT NOW.
You forgot the most awesome "don't forget" of all time. Less space than a nomad. No wireless. Lame.
Xcode 3 is free. 4 is what, $5 or so?
More RAM, perhaps? Mine appears instantaneously (Macbook Pro, i7, 8GB RAM).
Apple does not sell servers.
Every current Mac model (and most of them going back to 2007) will be able to run Server when it comes out next week or the week after. Even a white Macbook can be a "server". This is going to freak people out and really confuse the hardcore nerds around these parts.
They may not, but try setting a custom desktop background color on OSX.
Uhhh, seriously? I'm starting to understand that posts like this, and dislike of Macs in general, are steeped in sheer ignorance.
You beat me to it. Then again, you are first post, so you beat us all to it.
When your paycheck is worth 2x as one in US Dollars because of the exchange rate, everything costing 2x as much balances out in the end. Taxes are another issue that, like I inferred, the Europeans have adapted to and we AMURRRRICANS! don't understand.
It's not a question of shipping either. You think it costs any more or any less to ship iPads from China to the US compared to shipping them to Europe?
When I lived in England, pretty much everything was the same number price
No, he photoshops fat women to look skinny.
One of the many benefits of living in the States, my friend--cheap shit everywhere. Cheap as inexpensive (not cheap as in shitty, but that's a conversation that is already held daily on slashdot when all the cheap assholes complain about Apple prices and swoon over their latest generic commodity shitty electronic component).
I get really pissed off when cheap asses over here complain about $3.50 / gallon gas, $200,000 houses giant houses and $20,000 economy cars. Now we are sniveling about the economy for the past 10 years, yet everything here is still roughly 1/2 the cost of everything in Europe. The only difference is the Europeans have adapted, changed their habits and lowered their expectations. And life still goes on there, meanwhile back here people lose their minds when Wal-mart adds $0.30 to the price of a package of (fill in the really bad for you food that is an imitation of the real thing here).
So the low prices here come with some trade-offs. I see the benefit of living here and I see the benefits of living in Europe. I prefer Europe, but the economic reality keeps me here.
Stop putting crap on the phone and it works fine.
Ooh, the Microsoft Windows defense! Nicely played!
I was thinking more of tv shows. The iTunes store has the current season, usually, but Netflix is usually two seasons behind.
I've actually rented stuff from iTunes more lately because it wasn't available in Netflix streaming queue. Netflix might not have much competition in the one-fee-per-month category, but the definitely don't have a monopoly on streaming content.
Agreed, so long as we are talking about good conditions for the speed limit portion. The speed limits are already set too low, judging from the ease with which modest vehicles can exceed them with no valid concern whatsoever about losing control of the vehicle, failing to see an obstacle/hazard in time, etc.
Agreed that speed limits are too low, but I'm talking more about the inconvenience of a slow driver AND the sheer amount of traffic and havoc they cause by disrupting the normal flow of traffic. Plus, they are more of a hazard than they know because the difference in speed between two vehicles is often times the bigger danger than two cars going 15 mph over the speed limit (or in this case, everyone going 15 mph over the speed limit, for example).
I do all 4 of those things pretty much every time I drive, yet they don't threaten my safety. I never talk on my phone or text, because it's an immense danger.
Did the report actually infer that these things cause accidents too or is your logic stretching to levels not intended to be reached?
When is the last time the guy in front of you drove 20 mph in the 45 zone, swerved back and forth in the lane for two miles, or stopped at a green light for 10 seconds or more when listening to the radio? Considering these three things are immediate indication of somebody using their phone, I'd say that's a horrible comparison.
Ahh, the defensive driving argument. That's why I drive fast...get ahead of all the bad drivers. The best defense is a good offense.
Or in the case of someone using their phone while driving; "any idiot going 10 mph or more under the speed limit or who fails to go on a green light within 5 seconds shall be guilty of lame driving and should lose their license forever".
Had to take a friend to traffic court about a year ago, and "far and away" the most common citation was for "failure to assure a safe distance, resulting in an accident".
Hah! You've fallen for great lie #2 (#1 being speed is the #1 cause of accidents). What you've cited is a lazy cop-out by law enforcement. Yeah, if you were going 2mph, you wouldn't have run into that other car.
Most accidents (somewhere in the 60% range in places without round-a-bouts) occur in intersections and unmarked parking lots. These are all due to failure to yield. The second most frequent cause of accidents is "following too closely" which gets bundled (erroneously) in with "failure to control speed". Think your average fender-bender rear-ender here. But since most of those never get reported, their numbers are lower. I imagine if every paint scratch rear-ender were reported, it would be the #1 cause.
It's also very easy to make a machine which can detect speeding.
I've never understood this. It's even easier to use the already installed dashboard camera to film: illegal lane changes, failure to yield, texting while driving and any myriad of other real-world threats.
In regards to the speeding thing (bear with me a second, my wife is an actuary)...
Less than 1-4% of accidents are caused by speeding, yet nearly all accidents are chalked up to "speeding". When you are traveling 25 mph in a 35 mph zone, cops will cite cause of accident as "failure to control speed" when they have nothing else to go on. In other words, if you were going slower, you would have stopped in time to avoid a collision.
The majority of accidents, according to my real-life actuary wife is "failure to yield". This generally has nothing to do with speed and everything to do with lack of education and courtesy.