Hopefully there'll be a world war where all the armies of the world anhialite each other. Then we'll live in peace.
Right, because after all the soldiers died, no one with ambition would ever be born again. Our soldiers aren't saints. But they are our soldiers, and they are absolutely necessary for the preservation of American liberty. A country without an active and healthy military is a country asking to be conquered. Do we have a lot to fear from Canada and Mexico? No, not really--but that historical precedent has been set because of the very real deterrant of an American military. You should be happy that they do what we ask them to--the day they stop is the day we're in pretty deep shit.
What part of "pay service" did you not understand?
Ok, in that case, I read a series of article in Scientific American that had a lot of studies about your mother's number of genital warts. Every year they put out new numbers on "mothers with genital warts," and every year your mom topped the charts. I can't provide you with any way of confirming this claim--after all, it's a pay service--but trust me, they're there, and the data totally supports me. Really. And don't bother arguing--I'm going to believe Scientific American over you.
I should have said "value" instead of price. Besides that, my post is crystal clear. You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between qualitative and quantitative. All of the things you think make Apple worth more money are all qualitative. The hardware features--powered firewire, a built-in camera, digital audio, all of these add very little quantitative value--a few hundred dollars at most, which is being generous, and factoring that in the difference between the two computers is still near $1000. All of this "market" and "quality" bullshit you're spouting is irrelevant, because it is all qualitative. There is no single way of measuring the worth of reliability, or of a backlit keyboard, or of better technical support. It is qualitative. Every consumer decides, individually, if the cost associated with it is warranted. But hardware is quantitative. The jump from a Core Duo 1.83GHz to a Core Duo 2.0GHz is measurable. I acceded the point of the RAM a few posts ago. Buying the upgraded RAM would cost $100, at most. The digital audio is $20. A Gb ethernet card? $50. A powered firewire card? $50. A digital audio upgrade? $20. But the value of "quality," "reliability," and "a pro OS?" It's not quantifiable. Get that through your thick-ass skull. You're wasting my time. You can rant and rave about how the shit you think matters makes an Apple worth more, and that's great--but none of it is objective. Hardware is objective. The hardware you've mentioned, at most, narrows the price difference from $1250 to $950.
That's still $950 that you claim "quality" and "reliability" are worth. Again, qualitative values. Worth that to whom? To you? To me? This is my point. All of the things you have said add value require a "worth to..." statement at the end of them. I am not disagreeing with you that Apple makes better laptops than Dell. That's not the point, because the term "better" is subjective. From a quantitative standpoint, the two laptops are the same, and you can't seem to recognize that. I'm not claiming that I wouldn't take an Apple over a Dell any day of the week. I'm claiming that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. You're referencing qualitative data and trying to act like it can be treated quantitatively. It cannot. Take a stats class before you have to debate something important and really embarass yourself.
I would say that the telcos are managed quite well. They're maximizing shareholder revenue, just as any non-private corporation should be.
Well, notreally. This is a sentiment on Slashdot that sometimes makes me wonder why everyone here seems to be so anti-business. (Not that I'm accusing you of it, OldeTimeGeek--your comment just reminded me of it.) Sometimes the right business decision is also the moral one--personally, I think it always is, although if you think only in terms of profits I'm sure you could convince yourself otherwise.
Anyhow, my point is, the decisions the subsidized companies are making are clearly losing them money. They're not innovating anymore, and their pricing isn't competitive, and as a result any time a competitor comes into the market they start losing money like wildfire. Where I live, Cavalier Telephone has made serious headway into the phone industry here, simply because they continue to drive their prices down and raise their bandwidth. (I pay $25 a month for 1Mbps/768Kbps DSL. It's rated at 10Mbps/1Mbps, but because of my loop length, I get much lower speeds. Believe it or not, it is by far the most reasonable internet access available--Verizon DSL at 768K would cost me $15 a month more, and Comcast would get me for $60 a month.) Most of the telecommunications industry consists of old, stupid companies who don't understand that real profitability doesn't mean squeezing every last dollar out of the consumer that you can--it's about providing a quality product, and standing behind it.
Every time some other country's telco produces a better service than our own, this comes up. It didn't explain why consumers can't get 100mbps in our most dense cities, or 1gbit, and it still doesn't explain why we can't get 2.5gbps now. Even in the places that already have fiber to the home, the best I can do on FiOS is 30M/5M for $180.
The reason is fairly simple: there's no economic incentive. I'm not saying that is not a problem; I'm just telling it how it is. Only certain carriers have the legal ability to lay down wire, period. Everyone else has to buy bandwidth from them, either directly or through another ISP. If there's no market incentive to expand, and the profitability isn't amazingly high, there's no reason to do it. Why offer a better product when people will pay more for an inferior one?
For good or bad, those are the kinds of industries where it's difficult to continue operating at a profit without some outside help (financial or regulatory).
Last time I checked, all private airlines in the US were consistently posting profits--Southwest and JetBlue most notable among them. It's the old carriers--the ones with subsidies--that keep tanking. (Although American looks like they might be making a recovery, according to the Daily Breeze.)
It's disgusting! What country invented DSL? America. What country is in dead last place among the industrialized world for DSL speeds? America.
What country has the largest square footage of industrialized space in the world? America. I share your outrage at the lack of reasonably-priced high-speed internet, but there are some real geographic concerns with laying down wire in the States. For one, America is a lot more sprawling than any other European or Asian country. Even American cities tend to occupy much more space than their European counterparts--not just because we have more land, but because our culture has given rise to a conception of "personal space" that is vastly different than what Europeans or Asians believe. They're much more tightly packed than we are, so laying down fiber in major cities has a much greater profit/sq. ft ratio than a telco could get in the US.
But really, we have government regulation to thank for our laughable phone and data networks. By trying to encourage phone companies to lay out phone wire where it would not be profitable in the 40s and 50s, we granted them monopolies, and now they've become as poorly managed as the airlines.
Jesus Christ, read what I write.
This is what I said: "Dell is either at the top, or neck-and-neck, with all of the other major players in the PC arena". This DOES NOT EQUAL: "Dells don't have inferior tech support statistics as compared to Apple." Apple is not a major player in the PC arena--they have 5% market share in the US. And even then, they don't technically make "PCs"--even in their own marketing campaigns, they constantly compare how much better an Apple is than a "PC." So yes, my assertion remains: Dell is in line with the rest of the big players. Sony is right there next to Dell in this year's report. Lenovo edges ahead in laptop support, but is right in line with Dell's desktop support. You can reference "years past" all you want; you were wrong about this year's, in claiming that Dell was bottom of the heap (they are not), and you're probably wrong about the past years. You provide me links showing Dell always being at the bottom, and not smack-dab in the middle, and then your point might be valid.
So do all computer manufacturers, what is your point?
Simple stats. The only thing the study says is that Apple machines have less "repairs" done on them. But if we don't know WHAT a repair is, then we can't actually say that Apple machines are "of a higher quality" than any random PC. If "repairs" constitutes virus removal and spyware cleanup, then it has absolutely no reflection on the quality of the machine, and is instead a reflection on the Windows OS. This directly references your next point:
Sigh. So you have no numbers that support your belief, but you'd like to try to pick at the numbers that do exist and try to figure out a way they could be interpreted to not be damning to your beliefs so you have to change your mind. Okay, enjoy that.
Which I hope now you can recognize as flawed. Unless the data explicitly defined "repair" as "replacement of failed hardware component" and discounted user misuse/abuse, the number cannot reflect on the "quality" of the respective machines in any meaningful way. We could interpret this data a number of ways and none would be scientifically valid.
Except they're not. Claiming that how many features are highlighted in marketing materials is a good way to judge all aspects of two different products is foolish. This argument has played out here on Slashdot and other places dozens of times over the last few years. Apple has fewer configurations than all other PC manufacturers combined, thus you're more likely to be able to find a system that is exactly what you need at a lower price elsewhere. However, if you build a machine from another vendor with exactly the same hardware as an Apple machine, from a quality vendor, with even close to the same levels of support and reliability, even ignoring the software, you get very similar prices in the range plus or minus 15%. Your half-assed comparison of two very different machines, which you tried to foist upon others as some sort of proof that Apple machines cost double what a comparable PC does are misleading in the extreme.
You have yet to mention all of the supposed "features" I've missed that are actually reflective of the machine. If we're talking about hardware, I didn't leave anything out. You're insane if you think the components Dell and Apple uses are any different when it comes to base hardware--they get the same chips, motherboards, and RAM as everyone else. As far as "support and reliability" go, I have already shown that there is little quantitative data on the subject. People seem to be happier with Apple tech support. That's great. If that's worth $1250 to you, wonderful--but it's a purely subjective thing. Reliability is still completely up in the air: we have nothing conclusive, and if you think we do you need to take a statistics class.
I took two machines with equivalent hardware and showed that one was twice the cos
I did as far as I can tell. The hardware specifications on the two laptops are functionally equivalent. The question at hand is now whether or not the two laptops are in the same category of sale. I'm still not entirely convinced that the Macbook Pro is intended for a business audience. I can't show that the Macbook is more expensive than a PC counterpart, although if you look at the absurd price difference between a white Macbook and a black Macbook, you can't help but think that Apple really puts more emphasis on style than guts. They demand $200 extra to change the color from white to black, and to add 20GB of HDD capacity. There's no denying that the black Macbook is a beautiful machine, but the mere fact that they're willing to attach such a dramatic price difference to that style alone (a 20GB upgrade in space is worth $30, at the most) reflects heavily on Apple's philosophy.
Against my better judgment, I'm going to respond to this, even though you've once again descended into being a rude asshole.
Dell ranks near the bottom for customer satisfaction, support surveys, and hardware reliability almost every year, significantly worse than even HP or Gateway... Independent testing and surveys from a company who makes it their only business and whose reputation is their only real asset say Apple machines are better quality. I'll put that above your random guess.
Not true on both counts. Unlike you, who decided to reference a study and then not provide a material link to it, I actually did your work for you and found the latest Consumer Reports statistics here and here. And you'll note in both studies that Dell is either at the top, or neck-and-neck, with all of the other major players in the PC arena., with regards to their technical support. (The major players here being HP, Lenovo, Gateway, and Compaq.)
As far as quality, reliability, etc. goes, the only mention of this I can find is that those surveyed claimed to have to submit their Apples machines for repair "much less" than those who had Windows PCs. I don't see any numbers, and more importantly, there is no mention of what constitutes a repair. I have worked for Dell as a hardware technician, and I know for a fact that their techs get called to do "repair" on software-related issues all the time. This does not prove Apple machines fail less--it proves that for whatever reason, Apple machines are sent in for repairs less frequently. I'm glad you know little enough about statistics that you think the two are equivalent, but they are not.
Further, the next time you reference a study--ANY STUDY--either back it up with a link or don't bother. Your method of argument makes the baby Jesus cry. I'm not going to take your word on anything, especially not when you have the arrogance of beginning your reply by truncating my points to "blah blah" like some smug asshole. I did a point-by-point comparison of two equivalent machines, and I did not leave out "dozens of hardware features." I took exactly what Apple shows you when you go to their site and choose to buy a Mac, and CUT AND PASTED. If this leaves out "dozens of great features," take it up with them, because I didn't do any selective editing. I fully admitted that Apple's software suite is more robust than the Dell's. Any value you seek to add to one or the other is purely subjective until you can link a study that proves otherwise. You think the Macbook Pro is higher quality? Fantastic. You like OSX more? GREAT. It doesn't matter. In the end, people buy what they like. Trying to justify it objectively is pointless; Apple hardware is more expensive than the equivalently-configured PC, in almost all cases, end of story. The severity of that gap varies, but it is always there. It's just a fact, and to act like it doesn't exist, or that the price difference is magically made better by X-that-is-not-quantifiable is stupid and pointless. If you like Macs, buy a Mac. I will buy a Mac Mini and possibly a Macbook (non-Pro) myself soon. But I'm not kidding myself--I'm buying them because I like Apple's style, not because of some falsely-objective points that I desperately cling to in order to justify the price.
There isn't really an equivalent Inspiron to a Macbook. We either have to go with an XPS 1210 (which is targeted as an enthusiast notebook and therefore grossly overpriced) or a 710M, which doesn't come in a Core duo flavor. The regular Macbook is a fair deal, though--and one I've considered purchasing. If my current laptop dies, my next machine will probably be an Apple, unless some other manufacturer can make a reasonably priced thin-and-light notebook. But the fact is, pound-for-pound, the hardware costs for an Apple notebook are significantly more expensive than any PC manufacturer. That has not changed with Apple's switch to Intel. People will justify this cost as they see fit--claims of quality, durability, etc. (and if they link statistical studies that show that Apple computers actually fail less than PCs, then their claims may be grounded)--but almost inevitably it is a matter of personal taste. We buy what we like. Don't bother trying to justify spending 2500 on a Macbook Pro. You obviously valued the Macbook enough to warrant the extra cost, and the argument ends there. Just because there is a cheaper alternative doesn't mean it's an alternative for you, which is fine. I don't get why people are so defensive in these debates. Apple is more expensive than any similarly-spec'd PC. This is not a condemnation; it's just a fact. Big deal.
Dell similarly overcharges for upgrades--you could easily buy a 1 GB stick for the same amount for the Dell. I just wanted to make the two machines as similar as possible, and since Dell currently offered 1GB for the price of 512, I factored that in.
Without the warranty, the Macbook Pro only has a 1 year warranty. If we take the Dell down to a one year warranty, the price difference remains roughly the same.
The Macbook Pro doesn't fit into the same level as the Latitude. There's an entire apparatus of corporate support than Dell has designed around the Latitude line that the Inspiron does not qualify for. This is the primary reason Latitudes are more expensive. The Macbook Pro is a luxury computer--it is clearly too expensive for a home user, but to place it on the same level as a Latitude would imply that Apple is capable of providing the same level of corporate support that Dell is, and that's not true. Unless you can show me that the Macbook Pro is advertised for businesses, and not simply as a souped-up Macbook for the people who can afford it, I don't think a Latitude-Macbook Pro comparison is valid.
No a pro laptop from Apple with a dozen features you neglect to match up will not be the same price as the cheapest piece of junk you can get from Dell. I think we all know that. Now go get the full specs for the Macbook and try to build it at a reputable computer company (you know not Dell, the one consumer reports rates has having the worst reliability and customer service in the industry). Apple consistently ranks at the top of that list, usually with Sony and IBM/Lenovo. Others have already pointed out the point by point failures to match up features, but really that is less important than overall quality. Dell builds cheap junk. You have to not only compare the same features, but make sure it is from a reputable vendor, not one where companies keep 15% extra gear so they can swap out all the failures they have.
I have a Dell 600m that I've owned for two years. I took it with me to Japan, and part of my time there was spent ferrying between the islands of Ogasawara, which has very choppy water. I've basically beat the living crap out of it. It's still performing quite well. Do I think Dell makes high-quality parts? No, not really. But I don't consider their main competitor, HP, to make any "better" computers. Lenovo/IBM's dominance is in the business arena--they compete very poorly in the home-user segment, and Lenovo is trying to turn that around. (Whether they'll be able to is the subject of many an investor's meeting.) Meanwhile, Apple's marketshare has declined since last year, and is now at 5.3%. (Source.) So really, as far as the average home computer goes, Dell is in line with the rest of the market.
Apple makes a niche product. Dell mass-produces machines. Does Apple make better "quality" laptops than Dell? Well, their marketing apparatus has certainly succeeded in convincing the world it does. But until I can see numbers on MFT, I'm not really inclined to believe Apple computers are built to this mythical higher standard. If it's worth an extra $1250 to you, great. But to act like it should naturally be worth the same to everyone else is to be very naive. I've been very pleased with my 600m. It's a travel laptop, and in that role it has succeeded admirably. For my heavy lifting, I use a rig I built. And I know that's high quality, because I bought the parts.
Ok. The difference in performance is mild, but there.
MBP has Pro OS, Dell has Home
There is no "Pro" OS for Apple. There's one OS--OSX. XP Pro's enhancements are notable, but since SP2 the only real difference between Home and Pro is networking capability. I addressed this in my first post. Still, for the sake of argument, tack on an extra $100 (150-30%) for XP Pro.
MBP has Gig-E, Dell has 100bT
You've got to be kidding me. Ok, show me a home user with a gigabit switch/router, or a broadband connection capable of transmitting at anywhere functionally near that speed, and I'll admit this is a point.
MBP has powered Firewire, Dell has mini iLink
Wow. You got me. There's the extra $1000. It's right there. How could I not see that?
MBP has DVI, Dell has VGA
Unless you're doing graphics-intensive work (in which case you're not going to buy a Dell, period), this is not an issue.
Nvidia 7300 (TurboCache? Sheesh!) is a match for ATI X1300, not X1600
The X1600 in the MBP is underclocked. The Turbocache 7300 is actually the most expensive card Dell lets you throw into the machine. Looking at the tests I can find online (there's very little literature surrounding the 7300), it looks to be about neck-and-neck with the X1400. But hey, throw in the X1400 instead, and subtract $30. Then factor in that the gaming library for Apple computers is much smaller than the Windows platform. If you want to game, Apple is never going to be a good choice, even with more powerful hardware.
Dell has two advantages: 2L DVD, and a modem; Dell lacks the following: internal camera, internal microphone, digital audio in/out, MagSafe cable & backlight; Dell weighs a pound more
The weight issue is one I addressed. The comparative value of the other items is questionable, but I'll certainly admit that they do have value. But the sum of all the points you have made does not add up to nearly $1250.
I did not write my original post with the intention of bashing Apple. I think they make quality products. But there can be no doubt that there is a huge price difference between the two, and it is not quantifiable if you look at the hardware. You pay for the experience of an Apple, more than anything else. If you like it, fine, do your thing. But don't try and make it sound like the Apple offers more value than a Dell: with the numbers out, it clearly does not.
The reason Latitudes cost more is for two reasons--business-class support (which Apple DOES NOT provide for their Macbooks, and it's ridiculous to claim that they do) and modular interoperability. Latitudes are the only officially supported "upgradeable" notebooks from Dell: the D-line uses all of the same interfaces for their optical drives. Until the Dx20s, there was very little functional difference between Inspirons and Latitudes. But all Latitudes come with standard 3 year warranties, a business-class support team (that is not based in India), and guaranteed part-interoperability. They're a different class of machine altogether, and certainly should not be compared to Macbook Pros unless you can show me that Apple provides the same level of corporate support.
As far as build quality goes, nowadays there is a slight difference in quality between an Inspiron and a Latitude--and it's mostly just the chassis. But the components they use are functionally the same.
It also bears mentioning that I tried to make them as equivalent as possible in this scenario. I could have easily stuck another $200 worth of upgrades into the machine (XP Pro, bigger HDD, more RAM), and then used a $750 off of $2000 to get to the same price. In that case the Dell would be a clearly superior (from a hardware standpoint) machine.
At least from what I've seen, the pricing difference between the MB and MBP and comparably eqipped PC laptops aren't really so far off.
That's not true at all. Here goes:
MacBook Pro 15-inch Glossy Widescreen Display
1024MB 667 DDR2 - 2 SO-DIMM
Backlit Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)
2.0GHz Intel Core Duo
AirPort Extreme Card & Bluetooth
80GB Serial ATA drive @ 5400 rpm
Price: $2099.99
AppleCare Protection Plan for MacBook Pro/PowerBook (w/or w/o Display) - Auto-enroll
Price: $349.99
Total: $2497.95
Inspiron E1505
Intel® Core(TM) Duo Proc T2500 (2GHz/667MHz/2 X 1MB L2 Cache)
Genuine Windows® XP Home
15.4 inch UltraSharp(TM) Wide Screen SXGA+ Display with TrueLife(TM)
FREE 1GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz, 2 Dimm
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce(TM)Go 7300 TurboCache
80GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
Integrated 10/100 Network Card and Modem
8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
Integrated Audio
Intel PRO/Wireless 3945 Internal Wireless and Bluetooth
85 WHr 9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
3Yr Ltd Warr,At-Home Service,and HW Warr Support plus Nights and Weekends
Free SKIN Promotion 15 - Free Promotion for 15 inch Skin
Price: $1,766.00 (before 30% off coupon, which is practically always available.)
Price after coupon: $1,236.20
There are a few things the Macbook Pro has that the Dell does not. For one, the Macbook is lighter, thinner, and more aesthetically pleasing, which is no small thing. It also has a much more robust software suite--OSX is clearly a more complete OS than XP, and the pre-installed software package on an Apple computer adds value as well. In contrast, the Dell supports higher resolution, a more powerful video card, and a higher battery life.
With all of that said, do you really think one Macbook Pro is worth two Dell E1505s?
It's also worth noting that AMD's server platform is much more popular than Intel's. The sort of scalability AMD has introduced to the server market has had a significant impact. Even though the Woodcrest is a much more robust chip than the Opteron (and it is, no questions asked), the Opteron platform is perceived as more flexible. (And I'm inclined to believe it deserves that perception.) So now we've got an interesting situation--as an IT manager, do you choose the more powerful chip, or do you choose the platform that grows with you?
For instance, the Athlon 64 FX-62 has a current street price of $1018. In July it is slated to have a 21.5% price reduction to $799. But to keep AMD's aggressive price/performance competitive edge over Intel, it would have to drop to $425.14 (according to the article). That is a 58.2% price reduction.
If you look at the table THG provided, most of AMD's low-end products meet the required price cuts, or at least get fairly close to it. But I think AMD is making the right decision in not cutting their high-end chips down that much. The only people willing to shell out $4-500 for a CPU are people who want cutting-edge technology. None of those people are going to buy X2s, period, because the Conroe just spanks them. AMD is moving aggressively to recapture the market that has historically sustained them: the budget consumer. This will do just that--the X2 3800+ is now extremely well-priced, (below $200 in both iterations), and as such is in direct competition with the E6300. The 65W X2 uses less power than the E6300, but is closer to it in suggested price, but the vanilla X2 is a full $30 cheaper. That is a hefty sum in the budget market. The disparity between bang/buck for AMD's high and low-end chips will only make the choice more obvious--if you want to go AMD, get their budget chips. That's the market AMD stands a chance at winning.
From the article, it looks like the anticipated July 24th price cuts are going to amount to an average of 25%. That means they still have 26% to go, not 4%.
And I quote: "In the strategically important field of socket AM2 CPUs, the drop averaged 47%." So, before you tell someone else to RTFA, I suggest you do it yourself.
No worries.:) What has worked for me thus far has been anything made by DFI. I'm currently using their LanParty nF4 Ultra-D with an ATI X800XL, and I've had no problems at all. A friend of mine is running an nForce250gb with a Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro, and that's working all right too. What are your board and card models?
That being said, ever seen what happens when you try to run an ATi card on an nForce chipset? Yeah, it sounds like a bad idea from the get-go, but I've seen people try it.
And fail. Spectacularly.
Doing that right now with no problem, as are countless others. I'm sorry to call you out, but this is just a baseless claim--nVidia has long been the dominant chipset for AMD, but only recently (with the release of the 7900GTX) did they recapture the performance crown from ATi. People have been running ATi cards on nForce chipsets since the days of the Radeon 9700 Pro. It's just a dumb move to alienate the consumer by making your chipset difficult to work with under any circumstances. They want to make sure that the "best" performance (SLI, Crossfire) are only available with their respective cards, but the budget and midrange market is volatile enough that it would be economic suicide to limit compatibility.
The Conroe uses DDR2 as well--it will likely be higher-priced due to higher bus speeds, but not significantly so.
If power consumption is a concern, then Intel's new offerings really take on a new light. I have been waiting for a chip capable of powering an HTPC without destroying my energy bill, because I want to leave it on 24-7. The Core 2 Duo brings a lot to the table with regards to power/price/performance, and these price cuts are still not quite enough to bring the ball back to AMD's court. But AMD's been the underdog before, and then the A64 happened. I am fairly certain that no matter who wins "this round," the end result is going to be that both companies are going to be forced to release better products.
However, I would not quote THG as an unbiased source. If I remember correctly, it took them over a year to finally admit that the A64 absolutely destroyed everything Intel had to offer--and now that Intel has come back out on top, they are the loudest in declaring their superiority. It's a bit ridiculous how quick THG points out that "the price cut is not enough."
Actually, the previous study works for this to. The sample was office workers in Washington DC and petty theft.
Ah yes, the very definition of desperation. So, again, you help us prove that theft is not primarily borne of desperation, but something else entirely. Which was our point from the beginning. What are you arguing here again? I'm honestly curious at this point. And on another note, you're quoting the book Freakonomics, which, while interesting, is not held to the same academic standard as a paper submitted to a scientific journal.
Your arrogance is astounding.
You are really in no position to talk. Throughout this entire argument you have made up terms (the "rhetorical method" for one, which does not exist as a proper noun), refused to cite reliable sources (and yet you claim that we do not know the meaning of the word citation!), and generally acted like a pompous ass. This may shock you, but you are not as smart as you believe. Your grasp of philosophy is tenuous, (responsible for everything or responsible for nothing is not a claim made by any philosopher I know of), you are wholly incapable of pieceing together a coherent argument (as I've evidenced numerous times already), and you don't seem to understand what either of us is saying, or at least you refuse to see our arguments for what they are. (Since you keep getting hung up on morals when no one but you brought them into the argument.)
Honestly, I don't see this discussion going anywhere. At first I thought maybe you had an interesting viewpoint that, while I found it to be mistaken and in error, had the possibility of being a valid, alternative view on the situation. Now I just see that you are a dumbass who is more concerned with arguing points I am not making than actually addressing the fundamental argument at hand. You don't cite sources (the reference to Freakonomics is the first actual source you cite) and then you ask us to do your research for you. There really is not much more to be said. You haven't made an argument yet. If you decide to make one, and back it up with actual facts, let me know. Until then, the original premise, the thing that started this entire debate, stands, and that is: not all theft, not even a majority of theft, is a result of poverty and therefore desperation. So, reducing poverty is not necessarily the best way of reducing theft. And that's really it. There's nothing in there about morals, or ethics, or any of the shit you saw fit to introduce into this equation. Until you can conclusively show that either a.) all theft is a result of desperation and/or poverty (which is false, so you can't show it to be true), or b.) Reducing poverty is better than any other means of reducing theft (which you haven't even tried to do), this discussion is an impasse.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because after all the soldiers died, no one with ambition would ever be born again. Our soldiers aren't saints. But they are our soldiers, and they are absolutely necessary for the preservation of American liberty. A country without an active and healthy military is a country asking to be conquered. Do we have a lot to fear from Canada and Mexico? No, not really--but that historical precedent has been set because of the very real deterrant of an American military. You should be happy that they do what we ask them to--the day they stop is the day we're in pretty deep shit.
Ok, in that case, I read a series of article in Scientific American that had a lot of studies about your mother's number of genital warts. Every year they put out new numbers on "mothers with genital warts," and every year your mom topped the charts. I can't provide you with any way of confirming this claim--after all, it's a pay service--but trust me, they're there, and the data totally supports me. Really. And don't bother arguing--I'm going to believe Scientific American over you.
I should have said "value" instead of price. Besides that, my post is crystal clear. You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between qualitative and quantitative. All of the things you think make Apple worth more money are all qualitative. The hardware features--powered firewire, a built-in camera, digital audio, all of these add very little quantitative value--a few hundred dollars at most, which is being generous, and factoring that in the difference between the two computers is still near $1000. All of this "market" and "quality" bullshit you're spouting is irrelevant, because it is all qualitative. There is no single way of measuring the worth of reliability, or of a backlit keyboard, or of better technical support. It is qualitative. Every consumer decides, individually, if the cost associated with it is warranted. But hardware is quantitative. The jump from a Core Duo 1.83GHz to a Core Duo 2.0GHz is measurable. I acceded the point of the RAM a few posts ago. Buying the upgraded RAM would cost $100, at most. The digital audio is $20. A Gb ethernet card? $50. A powered firewire card? $50. A digital audio upgrade? $20. But the value of "quality," "reliability," and "a pro OS?" It's not quantifiable. Get that through your thick-ass skull. You're wasting my time. You can rant and rave about how the shit you think matters makes an Apple worth more, and that's great--but none of it is objective. Hardware is objective. The hardware you've mentioned, at most, narrows the price difference from $1250 to $950.
That's still $950 that you claim "quality" and "reliability" are worth. Again, qualitative values. Worth that to whom? To you? To me? This is my point. All of the things you have said add value require a "worth to..." statement at the end of them. I am not disagreeing with you that Apple makes better laptops than Dell. That's not the point, because the term "better" is subjective. From a quantitative standpoint, the two laptops are the same, and you can't seem to recognize that. I'm not claiming that I wouldn't take an Apple over a Dell any day of the week. I'm claiming that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. You're referencing qualitative data and trying to act like it can be treated quantitatively. It cannot. Take a stats class before you have to debate something important and really embarass yourself.
Well, not really. This is a sentiment on Slashdot that sometimes makes me wonder why everyone here seems to be so anti-business. (Not that I'm accusing you of it, OldeTimeGeek--your comment just reminded me of it.) Sometimes the right business decision is also the moral one--personally, I think it always is, although if you think only in terms of profits I'm sure you could convince yourself otherwise.
Anyhow, my point is, the decisions the subsidized companies are making are clearly losing them money. They're not innovating anymore, and their pricing isn't competitive, and as a result any time a competitor comes into the market they start losing money like wildfire. Where I live, Cavalier Telephone has made serious headway into the phone industry here, simply because they continue to drive their prices down and raise their bandwidth. (I pay $25 a month for 1Mbps/768Kbps DSL. It's rated at 10Mbps/1Mbps, but because of my loop length, I get much lower speeds. Believe it or not, it is by far the most reasonable internet access available--Verizon DSL at 768K would cost me $15 a month more, and Comcast would get me for $60 a month.) Most of the telecommunications industry consists of old, stupid companies who don't understand that real profitability doesn't mean squeezing every last dollar out of the consumer that you can--it's about providing a quality product, and standing behind it.
The reason is fairly simple: there's no economic incentive. I'm not saying that is not a problem; I'm just telling it how it is. Only certain carriers have the legal ability to lay down wire, period. Everyone else has to buy bandwidth from them, either directly or through another ISP. If there's no market incentive to expand, and the profitability isn't amazingly high, there's no reason to do it. Why offer a better product when people will pay more for an inferior one?
Last time I checked, all private airlines in the US were consistently posting profits--Southwest and JetBlue most notable among them. It's the old carriers--the ones with subsidies--that keep tanking. (Although American looks like they might be making a recovery, according to the Daily Breeze.)
What country has the largest square footage of industrialized space in the world? America. I share your outrage at the lack of reasonably-priced high-speed internet, but there are some real geographic concerns with laying down wire in the States. For one, America is a lot more sprawling than any other European or Asian country. Even American cities tend to occupy much more space than their European counterparts--not just because we have more land, but because our culture has given rise to a conception of "personal space" that is vastly different than what Europeans or Asians believe. They're much more tightly packed than we are, so laying down fiber in major cities has a much greater profit/sq. ft ratio than a telco could get in the US.
But really, we have government regulation to thank for our laughable phone and data networks. By trying to encourage phone companies to lay out phone wire where it would not be profitable in the 40s and 50s, we granted them monopolies, and now they've become as poorly managed as the airlines.
Good to see telco PRs have now infiltrated slashdot.
Jesus Christ, read what I write.
This is what I said: "Dell is either at the top, or neck-and-neck, with all of the other major players in the PC arena". This DOES NOT EQUAL: "Dells don't have inferior tech support statistics as compared to Apple." Apple is not a major player in the PC arena--they have 5% market share in the US. And even then, they don't technically make "PCs"--even in their own marketing campaigns, they constantly compare how much better an Apple is than a "PC." So yes, my assertion remains: Dell is in line with the rest of the big players. Sony is right there next to Dell in this year's report. Lenovo edges ahead in laptop support, but is right in line with Dell's desktop support. You can reference "years past" all you want; you were wrong about this year's, in claiming that Dell was bottom of the heap (they are not), and you're probably wrong about the past years. You provide me links showing Dell always being at the bottom, and not smack-dab in the middle, and then your point might be valid.
Simple stats. The only thing the study says is that Apple machines have less "repairs" done on them. But if we don't know WHAT a repair is, then we can't actually say that Apple machines are "of a higher quality" than any random PC. If "repairs" constitutes virus removal and spyware cleanup, then it has absolutely no reflection on the quality of the machine, and is instead a reflection on the Windows OS. This directly references your next point:
Which I hope now you can recognize as flawed. Unless the data explicitly defined "repair" as "replacement of failed hardware component" and discounted user misuse/abuse, the number cannot reflect on the "quality" of the respective machines in any meaningful way. We could interpret this data a number of ways and none would be scientifically valid.
You have yet to mention all of the supposed "features" I've missed that are actually reflective of the machine. If we're talking about hardware, I didn't leave anything out. You're insane if you think the components Dell and Apple uses are any different when it comes to base hardware--they get the same chips, motherboards, and RAM as everyone else. As far as "support and reliability" go, I have already shown that there is little quantitative data on the subject. People seem to be happier with Apple tech support. That's great. If that's worth $1250 to you, wonderful--but it's a purely subjective thing. Reliability is still completely up in the air: we have nothing conclusive, and if you think we do you need to take a statistics class.
I took two machines with equivalent hardware and showed that one was twice the cos
I did as far as I can tell. The hardware specifications on the two laptops are functionally equivalent. The question at hand is now whether or not the two laptops are in the same category of sale. I'm still not entirely convinced that the Macbook Pro is intended for a business audience. I can't show that the Macbook is more expensive than a PC counterpart, although if you look at the absurd price difference between a white Macbook and a black Macbook, you can't help but think that Apple really puts more emphasis on style than guts. They demand $200 extra to change the color from white to black, and to add 20GB of HDD capacity. There's no denying that the black Macbook is a beautiful machine, but the mere fact that they're willing to attach such a dramatic price difference to that style alone (a 20GB upgrade in space is worth $30, at the most) reflects heavily on Apple's philosophy.
Against my better judgment, I'm going to respond to this, even though you've once again descended into being a rude asshole.
Not true on both counts. Unlike you, who decided to reference a study and then not provide a material link to it, I actually did your work for you and found the latest Consumer Reports statistics here and here. And you'll note in both studies that Dell is either at the top, or neck-and-neck, with all of the other major players in the PC arena., with regards to their technical support. (The major players here being HP, Lenovo, Gateway, and Compaq.)
As far as quality, reliability, etc. goes, the only mention of this I can find is that those surveyed claimed to have to submit their Apples machines for repair "much less" than those who had Windows PCs. I don't see any numbers, and more importantly, there is no mention of what constitutes a repair. I have worked for Dell as a hardware technician, and I know for a fact that their techs get called to do "repair" on software-related issues all the time. This does not prove Apple machines fail less--it proves that for whatever reason, Apple machines are sent in for repairs less frequently. I'm glad you know little enough about statistics that you think the two are equivalent, but they are not.
Further, the next time you reference a study--ANY STUDY--either back it up with a link or don't bother. Your method of argument makes the baby Jesus cry. I'm not going to take your word on anything, especially not when you have the arrogance of beginning your reply by truncating my points to "blah blah" like some smug asshole. I did a point-by-point comparison of two equivalent machines, and I did not leave out "dozens of hardware features." I took exactly what Apple shows you when you go to their site and choose to buy a Mac, and CUT AND PASTED. If this leaves out "dozens of great features," take it up with them, because I didn't do any selective editing. I fully admitted that Apple's software suite is more robust than the Dell's. Any value you seek to add to one or the other is purely subjective until you can link a study that proves otherwise. You think the Macbook Pro is higher quality? Fantastic. You like OSX more? GREAT. It doesn't matter. In the end, people buy what they like. Trying to justify it objectively is pointless; Apple hardware is more expensive than the equivalently-configured PC, in almost all cases, end of story. The severity of that gap varies, but it is always there. It's just a fact, and to act like it doesn't exist, or that the price difference is magically made better by X-that-is-not-quantifiable is stupid and pointless. If you like Macs, buy a Mac. I will buy a Mac Mini and possibly a Macbook (non-Pro) myself soon. But I'm not kidding myself--I'm buying them because I like Apple's style, not because of some falsely-objective points that I desperately cling to in order to justify the price.
There isn't really an equivalent Inspiron to a Macbook. We either have to go with an XPS 1210 (which is targeted as an enthusiast notebook and therefore grossly overpriced) or a 710M, which doesn't come in a Core duo flavor. The regular Macbook is a fair deal, though--and one I've considered purchasing. If my current laptop dies, my next machine will probably be an Apple, unless some other manufacturer can make a reasonably priced thin-and-light notebook. But the fact is, pound-for-pound, the hardware costs for an Apple notebook are significantly more expensive than any PC manufacturer. That has not changed with Apple's switch to Intel. People will justify this cost as they see fit--claims of quality, durability, etc. (and if they link statistical studies that show that Apple computers actually fail less than PCs, then their claims may be grounded)--but almost inevitably it is a matter of personal taste. We buy what we like. Don't bother trying to justify spending 2500 on a Macbook Pro. You obviously valued the Macbook enough to warrant the extra cost, and the argument ends there. Just because there is a cheaper alternative doesn't mean it's an alternative for you, which is fine. I don't get why people are so defensive in these debates. Apple is more expensive than any similarly-spec'd PC. This is not a condemnation; it's just a fact. Big deal.
Dell similarly overcharges for upgrades--you could easily buy a 1 GB stick for the same amount for the Dell. I just wanted to make the two machines as similar as possible, and since Dell currently offered 1GB for the price of 512, I factored that in.
Without the warranty, the Macbook Pro only has a 1 year warranty. If we take the Dell down to a one year warranty, the price difference remains roughly the same.
The Macbook Pro doesn't fit into the same level as the Latitude. There's an entire apparatus of corporate support than Dell has designed around the Latitude line that the Inspiron does not qualify for. This is the primary reason Latitudes are more expensive. The Macbook Pro is a luxury computer--it is clearly too expensive for a home user, but to place it on the same level as a Latitude would imply that Apple is capable of providing the same level of corporate support that Dell is, and that's not true. Unless you can show me that the Macbook Pro is advertised for businesses, and not simply as a souped-up Macbook for the people who can afford it, I don't think a Latitude-Macbook Pro comparison is valid.
I have a Dell 600m that I've owned for two years. I took it with me to Japan, and part of my time there was spent ferrying between the islands of Ogasawara, which has very choppy water. I've basically beat the living crap out of it. It's still performing quite well. Do I think Dell makes high-quality parts? No, not really. But I don't consider their main competitor, HP, to make any "better" computers. Lenovo/IBM's dominance is in the business arena--they compete very poorly in the home-user segment, and Lenovo is trying to turn that around. (Whether they'll be able to is the subject of many an investor's meeting.) Meanwhile, Apple's marketshare has declined since last year, and is now at 5.3%. (Source.) So really, as far as the average home computer goes, Dell is in line with the rest of the market.
Apple makes a niche product. Dell mass-produces machines. Does Apple make better "quality" laptops than Dell? Well, their marketing apparatus has certainly succeeded in convincing the world it does. But until I can see numbers on MFT, I'm not really inclined to believe Apple computers are built to this mythical higher standard. If it's worth an extra $1250 to you, great. But to act like it should naturally be worth the same to everyone else is to be very naive. I've been very pleased with my 600m. It's a travel laptop, and in that role it has succeeded admirably. For my heavy lifting, I use a rig I built. And I know that's high quality, because I bought the parts.
Ok, let's run with this.
Ok. The difference in performance is mild, but there.
There is no "Pro" OS for Apple. There's one OS--OSX. XP Pro's enhancements are notable, but since SP2 the only real difference between Home and Pro is networking capability. I addressed this in my first post. Still, for the sake of argument, tack on an extra $100 (150-30%) for XP Pro.
You've got to be kidding me. Ok, show me a home user with a gigabit switch/router, or a broadband connection capable of transmitting at anywhere functionally near that speed, and I'll admit this is a point.
Wow. You got me. There's the extra $1000. It's right there. How could I not see that?
Unless you're doing graphics-intensive work (in which case you're not going to buy a Dell, period), this is not an issue.
The X1600 in the MBP is underclocked. The Turbocache 7300 is actually the most expensive card Dell lets you throw into the machine. Looking at the tests I can find online (there's very little literature surrounding the 7300), it looks to be about neck-and-neck with the X1400. But hey, throw in the X1400 instead, and subtract $30. Then factor in that the gaming library for Apple computers is much smaller than the Windows platform. If you want to game, Apple is never going to be a good choice, even with more powerful hardware.
The weight issue is one I addressed. The comparative value of the other items is questionable, but I'll certainly admit that they do have value. But the sum of all the points you have made does not add up to nearly $1250.
I did not write my original post with the intention of bashing Apple. I think they make quality products. But there can be no doubt that there is a huge price difference between the two, and it is not quantifiable if you look at the hardware. You pay for the experience of an Apple, more than anything else. If you like it, fine, do your thing. But don't try and make it sound like the Apple offers more value than a Dell: with the numbers out, it clearly does not.
The reason Latitudes cost more is for two reasons--business-class support (which Apple DOES NOT provide for their Macbooks, and it's ridiculous to claim that they do) and modular interoperability. Latitudes are the only officially supported "upgradeable" notebooks from Dell: the D-line uses all of the same interfaces for their optical drives. Until the Dx20s, there was very little functional difference between Inspirons and Latitudes. But all Latitudes come with standard 3 year warranties, a business-class support team (that is not based in India), and guaranteed part-interoperability. They're a different class of machine altogether, and certainly should not be compared to Macbook Pros unless you can show me that Apple provides the same level of corporate support.
As far as build quality goes, nowadays there is a slight difference in quality between an Inspiron and a Latitude--and it's mostly just the chassis. But the components they use are functionally the same.
Please subtract $49.99 from the Apple price. I had a carrying case in my cart and did not notice it.
It also bears mentioning that I tried to make them as equivalent as possible in this scenario. I could have easily stuck another $200 worth of upgrades into the machine (XP Pro, bigger HDD, more RAM), and then used a $750 off of $2000 to get to the same price. In that case the Dell would be a clearly superior (from a hardware standpoint) machine.
That's not true at all. Here goes:
MacBook Pro 15-inch Glossy Widescreen Display
1024MB 667 DDR2 - 2 SO-DIMM
Backlit Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)
2.0GHz Intel Core Duo
AirPort Extreme Card & Bluetooth
80GB Serial ATA drive @ 5400 rpm
Price: $2099.99
AppleCare Protection Plan for MacBook Pro/PowerBook (w/or w/o Display) - Auto-enroll
Price: $349.99
Total: $2497.95
Inspiron E1505
Intel® Core(TM) Duo Proc T2500 (2GHz/667MHz/2 X 1MB L2 Cache)
Genuine Windows® XP Home
15.4 inch UltraSharp(TM) Wide Screen SXGA+ Display with TrueLife(TM)
FREE 1GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz, 2 Dimm
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce(TM)Go 7300 TurboCache
80GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
Integrated 10/100 Network Card and Modem
8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
Integrated Audio
Intel PRO/Wireless 3945 Internal Wireless and Bluetooth
85 WHr 9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
3Yr Ltd Warr,At-Home Service,and HW Warr Support plus Nights and Weekends
Free SKIN Promotion 15 - Free Promotion for 15 inch Skin
Price: $1,766.00 (before 30% off coupon, which is practically always available.)
Price after coupon: $1,236.20
There are a few things the Macbook Pro has that the Dell does not. For one, the Macbook is lighter, thinner, and more aesthetically pleasing, which is no small thing. It also has a much more robust software suite--OSX is clearly a more complete OS than XP, and the pre-installed software package on an Apple computer adds value as well. In contrast, the Dell supports higher resolution, a more powerful video card, and a higher battery life.
With all of that said, do you really think one Macbook Pro is worth two Dell E1505s?
It's also worth noting that AMD's server platform is much more popular than Intel's. The sort of scalability AMD has introduced to the server market has had a significant impact. Even though the Woodcrest is a much more robust chip than the Opteron (and it is, no questions asked), the Opteron platform is perceived as more flexible. (And I'm inclined to believe it deserves that perception.) So now we've got an interesting situation--as an IT manager, do you choose the more powerful chip, or do you choose the platform that grows with you?
If you look at the table THG provided, most of AMD's low-end products meet the required price cuts, or at least get fairly close to it. But I think AMD is making the right decision in not cutting their high-end chips down that much. The only people willing to shell out $4-500 for a CPU are people who want cutting-edge technology. None of those people are going to buy X2s, period, because the Conroe just spanks them. AMD is moving aggressively to recapture the market that has historically sustained them: the budget consumer. This will do just that--the X2 3800+ is now extremely well-priced, (below $200 in both iterations), and as such is in direct competition with the E6300. The 65W X2 uses less power than the E6300, but is closer to it in suggested price, but the vanilla X2 is a full $30 cheaper. That is a hefty sum in the budget market. The disparity between bang/buck for AMD's high and low-end chips will only make the choice more obvious--if you want to go AMD, get their budget chips. That's the market AMD stands a chance at winning.
And I quote: "In the strategically important field of socket AM2 CPUs, the drop averaged 47%." So, before you tell someone else to RTFA, I suggest you do it yourself.
No worries. :) What has worked for me thus far has been anything made by DFI. I'm currently using their LanParty nF4 Ultra-D with an ATI X800XL, and I've had no problems at all. A friend of mine is running an nForce250gb with a Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro, and that's working all right too. What are your board and card models?
Doing that right now with no problem, as are countless others. I'm sorry to call you out, but this is just a baseless claim--nVidia has long been the dominant chipset for AMD, but only recently (with the release of the 7900GTX) did they recapture the performance crown from ATi. People have been running ATi cards on nForce chipsets since the days of the Radeon 9700 Pro. It's just a dumb move to alienate the consumer by making your chipset difficult to work with under any circumstances. They want to make sure that the "best" performance (SLI, Crossfire) are only available with their respective cards, but the budget and midrange market is volatile enough that it would be economic suicide to limit compatibility.
The Conroe uses DDR2 as well--it will likely be higher-priced due to higher bus speeds, but not significantly so.
If power consumption is a concern, then Intel's new offerings really take on a new light. I have been waiting for a chip capable of powering an HTPC without destroying my energy bill, because I want to leave it on 24-7. The Core 2 Duo brings a lot to the table with regards to power/price/performance, and these price cuts are still not quite enough to bring the ball back to AMD's court. But AMD's been the underdog before, and then the A64 happened. I am fairly certain that no matter who wins "this round," the end result is going to be that both companies are going to be forced to release better products.
However, I would not quote THG as an unbiased source. If I remember correctly, it took them over a year to finally admit that the A64 absolutely destroyed everything Intel had to offer--and now that Intel has come back out on top, they are the loudest in declaring their superiority. It's a bit ridiculous how quick THG points out that "the price cut is not enough."
Ah yes, the very definition of desperation. So, again, you help us prove that theft is not primarily borne of desperation, but something else entirely. Which was our point from the beginning. What are you arguing here again? I'm honestly curious at this point. And on another note, you're quoting the book Freakonomics, which, while interesting, is not held to the same academic standard as a paper submitted to a scientific journal.
You are really in no position to talk. Throughout this entire argument you have made up terms (the "rhetorical method" for one, which does not exist as a proper noun), refused to cite reliable sources (and yet you claim that we do not know the meaning of the word citation!), and generally acted like a pompous ass. This may shock you, but you are not as smart as you believe. Your grasp of philosophy is tenuous, (responsible for everything or responsible for nothing is not a claim made by any philosopher I know of), you are wholly incapable of pieceing together a coherent argument (as I've evidenced numerous times already), and you don't seem to understand what either of us is saying, or at least you refuse to see our arguments for what they are. (Since you keep getting hung up on morals when no one but you brought them into the argument.)
Honestly, I don't see this discussion going anywhere. At first I thought maybe you had an interesting viewpoint that, while I found it to be mistaken and in error, had the possibility of being a valid, alternative view on the situation. Now I just see that you are a dumbass who is more concerned with arguing points I am not making than actually addressing the fundamental argument at hand. You don't cite sources (the reference to Freakonomics is the first actual source you cite) and then you ask us to do your research for you. There really is not much more to be said. You haven't made an argument yet. If you decide to make one, and back it up with actual facts, let me know. Until then, the original premise, the thing that started this entire debate, stands, and that is: not all theft, not even a majority of theft, is a result of poverty and therefore desperation. So, reducing poverty is not necessarily the best way of reducing theft. And that's really it. There's nothing in there about morals, or ethics, or any of the shit you saw fit to introduce into this equation. Until you can conclusively show that either a.) all theft is a result of desperation and/or poverty (which is false, so you can't show it to be true), or b.) Reducing poverty is better than any other means of reducing theft (which you haven't even tried to do), this discussion is an impasse.