This is a lazy troll - for example, note how conspicuously people making that claim are unable to identify specific equivalent hardware at significantly lower prices or any discussion of the total cost of ownership over the service life of the device. Simply repeating a cliche forum comment doesn’t contribute anything like those details could.
> note how conspicuously people making that claim are unable to identify specific equivalent hardware
At this rate, if you show someone a laptop that's genuinely better than a Macbook they'll complain that it's missing a notch. Setting a nebulous standard of "equivalent hardware" is a lazy goalpost intended to waste the time of good-faith commentators. It's an ivory throne in the swamp, if it suits you.
You didn’t, actually. You listed a vague description which could apply to multiple models and years and it would hardly make sense to compare an old used device to any new one.
Now, if we look at Lenovo’s current Ideapad lineup we start to see something interesting: most of them have these crappy low-res displays and once you’re talking similar display quality, you are shockingly looking at similar prices:
Mine's the 5800u model, but the 4800u one has gone as low as $450 new in the past. It supports Linux and Windows out-of-box, it's cheap as chips and it's fast enough to swap spit with whatever my Macbook Air would be running.
I like some Apple hardware; I've got a couple Powerbooks stacked up somewhere, and the early unibody models weren't terribly flawed. Modern Macs though... if you manage to ignore the OS issues, you still have to baby the hardware out of fear of a $700 topcase replacement (or worse). It's investment on top of investment on top of investment, and the returns keep getting smaller after every OS update.
To each their own. I simply don't subscribe to the "one size fits all" mentality towards Apple products, even as "normal people" computers. It's not worth starting a flamewar over though, so I'll leave it at that.
That cost over a grand new according to the reviews at the time and it’s still over $600 now. I’m not saying that Apple is the only company who can make a laptop worth using but rather that when people are saying they can get something as good for far less, their definition of “as good” inevitably has some major caveats like screen or build quality. Once you aren’t making huge compromises, you’re paying similar prices.
Similarly, you mentioned “you still have to baby the hardware out of fear of a $700 topcase replacement” but that’s true of all lightweight laptops, and the metal cases are quite durable so it’s uncommon that you need to do that. Again, my point is simply that this isn’t some big distinction between devices in that class but rather a characteristic of the concept – it’s like going around saying that a Tesla is a ripoff because you can buy a used Camry for less and being surprised when people do not find that insightful.
They became a trillion dollar company by doing that. There was nothing stopping other enormous companies to compete on quality and customer service, but they decided against that. Follow the money indeed...
>There was nothing stopping other enormous companies to compete on quality and customer service, but they decided against that.
I mean, are we pretending that Microsoft also isn't a trillion dollar company? They are the only one with an incentive to do that strategy, but they probably got a good share of money from licensing their platform to other OEMs.
The next closest thing to "full OS vertical integration" are game consoles. Specialized devices focused on entertainment instead of general purpose ones.
Microsoft became a trillion dollar company with another approach, yes, you're right. Walmart became a trillion dollar company doing completely different things. Nobody is pretending anything.
But when somebody says "follow the money" as the explanation to why other brands make crap laptops, I think it is fair to point out that most money goes to the company that makes laptops that aren't crap.
>Microsoft became a trillion dollar company with another approach, yes, you're right. Walmart became a trillion dollar company doing completely different things. Nobody is pretending anything.
your point here more or less argues with your point above and goes back to what I was trying to tell you. "Follow the money" doesn't mean "follow the money of the biggest companies that you only tangentially compete with". It means "understand the business in question and use their motivation for money to figure out their priorities".
Take a look at what makes Microsoft money, then what makes HP/Acer/Lenovo/Razer/etc. money, and even what makes Intel/Nvidia/AMD money. Now ask how much "fixing a proper sleep mode" will make any of these entities. That probably gives some clue on why no one has solved this yet.
>I think it is fair to point out that most money goes to the company that makes laptops that aren't crap.
I think I explained this above, but I should emphasize that we both know the best product doesn't always make the most money.
>I think I explained this above, but I should emphasize that we both know the best product doesn't always make the most money.
Look at the thread title, look at what specific products are being discussed in the thread. There is no dispute that for laptop computers, the best product is making the most money. And I'd argue that it is the case for smart phones as well.
There is a market that is probably in the size of millions of people who would love to buy a non-Apple laptop that was a bit closer to the Macbook in quality. But other manufacturers don't seem to give a damn, even though Apple has demonstrated that it pays off making quality products and caring for the customer. Everybody would benefit from better competition.
If you follow the money, you can see it flowing in to Apple's bank account from consumers.