Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Even though I'm not a fanboi, I understand Apple need to make higher margins off the hardware - but that story just doesn't ring true. They don't make junk, and you have to include the packaging, but Apple aren't renowned for splashing out on the most expensive components. They ARE overpriced in terms of building a like-for-like spec, just as you can buy something which will match a 911 around the track for less money... IF raw performance is all you care about.
At last someone who gets it. It's the total package that works together. Apple have a significant advantage by making both the hardware and software because they can qualify them to run together.
I think the "they don't actually cost more" argument detracts from the truth, which is that you are paying for more than just a spec-sheet. You pay for the grams and cubic inches you're not getting, and you're paying for design. If you don't GAS about those things, and a PC is just a box which does computing, Apple IS expensive, and that's fine.
If I want a pure number cruncher then no I won't choose Apple, but for a system I'm sitting in front of it's hard to beat.
In terms of TCO over the last dozen years I have found Apple products to be considerably cheaper than Wintel. I've certainly spent a lot less time managing my Apple systems than would have been needed with Windows.
Comment