Why do you hate Apple? (intelligent discussion)

Status
Not open for further replies.
!@#$%^&*() said:
Aware of "Thinklight". Thought it was garbage.

The keyboard was mediocre at best.

You're trying to shift attention to the keyboard -- no point in going down that route. Lots of people don't touch type, especially when there are function keys involved.

None of those are true competitors. One machine I do consider to be a true competitor to the Macbook Pro lines is the VAIO Z series. Beautiful machines.
Click to expand...

I'm not shifting anything. I am countering your argument head-on, while you zig zag around with various points.

I pull up known competitors to the mbp 15, feature wise, you shift the attention to its unibody and the fact it has a backlit keyboard and using your words "cant see the keyboard in the dark" with the thinkpad. I countered that head-on too, the thinklight is not pretty, but it is functional.

The fact that you pull up the VAIO Z as a competitor to the mbp 15 just disregards your argument all together. I'm going to stop now.
 
wonderfield said:
Performance was not the primary consideration. The goals were silence, aesthetics and performance, and in that order. I spent money on components which gave me a good combination of these three criteria. I didn't waste money, either, buying things to inflate the build cost, but only items that served one of the three main considerations.

When you take aesthetic value strongly into consideration, you'll be prepared to pay for it, as you'll often need to pay more for components which satisfy your aesthetic criteria. The same can be said of cooling performance and silence. This stuff costs money, and the cost of small components that most people dont bother to outfit their machines with adds up quickly.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It's just that you specifically mentioned that your PC wasn't faster than your Mac and that you spared no expense in building the PC. That simply makes NO sense but now that you clarified that performance wasn't a goal that makes sense.

And yes aesthetics cost money, top line performance does as well. And if you spare no expense with compute hardware a PC will destroy a retail Mac or PC. That's simply a fact.
 
heatlesssun said:
Fair enough. It's just that you specifically mentioned that your PC wasn't faster than your Mac and that you spared no expense in building the PC. That simply makes NO sense but now that you clarified that performance wasn't a goal that makes sense.

And yes aesthetics cost money, top line performance does as well. And if you spare no expense with compute hardware a PC will destroy a retail Mac or PC. That's simply a fact.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say you have to "spare no expense" since, for the same price as a retail computer, you can often build one that's better, just by picking better components, this has been proven over and over again in General Hardware, with very few exceptions.
 
Fail said:
I wouldn't say you have to "spare no expense" since, for the same price as a retail computer, you can often build one that's better, just by picking better components, this has been proven over and over again in General Hardware, with very few exceptions.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing, but when you do say "spare no expense" then there's really no way not to have an amazing PC that blows any retail machine, including a Mac, out of the damn universe. I mean no Mac these days other than the Mac Pro even has a desktop class GPU.
 
heatlesssun said:
And if you spare no expense with compute hardware a PC will destroy a retail Mac or PC. That's simply a fact.
Click to expand...
I was not debating this. Apple doesnt make a performance-at-all-costs machine, thus they cannot compete with speciality PC builds at the same price. They don't care to compete with such options.
 
Empty_Quarter said:
I'm not shifting anything. I am countering your argument head-on, while you zig zag around with various points.

I pull up known competitors to the mbp 15, feature wise, you shift the attention to its unibody and the fact it has a backlit keyboard and using your words "cant see the keyboard in the dark" with the thinkpad. I countered that head-on too, the thinklight is not pretty, but it is functional.
Click to expand...

Yep. Obvious troll is obvious, he hasn't said a single constructive thing other than "luxury goods cost more money."
 
viralcow said:
Yep. Obvious troll is obvious, he hasn't said a single constructive thing other than "luxury goods cost more money."
Click to expand...

I've said plenty of constructive things -- you guys just don't understand reason and keep making illogical statements/comparisons.
 
I'd have to say that's Mac laptops are far ahead of pc ones, yes they are pricy but you get what you pay for.

Ie plastic vs aluminum.

Weird how everyone now is copying the MacBook air style.....

I hat a IBM laptop, it was ok, it was heavy, with no battery life. E think light, it sucks. A backlit keyboard is way better than the stupid think light..

Ever take apart a IBM/Lenovo, they are brutal with million different sizes of screws etc etc...

I'm going to say if I have to buy a pc laptop, it would be a dell, not because I'm a dell tech or service them all day, but the fact they have the best warrantee is the pure win for them..
 
dashpuppy said:
I'd have to say that's Mac laptops are far ahead of pc ones, yes they are pricy but you get what you pay for.

Ie plastic vs aluminum.
Click to expand...

Depends on the PC laptop that you buy. ThinkPads have a lot of very nice qualities and while the case is aluminum, while aluminum is attractive, it does tend to dent more easily than the good plastic of ThinkPads, though the plastic may crack more easily. I'll take a ThinkPad keyboard over a Mac any day though Mac track pads are much better. And I like my matte finish IPS screen on my x220.

The problem is that so many PC OEM devices are focused on the lowest cost and there is a market out there for better and even more expensive machines. I do think that this year particularly with Windows 8 and Microsoft looking like it's paying more attention to hardware and working with OEMs on better hardware.

The PC OEMS need to develop tablet hybrid x86 ultrabooks, That's something that Apple won't have for sometime and it gives them a leg up if they can create some quality designs at good prices.

But they also need to work on their customer service. Apple has a big leg up in that department over most OEMs since they don't have any of their own retail chain like Apple.
 
heatlesssun said:
Depends on the PC laptop that you buy. ThinkPads have a lot of very nice qualities and while the case is aluminum, while aluminum is attractive, it does tend to dent more easily than the good plastic of ThinkPads, though the plastic may crack more easily. I'll take a ThinkPad keyboard over a Mac any day though Mac track pads are much better. And I like my matte finish IPS screen on my x220.

The problem is that so many PC OEM devices are focused on the lowest cost and there is a market out there for better and even more expensive machines. I do think that this year particularly with Windows 8 and Microsoft looking like it's paying more attention to hardware and working with OEMs on better hardware.

The PC OEMS need to develop tablet hybrid x86 ultrabooks, That's something that Apple won't have for sometime and it gives them a leg up if they can create some quality designs at good prices.

But they also need to work on their customer service. Apple has a big leg up in that department over most OEMs since they don't have any of their own retail chain like Apple.
Click to expand...

I talk to dell 4-10 times a day, id say over the last 5 years DELL has come a long way in the customer service department.

One thing i swear by on my macbook 13" is the magnetic power adapter that right there is one wicked invention....
 
When I was going to uni, people always asked me, "why do you have an air, aren't you a PC guy?" I got tired of debating the merits so the last time someone asked me that in class, I pulled up my windows 7 vm in fusion and as we were about to leave I put it in my bag. I said feel my bag and now feel yours: Discussion over.

Why carry around a pc laptop that is so damn clunky... I have a water-cooled pc at home if I want to play games or crunch any number sets.
 
auspexd said:
When I was going to uni, people always asked me, "why do you have an air, aren't you a PC guy?" I got tired of debating the merits so the last time someone asked me that in class, I pulled up my windows 7 vm in fusion and as we were about to leave I put it in my bag. I said feel my bag and now feel yours: Discussion over.

Why carry around a pc laptop that is so damn clunky... I have a water-cooled pc at home if I want to play games or crunch any number sets.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you need. My current crop mobile PCs, counting my x86 Windows tablets that range from 1.5 to 4.5 pounds. The only thing I carry around these days are computers and accessories, no books or paper. My favorites device to carry these days is my Samsung Series 7 Slate unless a I need a keyboard and track pad, then I carry the my Lenovo x220t, a difference of about 2.5 pounds. Noticeable but just not a big deal to me in a laptop shoulder bag. But sure, if you've got to carry around a lot of other stuff then sure, saving weight is great.
 
Iv read through some of this and guessing someone has the same view as me.

I own two macs, 15" MBP and a 27" iMac, why do I own these? They worked out of the box pretty much, I spend all day working on computers so didnt want to have to mess around building one up etc

If im honest, comparing it to Windows 7, they both have pros and cons. I know some of these are hardware related
Mac Pros:
Terminal
Display is incredible
Build quality
How quiet they run

Mac Cons:
App store - what a pile of crap
Crashes more than any windows 7 pc I have ever used
OSX - awful OS, enough said
Finder - never can find anything!

Win 7 Pros
Gaming
UI just works
Explorer
Stability

Win 7 cons:
Lack of a proper terminal!
Cant really give it any more :s

Overall I am happy with my Macs but will never completley move away from windows due to some of the software I use being Windows only. One of the worst thing about Mac's for me though is the fucking fan boys, bigging it up, have they been fucking brain washed or something? its a computer!
You say that mac's are crap, they take it as a personal insult and actually get offended like you have just insulted their kids! get a life! grr
 
!@#$%^&*() said:
I've said plenty of constructive things -- you guys just don't understand reason and keep making illogical statements/comparisons.
Click to expand...

Let's summarize:

A: Macs are overpriced for their specs. PCs offer better value.
B: Macs are competitively priced b/c of their specs and build quality.

A1: Points out PC laptops $1100 cheaper than MBP yet faster cpu/gpu.
B1: It's a plastic jet engine. It's foolish to suggest such a low-quality laptop to someone looking for luxury goods. Wants a business-class laptop for comparison.

A2: Points out a business-class laptop directly comparable to a MBP but $600 cheaper (Thinkpad W520).
B2: Does it have backlit keys? Aluminum? Thickness? Battery Life?

A3: Points out the Thinkpad is more than enough of a substitute for the MBP. Build quality, battery life, thickness, thinklight, keyboard...
B3: Thinklight is garbage. Backlight is the way to go. And you're focusing too much on the keyboard. Suddenly these Business-class laptops aren't good enough. Wants a Sony Z for comparison.

First and foremost, you're being silly by disregarding all other PCs for comparison other than a Sony Z. The Thinkpad brings more than enough competition to a MBP. What does it lack in comparison? Only aesthetic features aka a backlit keyboard and an aluminum unibody. Functionality wise, it meets everything the MBP offers and then some.

Also, note how you completely disregard any of the valid points we bring up, and you don't bring up any points why the MBP is cost-competitive. No, instead you completely drop your claims that the MBP is cost-competitive by stating luxury features are subjective, then switch your claims to say "luxury goods should only be compared with other luxury goods, aka the Sony Z." This is what Empty_Quarter means by "zig zagging around."

We're exactly back at where we started. PCs offer better value and Apple is a luxury good and thus expensive. Remember how this discussion started by your claims that Apple computers are cost-competitive? You did not provide a shred of evidence supporting your claim, but instead re-iterated the fact that they are luxury goods. The definition of a luxury good = not cost efficient.
 
Last edited:
I've generally been a fan of Apple's desktop and laptop products, but my enthusiasm has taken a huge hit since the release of Lion. Since 10.7, I've had Wifi problems, networking problems, and drive corruption issues. I've had to deal with all the sorts of "it just doesn't work" issues that Apple used as cannon fodder in its campaign against Microsoft not five years ago. Suddenly, Windows 7 is the stable, problem-free OS for me and OSX is, well, a bug-fest.

I cannot say whether Apple's focus on mobile devices has impacted the quality of its effort(s) on the larger PC OS side, but something has changed for certain.

I don't mind higher prices for better products. In the past, you got excellent design, reliable hardware, some best-in-class components (such as display panels) but it was the OS that really sealed the deal since, as others have mentioned here, hardware alone can be a tough sell. Now that the OS is no longer the slam dunk "better than Windows" choice that I do believe it was a few years ago, I think the argument for value is harder to make. (My 2009 27" iMac, my last Apple PC purchase, whose Wifi stopped working after sleep from 10.7.3 launch until a patch was released last night, will probably be the last for me.)
 
sphinx99 said:
I've generally been a fan of Apple's desktop and laptop products, but my enthusiasm has taken a huge hit since the release of Lion. Since 10.7, I've had Wifi problems, networking problems, and drive corruption issues. I've had to deal with all the sorts of "it just doesn't work" issues that Apple used as cannon fodder in its campaign against Microsoft not five years ago. Suddenly, Windows 7 is the stable, problem-free OS for me and OSX is, well, a bug-fest.

I cannot say whether Apple's focus on mobile devices has impacted the quality of its effort(s) on the larger PC OS side, but something has changed for certain.

I don't mind higher prices for better products. In the past, you got excellent design, reliable hardware, some best-in-class components (such as display panels) but it was the OS that really sealed the deal since, as others have mentioned here, hardware alone can be a tough sell. Now that the OS is no longer the slam dunk "better than Windows" choice that I do believe it was a few years ago, I think the argument for value is harder to make. (My 2009 27" iMac, my last Apple PC purchase, whose Wifi stopped working after sleep from 10.7.3 launch until a patch was released last night, will probably be the last for me.)
Click to expand...

It's been said before and I'll say it again Lion = OSX Vista. After playing around with Mountain Lion a bit I have hope it will be OSX Windows 7.
Don't abandon ship just yet, both sides are gonna have a Vista come thru every once in a while.
 
!@#$%^&*() said:
I'd offer my testicles to the Apple Gods for a matte screen.
Click to expand...

Apple loving trolls don't have balls.

The 15" MBP you guys have been comparing has the slower 2.2Ghz i7, while the Thinkpad sports the 2.4Ghz version. The same 2.4Ghz i7 in the 15" MBP retails for $2200. Now the Thinkpad is $700 cheaper. That's one helluva expensive aluminum chassis & backlit keyboard.

Oh, and ROFL on apple's crazy upgrade prices. $200 to upgrade from 4GB to 8GB?
 
I am a hardware type of guy, and I used to dislike Apple products due to their underpowered specs and weird CPUs they used in their products. Also the lack of flexibility. I would not touch their stuff with a 10 foot pole.

This all changed when they switched to Intel CPUs. Suddenly the hardware became competitive.

Now their laptops and displays are simply the best out there. I own a 2011 MBP, the new Envy 15 and a Lenovo W520. The hardware on Envy and Lenovo doesn't come close to quality you see on Apple. Envy has weird gaps in places where aluminum parts meet, the keyboard is flexy and when typing the left side of keyboard has slightly different action and sound than the right. There are also small gaps in the plastic on the black display lid on the seams where plastic meets.
W520 has a very nice keyboard, but still small build quality issues - flexing plastic above keyboard and on the sides, CPU whine when running on battery, loose battery, slightly uneven backlight when displaying black.
MBP has been literally flawless hardware wise. I tried looking hard for flaws, but simply can't find anything. The only design issue is the power supply connector that likes to fall out or get dislodged. The Thunderbolt display that i use has been absolutely flawless also.

Love them or hate them, but their products nowadays have superior quality control to their competition.
 
J Macker said:
Oh, and ROFL on apple's crazy upgrade prices. $200 to upgrade from 4GB to 8GB?
Click to expand...

This sums up best why I hate Apple. Although, as a capitalist I would do the same thing if I could get away with it. But fanboys defending it is a different can of worms.
 
viralcow said:
Let's summarize:

A: Macs are overpriced for their specs. PCs offer better value.
B: Macs are competitively priced b/c of their specs and build quality.

A1: Points out PC laptops $1100 cheaper than MBP yet faster cpu/gpu.
B1: It's a plastic jet engine. It's foolish to suggest such a low-quality laptop to someone looking for luxury goods. Wants a business-class laptop for comparison.

A2: Points out a business-class laptop directly comparable to a MBP but $600 cheaper (Thinkpad W520).
B2: Does it have backlit keys? Aluminum? Thickness? Battery Life?

A3: Points out the Thinkpad is more than enough of a substitute for the MBP. Build quality, battery life, thickness, thinklight, keyboard...
B3: Thinklight is garbage. Backlight is the way to go. And you're focusing too much on the keyboard. Suddenly these Business-class laptops aren't good enough. Wants a Sony Z for comparison.

First and foremost, you're being silly by disregarding all other PCs for comparison other than a Sony Z. The Thinkpad brings more than enough competition to a MBP. What does it lack in comparison? Only aesthetic features aka a backlit keyboard and an aluminum unibody. Functionality wise, it meets everything the MBP offers and then some.

Also, note how you completely disregard any of the valid points we bring up, and you don't bring up any points why the MBP is cost-competitive. No, instead you completely drop your claims that the MBP is cost-competitive by stating luxury features are subjective, then switch your claims to say "luxury goods should only be compared with other luxury goods, aka the Sony Z." This is what Empty_Quarter means by "zig zagging around."

We're exactly back at where we started. PCs offer better value and Apple is a luxury good and thus expensive. Remember how this discussion started by your claims that Apple computers are cost-competitive? You did not provide a shred of evidence supporting your claim, but instead re-iterated the fact that they are luxury goods. The definition of a luxury good = not cost efficient.
Click to expand...


Where to start.

You clearly haven't a clue on how to make a fair comparison.

Again, you guys are comparing plastic jet engines that are nearly, what, two inches thick to a sleek unibody aluminum under one inch casing?

The w520 horse has been beaten to death. That laptop is thicker, it is louder, it doesn't have a backlit keyboard, it doesn't have a large trackpad that supports gestures, the battery life is absolute shit, so no, it is NOT a fair comparison and is NOT in the same league. And these ARE valid points, but for whatever reason not a single one of you can get your minds around that. All you guys see are that the specs are similar and the price is cheaper. That is NOT how this works.

I pointed out that these points are subjective, because they VERY clearly are. All of you disregard them, while they are VERY important to others. I am open to the idea that you guys don't care for them or consider them, but you guys still argue that it's a fair comparison and that I'm wrong.

And it just ISN'T a fair comparison. A comparison to a Sony Z series DOES make sense. It is a purpose built machine with many similar features. Comparing to the HP Envy DOES make sense, as it is similar form factor with a higher quality build quality with aesthetics in mind.

My original statement was that the MBP was about on par/price with competition of similar BUILD QUALITY and specs. I never once argued that the MBP was competitive to the bottom of the barrel Acer plastic air-filled laptops. You guys are the ones who are arguing against that while I'm trying to say something completely different.

I provided plenty of evidence. You guys are just too thick headed to sort through it and are only concerned with the argument that if the price is lower it must be better.

J Macker said:
Apple loving trolls don't have balls.

The 15" MBP you guys have been comparing has the slower 2.2Ghz i7, while the Thinkpad sports the 2.4Ghz version. The same 2.4Ghz i7 in the 15" MBP retails for $2200. Now the Thinkpad is $700 cheaper. That's one helluva expensive aluminum chassis & backlit keyboard.

Oh, and ROFL on apple's crazy upgrade prices. $200 to upgrade from 4GB to 8GB?
Click to expand...

Seems pretty par for the course for me. What company doesn't gauge your eyes out for upgrading a piece of hardware?

This has become a mindless apple-hate thread now.
 
Apple has just refined the art of charging stupid money for average/outdated hardware while convincing their customers they are superior.

So far, all I've seen is 'Macs look prettier, are thinner and have a better keyboard'. If looks and not actual performance are your concerns, then yeah, the MBP is thinner/prettier. But, if those are your criteria, you're not a power user and performance wouldn't mean much anyways.
 
GeekTech said:
So far, all I've seen is 'Macs look prettier, are thinner and have a better keyboard'. If looks and not actual performance are your concerns, then yeah, the MBP is thinner/prettier. But, if those are your criteria, you're not a power user and performance wouldn't mean much anyways.
Click to expand...


And have:
better battery life
a better charger (far less bulk)/magnetic break-away
an amazing trackpad with gesture support
I could go on.

The second point is a laughable assertion. Go ahead and tell that to anyone who does any serious development work on OSX. Or anyone who uses the gestures.
 
Wow, having to nitpick down to the charging cable?

I guess, when you can't brag about the cpu/memory/gpu you have to find every little thing you can to compensate, huh? Cute.
 
GeekTech said:
Wow, having to nitpick down to the charging cable?

I guess, when you can't brag about the cpu/memory/gpu you have to find every little thing you can to compensate, huh? Cute.
Click to expand...

Again, that mindset that raw hardware performance is king.

A very closed mindset, might I add.

A lot of you would attempt to argue that Apple users are the close-minded ones, too. Cute.

edit: and, for the sake of argument, that charger IS a valid point. It falls under the same category as the thinness: portability.
 
!@#$%^&*() said:
Again, that mindset that raw hardware performance is king.
Click to expand...

For the money Apple charges, performance better be near top of the pile, and it's not. The reality is you are paying for aesthetics and not power. But, then again, we already know that.
 
GeekTech said:
For the money Apple charges, performance better be near top of the pile, and it's not. The reality is you are paying for aesthetics and not power. But, then again, we already know that.
Click to expand...

I'm paying for far more than just aesthetics.

I'm paying for a stellar combination of aesthetics, performance, usability, and portability.
 
Sure it get's it's doors blown off performance wise by a PC costing hundreds less, sure it can't play what few games that are available decently or even comparatively to a much cheaper PC laptop, but, hey, it looks pretty!
 
GeekTech said:
Sure it get's it's doors blown off performance wise by a PC costing hundreds less, sure it can't play what few games that are available decently or even comparatively to a much cheaper PC laptop, but, hey, it looks pretty!
Click to expand...

See thread title.

Your trolling will just be ignored from here on out.
 
Mediocre performance to dollar ratio is a valid reason to dislike Apple computers. They have always trailed performance wise behind PC hardware. This is widely accepted. One of the downsides of having such a closed system. So it is relevant.
 
!@#$%^&*() said:
I'm paying for far more than just aesthetics.

I'm paying for a stellar combination of aesthetics, performance, usability, and portability.
Click to expand...

This thread is titled "Why do you hate Apple?", not "Why I love Apple so much." As others have stated many times you are not providing any useful or valid contributions to this thread other than those of entertainment value.
 
GeekTech said:
Mediocre performance to dollar ratio is a valid reason to dislike Apple computers. They have always trailed performance wise behind PC hardware. This is widely accepted. One of the downsides of having such a closed system. So it is relevant.
Click to expand...

Not in the way you presented it.

Gaming? Of all things you want to argue performance in gaming? Anyone who is seriously considering gaming as a primary purpose, or even close secondary purpose, will not be looking at ANY laptops mentioned in this thread. They will be looking at gaming laptops.

Portal 2 ran just dandy on my HD3000 -- where are your statistics to backup your claim that the games the Mac OS does have, it runs poorly?

and yes, I'm sure i5's and i7's and soon to be ivy-bridge processors and now considered "mediocre" performance.

Furthermore, what is your definition of mediocre performance? Performance will by and large be vastly different from Windows to OSX. So, how do you go about defining mediocre performance, on what you consider to be mediocre hardware, between two completely different operating systems?

Is your definition of "mediocre performance" based solely on specifics of the hardware used? Or do you base your definition in real world application settings? Elaborate.

Closed system? Explain.
 
caniba said:
This thread is titled "Why do you hate Apple?", not "Why I love Apple so much." As others have stated many times you are not providing any useful or valid contributions to this thread other than those of entertainment value.
Click to expand...

I've contributed plenty and made many valid points. I'm sorry the fanboy-ism doesn't allow for rational thought or a constructive way to present an argument outside of "you don't contribute anything, nothing is valid because I say so."

Also the thread title is labeled "intelligent discussion" -- you don't have a discussion if everyone agrees.

You then have a circlejerk.

Are you fond of circlejerks?
 
!@#$%^&*() said:
I provided plenty of evidence. You guys are just too thick headed to sort through it and are only concerned with the argument that if the price is lower it must be better.
Click to expand...

Again, we're back to where we started. You didn't really read what I wrote. I respect that you think Apple MBP's are luxury products. Not once did we ever say otherwise. This is completely obvious.

But you're the one who challenged the status quo by saying that it is price-competitive to PCs. So you have the burden of evidence. And the only evidence you've shown is that the MBP is overpriced and offers fancy features. You also avoid any serious critique of the MBP by saying the Thinkpad and other business-class PCs are out of the MBP's league and thus any comparison is invalid. All I have to do now, is show that's not the case.

Let's go through these one by one:

1.) Laptop IS thicker, but not 2 inches thick. 2.4 cm (MBP) vs. 3.6 cm (thinkpad)
2.) Noise is almost unnoticeable. MBP on the other hand can get rather noticeable especially while doing graphically intensive tasks. (notebookcheck review)
3.) Not backlit, but does feature the best keyboard in the industry, and thinklight.
4.) Smaller trackpad without gestures, but does have a trackpoint.
5.) Battery life matches the MBP. 7 hours. (notebookcheck review)

What about durability? The thinkpad has magnesium casing with carbon-reinforced plastic that's durable as hell. Seen them stop bullets and survive being dropped from three-four stories, not to mention being lit on fire.

So. Where does the MBP win? The trackpad, backlighting, being 1cm thinner, magnetic dc charger.
That's it? That's worth $600? Not to mention being worse in almost every hardware specs?

I don't understand where you get the idea that thinkpads are out of the MBP's league.
 
Last edited:
viralcow said:
So. Where does the MBP win? The trackpad, backlighting, being 1cm thinner, magnetic dc charger.
That's it? That's worth $600? Not to mention being worse in almost every hardware specs?
Click to expand...

I would seriously have to say that yes those things are worth $600 more. And obviously millions of other people agree.
 
shoota said:
And obviously millions of other people agree.
Click to expand...

No they do not. They do not understand or consider any other viable options for their needs. They go to buy an Apple and that's what they get. Any commissioned salesperson would be a retard to not make the sale.

For me, the Apple trackpad is cool, but I always use a mouse. IMO, all trackpads suck. So this point holds zero value for me.
 
shoota said:
I would seriously have to say that yes those things are worth $600 more. And obviously millions of other people agree.
Click to expand...

Sure. But there are even more people who disagree, myself included.

I was simply trying to show that the Thinkpad, and others like it, are viable options against the MBP, not "plastic jet engines."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top