11 ms·

> And as IBM reported a couple weeks ago, even at higher prices, Macs tend to be cheaper to own. I’m writing this on a mid-2010 non-Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro I

by cdubzzz 10y ago

> And as IBM reported a couple weeks ago, even at higher prices, Macs tend to be cheaper to own. I’m writing this on a mid-2010 non-Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro I bought six years ago last June. Yes, over time I increased the memory to from four to 16 gigs, took the hard drive up from 240 gigs to a terabyte Fusion drive, replaced both the battery and the keyboard when they wore out, but that still puts me only about $1600 into this device with which I have so far generated well over $1 million in revenue. My own experience with Apple's computers has been similar. The last Apple I purchased was a MacBook Pro back in 2006/7 that lasted me a solid eight years, including three in an extremely hot and dusty environment. The only problem it ever had was a faulty optical drive (and I did always have lots of trouble with Apple's laptop optical drives). But that is just one more individual experience. Anyway, I don't know that "revenue generated while using the computer" really says anything at all. And I doubt Apple would come out ahead in that calculation industry wide.

criley2 10y ago
> And as IBM reported a couple weeks ago, even at higher prices, Macs tend to be cheaper to own. >but that still puts me only about $1600 into this device I always forget how dis-attached and money-blind pro-apple authors are from the 98% of people and how they approach money. I guess if I was in the 1%, I'd also think Apple was the cheap option! (I'd probably also think that about Lexus and BMW...) $1600 over 6 years, or about $270 a year, is not inexpensive and the false label "cheaper to own" is absurd to the highest degree. I could go out right now and buy a $600 laptop, a $200 chromebook, and be out $800 dollars. Then I could build a $500 rather powerful budget desktop, and be at $1300, with three devices, and have $300 leftover for repairs or upgrades. I could buy a $800 laptop and another one in 3-6 years for that price. I could buy an iPad, a Chromebook, and a $600 laptop. I could buy three $500 laptops. There is no universe in existence where spending $1600 total cost of ownership in 6 years approaches ANYTHING CLOSE to "cheaper to own". Frankly, I DON'T EVEN KNOW windows users who have spent $1600 in the past 6 years total, except for hardcore PC gamers whose hardware so dramatically eclipses the medium-grade consumer level tech in Apple laptops that to compare them is entertaining and silly.
- pinaceae 10y ago
  oh my, once you discover the concept of TCO your mind will be blown. see the recent IBM study on this very topic (macs vs pcs). and yes, that's IBM as in IBM-compatible PC.
  - criley2 10y ago
    >oh my, once you discover the concept of TCO your mind will be blown. Haha I love when users attempt to act condescending, but actually demonstrate their own reading comprehension failure. TCO --- you mean TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP, a concept I discussed at length in the post you're replying to? Wow, imagine that. I'd love to discover a topic for the first time that I already discussed at length with over 4 different total cost comparisons, including repairs and upgrades. EDIT: IF we want to do TCO, mind you, I notice pro-apple folks don't include the $100-$200 of mandatory spider-web adapters you have to buy, as well. TCO is complicated and it's easy for Apple fans to hide the significantly overpriced Apple accessory costs from it :)
    - pinaceae 10y ago
      Total should include time spent on various fixes, repairs, installs. As in opportunity cost. If you value your time at zero, then yes, Windows on cheapo devices is your thing. Oh look, another Win10 upgrade, so good.
      - criley2 10y ago
        "If you value your time at zero, then yes, Windows on cheapo devices is your thing. Oh look, another Win10 upgrade, so good." Value your time at zero, lmao, condescending affluence at its best. If you are the 1%, you value your time at a what 1/10000 level of humanity? There is no shame to admitting you have money and will spend it like this. But for the rest of people -- the 9999/10000, a few minutes of learning and adaption isn't a waste of time, it's a material gain in skills and money. Rationalize away ~
  - taco_emoji 10y ago
Spooks 10y ago
But the new MacBooks are not upgradable (like the previous models). Will 256 GB SSD and 16 gig RAM be enough in 8 years? It will really depend on what you use your laptop for, but for most professions I would say no.
- wlesieutre 10y ago
  You sure about that? It's a removable part. http://blog.macsales.com/38440-ssd-in-late-2016-entry-level-macbook-pro-removable http://blog.macsales.com/38440-ssd-in-late-2016-entry-level-... It may take a while for a 3rd party replacement to become available, but it's not soldered onto the motherboard. If you take it to Apple with a SSD failure, they're not going to bill you $800 for a new logic board to fix it. Not sure where this assumption came from. It's like everyone's saying "I don't like this computer, so everything about it must be terrible."
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    I loved taking my 2013 maxed out RMBP to the Apple Store and being told the charging circuit for the battery needed to be replaced. Oh good, I thought, maybe $200? No. $795+tax. "You might want to look at buying a new Mac" which got me same screen, same SSD, same memory, CPU from Haswell to Broadwell... I love planned obsolescence and "part pricing to encourage replacement, not repair".
herlitzj 10y ago
It doesn't seem like anyone really read beyond the headline for that IBM keynote. He was only referring to the difference in cost for enterprise support across 100,000 machines.
- s9ix 10y ago
  Wasn't one of the main premises of it that it reduced IT support time? "Only 5% of IBM's Mac employees needed help desk support versus 40% of PC users." In that case, it's even less of a relevant comparison now. [0]: http://www.businessinsider.com/an-ibm-it-guy-macs-are-300-cheaper-to-own-than-windows-2016-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/an-ibm-it-guy-macs-are-300-ch...
- cdubzzz 10y ago
  Exactly. The headline of the article[0] Cringely links - IBM says it is 3X more expensive to manage PCs than Macs - doesn't even say anything about Apple computers being "cheaper to own", as Cringely puts it. Admittedly, I haven't read the entire thing. I stopped when I got to third paragraph because it seemed like an odd statement with no real backup other than the very general quote from IBM - > There are lots of reasons for this, not least that better OS software means Apple needs to update its systems far less often than Microsoft updates Windows. "We have to go out and manage the Mac environment 104 fewer times a year than PC," Previn said. I don't doubt IBM's information here by any means, but just as with Cringley's and my own example of consumer MacBook ownership, it's only one example - "IBM finds Apple computers cheaper to manage", not "Apple computers are cheaper to own". [0] http://www.computerworld.com/article/3131906/apple-mac/ibm-says-macs-are-even-cheaper-to-run-than-it-thought.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/3131906/apple-mac/ibm-s...
s9ix 10y ago
I think what the article fails to touch on is that people (myself included) used to love upgrading to the new Apple products because of new innovations or upgraded tech. The second-hand market for Apple products shouldn't be looked at as a problem, but rather a new demographic of people entering the ecosystem which might have been out of their price range otherwise. For me, I was itching for a reason to upgrade from my 2012 rMBP and to be honest, I have no plans to now. I don't want a thinner or lighter laptop, I just want everything to work all at once and some better battery life. The USB-C (and they fact that they didn't even mention it during the terrible keynote) was my biggest drawback, because now I literally have to buy adapters to plug in to my pre-existing adapters for this damn thing to work... Nope. When Apple got rid of the CD/DVD drive, or FireWire, it wasn't this much of an issue because I could agree that those were things I didn't use (along with the vast majority). But with the headphone jack (on the iPhones only thankfully), and now the SD card reader, USB, HDMI, and Mini-DP... All things I use on an almost daily basis. It sucks that people will have to buy ~ $100 of adapters to get their old functionality back. Also, if they're really touting this thing as such a professional's device, then their magical touch bar is even more flawed. I plug in external monitors when I use Final Cut Pro, Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. - most of their demos. Looking at a different monitor and then using the touch bar seems like such an awkward gesture.
- 9fiftyfive 10y ago
  I'm in the same boat. I have a MBP 2012 (non-retina), and could probably use an upgrade (although I just built a powerful desktop PC). I could deal with the removal of Ethernet, but the fact that I'll have to purchase 3 separate adapters (given I'll leave the fourth port for charging) is ridiculous. On top of that, the price is inexcusable. The lowest-end MacBook Pro costs $1,500 and has a 2.0GHz Dual-Core processor (which my current Mac outperforms), 8GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD, Intel Iris Graphics 540 (nothing impressive for a "pro" device), and two Thunderbolt 3 ports (only one port is accessible while charging...). Oh, and it doesn't even sport the new "touch bar" gimmick. For an extra $400, you get a faster clock speed (on a dual-core...), slightly faster RAM, and two extra ports. Point being, every model is extremely overpriced. Now, it's not the best comparison, as desktops and laptops have their own benefits, but if someone was to build a PC with the specs of the cheapest MacBook Pro (excluding peripherals), it would cost significantly less

by cdubzzz 10y ago

criley2 10y ago

> And as IBM reported a couple weeks ago, even at higher prices, Macs tend to be cheaper to own. >but that still puts me only about $1600 into this device I always forget how dis-attached and money-blind pro-apple authors are from the 98% of people and how they approach money. I guess if I was in the 1%, I'd also think Apple was the cheap option! (I'd probably also think that about Lexus and BMW...) $1600 over 6 years, or about $270 a year, is not inexpensive and the false label "cheaper to own" is absurd to the highest degree. I could go out right now and buy a $600 laptop, a $200 chromebook, and be out $800 dollars. Then I could build a $500 rather powerful budget desktop, and be at $1300, with three devices, and have $300 leftover for repairs or upgrades. I could buy a $800 laptop and another one in 3-6 years for that price. I could buy an iPad, a Chromebook, and a $600 laptop. I could buy three $500 laptops. There is no universe in existence where spending $1600 total cost of ownership in 6 years approaches ANYTHING CLOSE to "cheaper to own". Frankly, I DON'T EVEN KNOW windows users who have spent $1600 in the past 6 years total, except for hardcore PC gamers whose hardware so dramatically eclipses the medium-grade consumer level tech in Apple laptops that to compare them is entertaining and silly.

pinaceae 10y ago
oh my, once you discover the concept of TCO your mind will be blown. see the recent IBM study on this very topic (macs vs pcs). and yes, that's IBM as in IBM-compatible PC.
- criley2 10y ago
  >oh my, once you discover the concept of TCO your mind will be blown. Haha I love when users attempt to act condescending, but actually demonstrate their own reading comprehension failure. TCO --- you mean TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP, a concept I discussed at length in the post you're replying to? Wow, imagine that. I'd love to discover a topic for the first time that I already discussed at length with over 4 different total cost comparisons, including repairs and upgrades. EDIT: IF we want to do TCO, mind you, I notice pro-apple folks don't include the $100-$200 of mandatory spider-web adapters you have to buy, as well. TCO is complicated and it's easy for Apple fans to hide the significantly overpriced Apple accessory costs from it :)
  - pinaceae 10y ago
    Total should include time spent on various fixes, repairs, installs. As in opportunity cost. If you value your time at zero, then yes, Windows on cheapo devices is your thing. Oh look, another Win10 upgrade, so good.
    - criley2 10y ago
      "If you value your time at zero, then yes, Windows on cheapo devices is your thing. Oh look, another Win10 upgrade, so good." Value your time at zero, lmao, condescending affluence at its best. If you are the 1%, you value your time at a what 1/10000 level of humanity? There is no shame to admitting you have money and will spend it like this. But for the rest of people -- the 9999/10000, a few minutes of learning and adaption isn't a waste of time, it's a material gain in skills and money. Rationalize away ~
- taco_emoji 10y ago

Spooks 10y ago

But the new MacBooks are not upgradable (like the previous models). Will 256 GB SSD and 16 gig RAM be enough in 8 years? It will really depend on what you use your laptop for, but for most professions I would say no.

wlesieutre 10y ago
You sure about that? It's a removable part. http://blog.macsales.com/38440-ssd-in-late-2016-entry-level-macbook-pro-removable http://blog.macsales.com/38440-ssd-in-late-2016-entry-level-... It may take a while for a 3rd party replacement to become available, but it's not soldered onto the motherboard. If you take it to Apple with a SSD failure, they're not going to bill you $800 for a new logic board to fix it. Not sure where this assumption came from. It's like everyone's saying "I don't like this computer, so everything about it must be terrible."
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  I loved taking my 2013 maxed out RMBP to the Apple Store and being told the charging circuit for the battery needed to be replaced. Oh good, I thought, maybe $200? No. $795+tax. "You might want to look at buying a new Mac" which got me same screen, same SSD, same memory, CPU from Haswell to Broadwell... I love planned obsolescence and "part pricing to encourage replacement, not repair".

herlitzj 10y ago

It doesn't seem like anyone really read beyond the headline for that IBM keynote. He was only referring to the difference in cost for enterprise support across 100,000 machines.

s9ix 10y ago
Wasn't one of the main premises of it that it reduced IT support time? "Only 5% of IBM's Mac employees needed help desk support versus 40% of PC users." In that case, it's even less of a relevant comparison now. [0]: http://www.businessinsider.com/an-ibm-it-guy-macs-are-300-cheaper-to-own-than-windows-2016-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/an-ibm-it-guy-macs-are-300-ch...
cdubzzz 10y ago
Exactly. The headline of the article[0] Cringely links - IBM says it is 3X more expensive to manage PCs than Macs - doesn't even say anything about Apple computers being "cheaper to own", as Cringely puts it. Admittedly, I haven't read the entire thing. I stopped when I got to third paragraph because it seemed like an odd statement with no real backup other than the very general quote from IBM - > There are lots of reasons for this, not least that better OS software means Apple needs to update its systems far less often than Microsoft updates Windows. "We have to go out and manage the Mac environment 104 fewer times a year than PC," Previn said. I don't doubt IBM's information here by any means, but just as with Cringley's and my own example of consumer MacBook ownership, it's only one example - "IBM finds Apple computers cheaper to manage", not "Apple computers are cheaper to own". [0] http://www.computerworld.com/article/3131906/apple-mac/ibm-says-macs-are-even-cheaper-to-run-than-it-thought.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/3131906/apple-mac/ibm-s...

s9ix 10y ago

I think what the article fails to touch on is that people (myself included) used to love upgrading to the new Apple products because of new innovations or upgraded tech. The second-hand market for Apple products shouldn't be looked at as a problem, but rather a new demographic of people entering the ecosystem which might have been out of their price range otherwise. For me, I was itching for a reason to upgrade from my 2012 rMBP and to be honest, I have no plans to now. I don't want a thinner or lighter laptop, I just want everything to work all at once and some better battery life. The USB-C (and they fact that they didn't even mention it during the terrible keynote) was my biggest drawback, because now I literally have to buy adapters to plug in to my pre-existing adapters for this damn thing to work... Nope. When Apple got rid of the CD/DVD drive, or FireWire, it wasn't this much of an issue because I could agree that those were things I didn't use (along with the vast majority). But with the headphone jack (on the iPhones only thankfully), and now the SD card reader, USB, HDMI, and Mini-DP... All things I use on an almost daily basis. It sucks that people will have to buy ~ $100 of adapters to get their old functionality back. Also, if they're really touting this thing as such a professional's device, then their magical touch bar is even more flawed. I plug in external monitors when I use Final Cut Pro, Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. - most of their demos. Looking at a different monitor and then using the touch bar seems like such an awkward gesture.

9fiftyfive 10y ago
I'm in the same boat. I have a MBP 2012 (non-retina), and could probably use an upgrade (although I just built a powerful desktop PC). I could deal with the removal of Ethernet, but the fact that I'll have to purchase 3 separate adapters (given I'll leave the fourth port for charging) is ridiculous. On top of that, the price is inexcusable. The lowest-end MacBook Pro costs $1,500 and has a 2.0GHz Dual-Core processor (which my current Mac outperforms), 8GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD, Intel Iris Graphics 540 (nothing impressive for a "pro" device), and two Thunderbolt 3 ports (only one port is accessible while charging...). Oh, and it doesn't even sport the new "touch bar" gimmick. For an extra $400, you get a faster clock speed (on a dual-core...), slightly faster RAM, and two extra ports. Point being, every model is extremely overpriced. Now, it's not the best comparison, as desktops and laptops have their own benefits, but if someone was to build a PC with the specs of the cheapest MacBook Pro (excluding peripherals), it would cost significantly less