4 ms·
> who would spend 1.500 euros (in Europe) for a laptop that has a limit of 16gb of RAM? Let's say you use a laptop for 6 hours a day, five days a week, 48 week
by boplicity 5y ago
> who would spend 1.500 euros (in Europe) for a laptop that has a limit of 16gb of RAM?
Let's say you use a laptop for 6 hours a day, five days a week, 48 weeks a year, and that it lasts for 3 years. That's 4,320 hours of usage. For many people, it's worth paying 35 cents per hour to use a machine that's even just a little bit better than one that costs half that. I'm writing this on a high-end Macbook Pro that's 8 years old. It was very expensive when I bought it, but the "cost per hour" has actually been quite low. The benefit of a better experience during the entire duration of usage is well worth the added cost, in my experience.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- riquito 5y agoYou're confirming OP point though, you didn't upgrade in 8 years, because for your use case it was good enough and not worth the expense
- MathCodeLove 5y agoIf they had instead bought a $700 laptop 8 years ago, they likely would have had to upgrade several times by now.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago800 dollar laptops today are more durable than M1 with max 16 GB of RAM at double the price, because their RAM is actually upgradable most of the time. It's so funny see Mac fans argue about everything and its contrary that it's worth the obvious down votes.
- tonguez 5y ago"800 dollar laptops today are more durable ... because their RAM is ... upgradable" I think the word durable has more of a connotation of being resistant to damage rather than meaning "able to be used for a long time".
- kaba0 5y agoAnd let’s be honest, objectively apple’s products will beat the rest in longevity hands down. In case of mobiles, it is unfortunately not even a contest, but even an 8 years old mac will run fine with OSX.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y agoIf you ignore their macs from 2016 to 2020. All of those years have keyboards and display connectors that are very prone to failure, and they had negative thermal headroom, so they throttle down more and more as dust gets lodged in them.
- MathCodeLove 5y agoI don't own any Apple products.
- nix23 5y ago>35 cents per hour to use WOW that's kind allot TBH.
- PeterisP 5y agoI think the idea is that a power user would be using the computer to earn money at a large enough hourly rate where 0.35$/h is literally insignificant.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wdb 5y agoYeah, like only ~0.4% of a hour rate of a typical contractor in London (8 hours work day)
- nix23 5y agoin London.....of a typical contractor....
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago> For many people, it's worth paying 35 cents per hour to use a machine that's even just a little bit better than one that costs half that That's my point. Some people would. Quoting myself people with lots of money to waste. Does that mean that Apple is Winning over the power users (that) generally precedes larger adoption? Absolutely not. Anyway: spending less for the same output is better than spending more for the same output. At least make it scale linearly. Apple HW doesn't equal double productivity, hence double price is not a price that will appeal general population, but only **some people** It's not a critique against Apple M1, only to the assumption that a good enough CPU will make wonders on the market. It won't.
- bestouff 5y agoMy job bought me whatever laptop I needed, so I got a beefed-up XPS 15 (i9, 64gb). If the M1 max could run Linux I would have bought that instead.