Replies

Except you're losing out on MacOS, which as I pointed out is a big value-add to the Mac platform.

Apparently, you don't get it.

Like I said, for most of what people do with their PCs, regular PCs with Windows are more than enough, and, Macs with MacOS are redundant and over-priced, and not needed. That's the reason that they'll stick around the 5-6% market-share for "PCs".

Plus if you look at resale value, the Mac might even be a better deal monetarily.

Bogus argument.

By the time a Mac is ready for the used-computer market, it will be outdated/obsolete, just like most computers after about 1 or 2 years. And, even then, a used Mac may still cost more than a new PC with the most current technology and the most current OS. Most people would prefer a new PC loaded with the latest and greatest, than something which, while it might still be "attractive" and "shiny" and have the Apple logo on top, would still be "old" technology and obsolete.

Just for fun, why don't you link the $699 ultrabook you think is comparable to an Air?

You still don't get it, and your arguing from the wrong angle.

When it comes to the technology inside, both, the Mac Air and the ultrabook would have very similar specs, and very comparable components. The big difference would be the shinier looking shell and the Apple logo, which is all part of a nicer looking "package"; but, tech-wise and OS-wise, the PC would be very comparable and cost a lot less; but, the advantage goes to the PC ultrabook, because, it comes equipped with Windows OS (whatever flavor), which is still the most used in the world and for which most applications are written, thereby making the Windows ultrabook compatible with millions of applications, right out of the box without having to jump through hoops to make the OS play nice with those applications.

I'm sure you don't drive a Porsche either. After all, Porsche only has 0.1% of the world automotive market...

Strawman argument...

Also, another bogus line of argument.

Most people don't drive a Porsche, for the same reason most people don't own a Mac. They're more expensive to drive out of the store, and more expensive to maintain, and don't really get you to your destination "any better or faster" than another practical equivalent. If the purpose is "transportation", then any make and model car will do the job, and, if computing is the desired function, then, a Mac and a regular PC will work just fine, except that, the PC will do it just as fast and a lot less expensively and have a lot more "roads" in which it can run. Advantage: PC.

Try a more reasonable analogy next time.

BTW, I never said that Macs aren't nicely made or that they wouldn't serve their functions as designed. But, they're still overkill for the job, and on to of that, a lot more expensive.

Plus, as I've pointed out numerous times, Macs will run Windows fine.

Sure, with some other middle-ware to handle Windows and its applications.

But, your own argument contains a huge flaw. If the intent is to run Windows OS and/or all the applications ever written for Windows, why not get a Windows machine to begin with, which will still cost a lot less and will do what Macs do and what all Windows machines do, and will run all applications ever written for Windows, which is in the millions.

Furthermore, you're not locked into the Apple walled garden, which means that, whatever you do with "your" equipment, had better be done through Apple's permission, and you can't really go to a PC expert who doesn't work for Apple, otherwise, your warranty for anything on that Mac becomes invalid.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

I agree, so, why not open up your eyes and try to notice that, you're paying much higher prices for something that is not materially nor functionally, worth that much more than a regular PC with Windows. Macs may be nice, but, why are they "necessary" in a "practical" world, where technology becomes obsolete from one week to the next.

So, my retort would be that, "none are so blind as the sheep that worship at the feet of Jobs (he's dead, so...), at the feet of Apple?".

“I agree, so, why not open up your eyes and try to notice that, you’re paying much higher prices for something that is not materially nor functionally, worth that much more than a regular PC with Windows. Macs may be nice, but, why are they “necessary” in a “practical” world, where technology becomes obsolete from one week to the next. “

Oh, but it is both - materially and functionally better. Macs don’t become obsolete “from one week to the next” in fact their working lifetime is generally longer than Windows boxes.

“So, my retort would be that, “none are so blind as the sheep that worship at the feet of Jobs (he’s dead, so...), at the feet of Apple?”

Terrible retort. No one is “worshipping” anything, any more than people
“worship” Porsche. Your criticism of Porsche is laughable:

“Most people don’t drive a Porsche, for the same reason most people don’t own a Mac. They’re more expensive to drive out of the store, and more expensive to maintain, and don’t really get you to your destination “any better or faster” than another practical equivalent.”

Most people don’t own a Porsche because they can’t afford one. Those who can, appreciate them for their styling, engineering, lavish interior, and performance. They certainly can get you to your destination faster, especially if your destination is the spot in front of the oncoming semi truck as you hit the freeway onramp.

To each his own, by all means enjoy the wonders of Windows if that’s what you want. Some folks just enjoy pain, apparently. :-)

Macs with MacOS are redundant and over-priced,

That depends on what you're looking for, when looking at the total well-engineered package. Close competition to Apple's products tend to cost about the same.

By the time a Mac is ready for the used-computer market, it will be outdated/obsolete, just like most computers after about 1 or 2 years.

Macs have higher resale value than PCs.

Most people would prefer a new PC loaded with the latest and greatest, than something which, while it might still be "attractive" and "shiny" and have the Apple logo on top, would still be "old" technology and obsolete.

Apple has a relationship with Intel that has actually gotten them the "latest and greatest" before it was available to any other OEM. In fact, that special low-profile, low-power chip that enabled the first MacBook Air was an Apple special order. Intel later sold it to other OEMs for their ultrabooks. Of course, that doesn't mean Apple always uses the best available for every product. You'd be hard pressed to find a reason to buy a Mac Pro these days due to the inexplicable lack of updates.

; but, the advantage goes to the PC ultrabook,

Ultrabooks equivalent to the MacBook Air cost about the same. Notebooks equivalent to the Retina MacBook Pro, well, they just don't exist yet at any price.

They're more expensive to drive out of the store, and more expensive to maintain

Despite a higher initial purchase price, Mac desktops have a lower total cost of ownership when judged by accounting standards. IOW, they cost you less in the long run.

Like I said, for most of what people do with their PCs, regular PCs with Windows are more than enough, and, Macs with MacOS are redundant and over-priced, and not needed. That's the reason that they'll stick around the 5-6% market-share for "PCs".

Hmmmmm.... Apple OSX world Market Share is already over 6% and climbing... and in the United States it is already over 12%. In some states, it is over 25%! That is NOT "redundant"... and it is Microsoft Windows that is losing market share.

By the time a Mac is ready for the used-computer market, it will be outdated/obsolete, just like most computers after about 1 or 2 years. And, even then, a used Mac may still cost more than a new PC with the most current technology and the most current OS. Most people would prefer a new PC loaded with the latest and greatest, than something which, while it might still be "attractive" and "shiny" and have the Apple logo on top, would still be "old" technology and obsolete.

On the contrary, Macs have a far longer useful life than do Windows PCs... Macs can be updated to the latest OSX and have a resale value exceeding PCs for that reason up to five years after their date of introduction... and usually run faster with each OS update. The average Mac notebook computer is still going strong at six years of age, while the average PC notebook has been junked at three or four... or even two. That is why the used Mac resale value is much higher than the resale value of used PCs of similar vintage. You are simply wrong in your assessment. The MARKET determines value, not the components in them. If what you were saying were true, then used Macs would sell for a lot less than they do.

"Just for fun, why don't you link the $699 ultrabook you think is comparable to an Air?"

You still don't get it, and your arguing from the wrong angle.

YOU still don't get it... where is the link? Show us an Ultrabook for $699 that has the same specs as a MacBook Air... please. You've made a claim. Back it up. You claim the components are the same. Please show the components are from the same part of the bell curve of quality that the manufacturer supplies to Apple... Show us that the batteries last as long... that the screens have the same resolution... etc., for the price of a MacBook Air, $999.

I have looked... no $699 Ultrabooks come even CLOSE to the Macbook Air. There are some $900 to $1000 Ultrabooks that do... but they do not come with the suite of software that comes with a Mac... and they ALL have lower resolution screens and not one comes with a Thunderbolt interface (10 times faster than USB3), and they are comparable in pricing with the $999 Apple MacBook Air's specs... except that MacBook air is usually a little faster in the Processor department. A couple had a larger SSD. However, the point is, that ALL of the Ultrabooks are competitively priced with the Macbook Air... not your mythical $699. STRANGE, they all seem to COPY the look of the Macbook air, and none of them are quite as thin or as light.

So much for your "lot more expensive" argument. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Furthermore, you're not locked into the Apple walled garden, which means that, whatever you do with "your" equipment, had better be done through Apple's permission, and you can't really go to a PC expert who doesn't work for Apple, otherwise, your warranty for anything on that Mac becomes invalid.

More of the "you don't know what you are talking about" twaddle. That will not invalidate your warranty. If you want a warranteed item fixed under warranty, of course, you get it fixed by a certified Apple warranty station... otherwise, you are free to do with it as you please. What you add will not be covered, of course.

So, my retort would be that, "none are so blind as the sheep that worship at the feet of Jobs (he's dead, so...), at the feet of Apple?".

And we, who have quit hitting ourselves over the head with the Microsoft mallet, wonder at those of you who continue to do so... time and time again. . . and who try to tell us how wonderful it feels to hit themselves again and again. We've stopped and will not go back to self-abuse again.