I want OS X Snow Leopard BUT since I despise Apple's insane pointlessly expensive hardware I won't ever be getting it...
Personally I am fine with both Windows and OSX. It's not the software that compelled me to buy a MBP; the decision was almost completely based on the hardware. I did consider the tech specs (which were comparable to PC laptops at the time), but other factors like screen/keyboard/trackpad quality, weight, battery life, and build quality are EXTREMELY important to me. I won't buy a laptop sight unseen just because the specs are nice; I want to go play with it in a shop to see how it feels when I'm using it.
Over the past couple years, I've found that PC laptops have gone downhill as far as ergonomics. As just one example, the only PC laptop I've found this year with a trackpad that I like is the ThinkPad Edge. Other trackpads have terrible surfaces (HP), rocker switches for the left/right mouse buttons that make it impossible to click anywhere near the middle (ASUS), annoyingly stiff buttons, small tracking areas, etc.
A bad trackpad alone is a deal-breaker for me. After all, the trackpad is a part that you constantly interact with while using your computer, so it must be comfortable and easy to use. A bad trackpad demonstrates that the manufacturer didn't take the end user's comfort into consideration when they designed the machine. I don't want to fight my trackpad, and I don't want to have to carry a mouse with me and then try to find a surface to use the mouse on.
Weight is also important. You say a 1 pound difference isn't significant, but actually it is, especially if you want to carry your laptop with you all the time. Every extra ounce adds up and an extra pound really weighs you down when your laptop is in your backpack.
And when people say "build quality," they don't just mean how it feels; they mean how it holds up over time. On PC laptops I've had over the years, I've had flimsy screen latches break off, rough edges on the trackpad that marred the screen bezel, rubber feet that fell off, lids and bases that cracked, hinges that got loose and even snapped, paint that rubbed off, etc. and I am not rough on my hardware. I've had my MBP over a year now and it's still like it just came out of the box.
I'm not saying that Apple always has perfect build quality (you can find lots of complaints about discoloration, cracking plastic, bad screens, etc. on older MacBook models), but I think right now they are way ahead of almost everyone else with their aluminum unibody models. There are others that probably get pretty close--HP Envy--but they're high-end machines that cost just as much (if not more).
For me, the MacBook Pro was the best combination of ergonomics, build quality and tech specs. The processor, RAM and GPU aren't the only parts of the hardware that matter.
I'm a lot more inclined to agree with you that a premium for the hardware isn't as worth it when it comes to a desktop computer though. With a desktop you can pick your own mouse, keyboard, display, etc. and it sits in one place; you don't carry it with you all the time. I don't see myself ever buying a Mac Pro when I can spec out a great PC for a third of the price. Although when I do build a PC, I like to get a nice quality case that will last a long time instead of spending as little as possible on the case.
For a lot of Mac users it's not what in the machine (Heck, it could be fairy dust), its what they can get accomplished. The machines are well built like a top end Windows-based machine (And yes, I regularly work on both Macs and PCs) and the software is great, especially the third-party software. Stuff like Omnifocus or Yojimbo or Rapidweaver are designed with a level of quality and I guess you could call "love" (Mac developers seem to really love their machines) that they are often excellent, easy to use, but could take your projects to the moon if needed.
When some people have argued that slower Macs preform better than more powerful PCs that is true to a certain extent in daily use because since Apple does have a lock on the hardware, the software is more tightly integral with the computer s everyday use stuff seems smoother to a lot of people. I'm not saying that it's technically faster, but it's essentially like having a Dell laptop ship with second or third revision drivers for your OS. The experience is smoother because the software is more in tune with hardware, it's not a HUGE difference, but it can be noticed occasionally.
There is a bit of an Apple tax, but unless you build a PC on a budget a lot of the time they are within $300 of each other in my experience. When building a laptop for college, the price difference was about $200 between the Dell XPS and the Apple Macbook with similar specs. For me, I chose the Macbook because the system was a good laptop in terms of design, powerful enough to meet any of needs or wants for the next 4 years, and ultimately could run Windows in conjunction to OS-X, essentially giving me the best of both worlds (Being an engineering student I need Windows occasionally and as a CIS minor I really prefer the Mac virtualization solutions).
Basically, the reason I chose the Mac was because I appreciate the ascetic touches of their computers, I prefer the software, I have the choice now to easily run any piece of software I desire, and the hardware is snappy enough that rarely am I ever asking for more power whether I be editing photos in Pixelmator, typing a paper in Pages, making a presentation for school in Keynote, editing a podcast in Garage Band, designing a website in dreamweaver, or editing video in iMovie.
*Please forgive any typos, or if I sound funny. It's 3:46 AM where I live and I cannot sleep tonight because I'm worried right now that my college messed up my financial aid for this year. Its one of those nights I'm exhausted, but ultimately can't fall asleep again*
As for quality...all manufacturers make high quality machines on the higher end of the scale. Sure they all make chintzy stuff as well because that is how they keep the prices down but in all the comparisons I did I was using a high-end pc vs apple's macbooks. Every single time the HP won in price and specs AND since it is one of the high end machines it may even win in build quality but it will certainly be a contender in that realm.
My opinion is also NOT based on an assumption.
I have a 4 year old Pavilion dv7 laptop from HP that is still in perfect condition like it would be if it was brand new. So my opinion is based on experience. The laptop has held up in every aspect...nothing has broken on it...nothing has become unusable or deteriorating or anything like that and that is a 4 year older version of the current machine I have been using for comparison.
And the reason I say you're fudging the numbers is that, while it's true that $2300 is 255% of $900, the actual markup on the hardware (the difference in price) is $1400, which is 155% more, not 255% more. Now, 155% is still a lot more money, but...
...You're not actually comparing high-end PCs to the MacBooks. The HP DV7T you compared the 17" MBP to is a mid-range machine. A couple differences I noticed right off the bat were the much lower screen resolution on the HP vs. the MacBook and the fact that the HP doesn't seem to have a backlit keyboard and also weighs about a pound and a half more. If you want to compare high-end HP to the MacBooks, you need to be using the Envy.
A 17" HP Envy with roughly comparable specs to the 17" MBP (including screen res.) will cost you $1500+, which is certainly a lot less than the $2300 MBP, but in this case the price markup ($800) on the MBP is more like 53%. Nowhere close to 255%.
So yes there's a premium, but I think you've blown it way out of proportion.
I know I have posted A LOT on this thread and expecting people to read everything isn't realistic but when you accuse me of padding numbers for my benefit to sound smarter or some other reason you may have thought...it is insulting and I would certainly expect people to read all of what I've said if they are going to turn the discussion in that sort of direction.
And you keep using that example as if Apple hardware costs 255% more across the board, which I think is somewhat dishonest.
You are right I shouldn't have said 255% more, I should have said that it was 255% the price of the HP and that is true.
255% the price of the HP = $2,300
255% more = $2,300 + $899
So you are right I used the wrong words but either way the price difference is still ridiculous.
As for it being across the board it is fairly accurate as comparing the hardware of any mac computer vs any pc computer and the price difference is very close to that 255% mark but am I going to spend time comparing each Apple product with another product? No as that would be ridiculous plus if I compare it to one company I have to compare it to all companies and that is even more ridiculous.
Now if I provide a comparison and continuously refer to that comparison which is what I have been doing then that is a completely fair thing to do.
HP's Envy 13 actually starts at the same price as the 13" MBP. Sony's high-end Z-series 13" laptop starts at over $1900 (though it does have some crazy specs). And like I said, my Dell XPS M1330 cost me more than my MBP, and it was actually something like $200-$300 more than comparable 13" MacBooks at the time I bought it. I paid the premium for the Dell over the MacBook because the MacBook hardware didn't satisfy all of my wants at the time.
The point is that high-end hardware carries a premium no matter who the manufacturer is. In some cases Apple is more expensive than others, but a lot of their products are actually priced comparably to the high-end products from Sony, Dell/Alienware, HP, etc.
Some people don't care about the extra touches, build quality, fit and finish, etc. that comes with high-end hardware and that's fine. In my case, I am extremely picky about the quality, reliability and comfort of my hardware and I have little tolerance for breakdowns, wear-and-tear issues, bad trackpads/keyboards/screens, etc. that could have been prevented with higher-quality materials or better design, which is why I get my hands on a laptop before buying it. I want it to last a long time and I want to make sure I'll be happy with it the whole time I have it.
I am no Apple fanboy; like I said, I'm cool with both Windows and OSX. I find Steve Jobs kind of insane lately, I think the way they handled the iPhone 4 antenna issue was ridiculously bad, and I would ditch my MacBook for some kind of alternative in a heartbeat if the hardware didn't continue to live up to my expectations. But so far it's been rock-solid and I'm really happy I picked it over any other laptop, especially because the price was actually about the same as comparable PC laptops that I considered =).
They ARE expensive and sure you could say top of the line but when you can get the same hardware in a PC for half the price, it is a bit too expensive. I'm not talking about the same kind of hardware or any kind of equivalent argument but the EXACT SAME hardware for less than half the price.
Macbook Pro 17", Core i5, 4GB RAM, 500GB = $2,299.00
HP Pavilion dv7t 17", Core i5, 6GB RAM, 500GB = $899.00
Quite a difference, right? EXACT SAME hardware except for HP gives you MORE ram and yet for some reason the Apple product costs over 255% more!
*note - I just want to point out that I am not a windows fanboy just hating on Apple, I'm just someone who refuses to pay ridiculous prices for the same thing just because one has a apple logo and one doesn't. Also by the way, I'm a Linux user.
As someone already mentioned the build quality is first and foremost. I've used a lot of different laptops and very few have ever felt like they were built to last a long time. Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc all of them have felt cheap. I picked up and tried out a Macbook at the store and it was the first laptop I've used in a while that felt like a solid piece of machinery.
The other thing is the experience. Rant and rave all you want about Apple have a closed ecosystem but there is a reason they do it and it's the experience. Apple has been able properly design and build an OS to work the way they want it to work without having to worry about if Manufacture A is going to use an nvidia or ati card or not.
The comparison of specs is kind of pointless because that'd be like saying well my 4 year old laptop running Linux was cheaper than your brand new laptop running Windows 7. OS are designed to run on specific hardware and whether you like it or not, OSX does not need the latest and greatest to run properly. Yes windows 7 can work on older hardware but honestly it will be a horrible experience once you begin using 2-3 apps, especially things like Adobe Air based products.
I've been working in IT for 10 years now and only over the last 2 years have I finally come around to what Apple's agenda is with their products and once you realize it, it all makes sense. I'm personally in the market for a new home laptop and I'm honestly considering a Macbook Pro simply because I'm sick and tired of fighting with Windows machines. I want something I can turn on (quickly) and just jump into what I want to do.
Also not for nothing if you want to run OSX on non-Apple hardware, just google it. Tons of people have done it, there are guides everywhere and it's really not that terribly hard.
"Rant and rave all you want about Apple have a closed ecosystem " I never ranted about that so please don't try to argue with me on something I never actually said.
Comparing spec is not pointless...that is the only way to choose which computer to buy and which price is worth the purchase so how on earth can you say its pointless to compare specs? Unless you base your purchases on branding, then ok feel free.
I have never compared purchasing old hardware vs new hardware...I have only mentioned new HP vs new Apple, though since you brought it up. I paid about $650.00 for my laptop 4 years ago and I have a dual core CPU (same type as the basic macbook), 250GB HDD (same as the basic macbook) and I have 4GB RAM (twice as much as the current entry level macbook) - it is 4 years older...has better specs and I paid over $300 less than what people pay now for the same specs in Macbooks except for weaker RAM.
Also I am not comparing the OS's here, JUST the hardware so your comment about an older linux vs a new windows is completely irrelevant. If you haven't noticed I said I like OS X and I want it but I want it on hardware that isn't ripping me off.
"I finally come around to what Apple's agenda is with their products and once you realize it, it all makes sense" - please do tell what is their agenda that justifies their insane prices?
"if you want to run OSX on non-Apple hardware, just google it. Tons of people have done it, there are guides everywhere and it's really not that terribly hard. " - it's not about that...and I know how to build a "hackintosh"...the discussion is not whether I can break Apple's rules and put OS X on PC hardware...the discussion is about, I shouldn't have to do that.
Regarding the spec comment: it doesn't really matter because you're comparing two different operating systems that are designed to run differently. It'd be like comparing a v8 from a chevy vs a v8 from porsche, while same engine size they are designed to work on different designs. RAM is also kind of silly to bring up because 90% of us wont ever find the need for more than 3 or 4GB of ram unless we plan on running a bunch of VM.
Regarding their "agenda" (probably poor choice of wording): they set out to create an ecosystem that allows for them to provide their customers with the best experience possible. Why you buy anything that follows the same path you tend to pay more for that product. Unfortunately, until people stop buying their products they're never going to lower prices.
of course RAM matters but lets say that neither RAM nor HDDs matter and stick to the main components of computers. CPU and GPU
Apple DOESN'T MAKE the CPUs or the GPUs they use in their computers. They use Intel/AMD and NVidia/ATI which you can get the same products from the respective manufacturers for PC machines and the prices are HALF. So if the CPUs and the GPUs are the EXACT same products from the same manufacturer why is it more expensive to get the Intel products in an Apple case and much cheaper in any other case?
unfortunately you are right they probably wont ever lower their prices since everyone still buys their stuff...the question is WHY do they do it . lol
I am not telling people to not buy Macs...they can do whatever they want...it's their money but I want them to at least admit it isnt the best option and just say "I am buying Apple because I want Apple products and not because they are better simply because that is what I want."
So you ask yourself "Why on earth do these crazy Apple fanboys spend so much on their computers?! I can get a faster windows machine for half the price!"
I ask myself "Why on earth do people waste $500 on a computer that's so slow and has so many problems? If they'd just spend some more money I bet they'd be so much happier."
So while I do realize that money can easily be a problem for many people, in my opinion I'd rather spend $1500 on something that works great and I hardly ever have problems with than spend $800 on something that I have a lot of issues with and I have to replace in a few years.
While we all love to have conversations like this, but you have to remember, at the end of the day it all comes down to personal preference. I like macs better, i'll spend the extra money.
"a windows machine with a little bit of a faster processor and say...double the RAM acts slower than an iMac that has lesser specs." - your arguing for a windows machine vs a os x machine - hence software - hence not on topic.
"So you ask yourself 'Why on earth do these crazy Apple fanboys spend so much on their computers?! I can get a faster windows machine for half the price!' "
still talking about windows vs mac - not on topic - I know I write a lot in my comments but I guess I have to write this again...I have NEVER once mentioned Windows machines versus Apple machines. I say Mac vs PC...PC refers to the hardware configuration NOT what OS is running on it. The final point on that is I'm not a Windows fan...I am a Linux user.
"I ask myself 'Why on earth do people waste $500 on a computer that's so slow and has so many problems? If they'd just spend some more money I bet they'd be so much happier.' "
the machines themselves are NOT slower and DO NOT have so many problems because I am talking about the hardware...which if you have read the rest of my comments...IT ALL THE SAME HARDWARE. You are talking Windows vs OS X - not on topic.
"While we all love to have conversations like this, but you have to remember, at the end of the day it all comes down to personal preference. I like macs better, i'll spend the extra money. "
now this is very true...it does all come down to personal preference and if you are willing to pay much much more money for hardware JUST because of the software running on the hardware then that is perfectly fine and more power to ya.
My argument is that Apple shouldn't make me pay a crap ton of money for hardware in their cases that is the EXACT SAME hardware I can get in any other case.
If they want to overcharge for OS X and let me put it on my hardware then I would happily purchase it. Windows Ultimate is $300 if Apple charged me $600 for OS X and let me put it on hardware that I already own and is just as good or actually better than their hardware selections then thats GREAT and I WOULD do it just as a LOT of people would.
It is ALL about the fact that their better software is cheaper yet their equal or even inferior hardware selections are MUCH more expensive.
Maybe this argument just can't be won. You'll always, always be able to find equivalent PC hardware for less than a Mac. And maybe we're all suckers to keep buying them up! I don't know... But between design, perceived build quality, and being the only company that sells computers with OSX on them (inferior specs or not), means they'll keep getting my money.
Your comment about their pricing scheme being backwards is spot on though. But like many other thoughts in this thread so far, it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Apple makes all that money on hardware up front so there's no need to charge crazy prices for OSX or any of their apps. Microsoft mostly only has software to sell, so it must be expensive to keep their profits up. It's just two different business models, both of which seem to work very very well.
You are completely right it is just perceived better quality in the hardware.
I only ever asked for people to admit that they are buying Apple for their brand (all the marketing about build quality and such making people think it's "luxury") and that the software is what they are buying not the computers.
Macs are NOT better than PCs...OS X is better than Windows.
That is the argument in a nutshell...as you said you are willing to pay more for OS X and that is perfectly fine and that is all I want people to admit. I don't care if people buy Apple products...but just be honest about it.
It isn't the computers...they may look better but as far as hardware they are NOT better. There are MANY Apple Fanboys in the tech industry that have reported MANY MANY faults with their builds.
I am willing to admit that I would pay more for OS X but there is a limit to where I consider it worth it and I would pay up to 85% more but 255% more is insulting.
As for the pricing scheme...thanks for agreeing...its hard to find Apple fans that agree with me. lol
Though your response to my statement is kind of flawed if you think about it. Apple makes their money on hardware and Microsoft makes their money on software. At the end of the day, Microsoft makes a POOPTON more money going the software route. Apple has to charge a POOPTON of money by going the hardware route.
Don't you think it would make MUCH more sense for consumers AND for Apple if they just went the Software route and competed with Microsoft's Windows. If they did they would have more marketshare which means much more money and since the entry fee to become a Mac user wouldn't be so massively high then about 1000x more people would try it.
All of their "claim to fame" in all of their marketing (commercials, word of mouth, etc) is for their software anyway...why on earth won't they go the software route and make much more money?
To sum all of that up, you are correct. Apple is a 'luxury' PC manufacturer. Talking about purely specs, Apple puts the same pieces inside and builds a pretty outside then charges you more. I'd also like reiterate that Apple is not the only guilty party. Many computer manufacturers (or companies in any industry for that matter) charge people more for a product you could buy for cheaper elsewhere.
The other thing I agree with is that yes there are many PC manufacturers that also claim luxury like you said with the Vaio series but you also mentioned the markup is 75% and that is reasonable for "luxury". I have said repeatedly that I would pay more for an Apple product if the percentage was reasonable. 75% is reasonable for "luxury". 50-100% markup I could deal with and justify it with the software...but Apple charges 255% more an that is just too much of a beating to my wallet that it is unacceptable as "markup".
255% is not markup...it is an insult to our intelligence.
That being said, you're personal dislike of Steve Jobs doesn't ultimately have an effect on the quality of Apple products.
If you except the overpriced hardware as a requirement to getting a Mac then thats perfectly fine....feel free to get one then...but trying to justify it to someone who isnt an Apple fan is not only a waste of time but it is completely Impossible.
EVERY single argument for getting a Mac can be crush by a PC fan.
Build Quality = there are plenty of high-end pcs with GREAT build quality
Hardware is higher end = since its all the same, completely untrue.
Software = ok this one is hard to defeat but still easy for me because Mac ALWAYS has a battle of OS X vs Windows so I say just use Linux. Linux is GREAT software, much better than Windows and yet you can spend MUCH LESS money to get a better computing experience.
OS X vs Linux - now that would be a fun debate. :)
Is it too hard for you to use so you just insult it?
Linux can do EVERYTHING that OS X can do and EVERYTHING that OS X claims to do. OS X claims it won't get Windows Viruses, Linux won't get them either. OS X is easier to use than Windows, so is Linux once you learn how to add applications. (same thing with OS X, you have to learn how it works since it doesn't work like Windows). I can give endless amounts of examples but I know you will never try Linux long enough to actually see how awesome it is and that is ok but there is no reason to insult something you won't try.
Now before you try to flip that statement back on me...I have tried OS X and I REALLY like it but the hardware prices are ridiculous and that is why I dont use OS X not the software itself.
Also people claim that Linux is ugly and OS X just looks better...check out demos on YouTube of the program "Compiz" and you will see that Linux destroys both Windows and OS X in that realm.
To me, Linux feels like a toy that I to spend so much time setting up that it's not worth wasting time on. Heck, I rather use Vista Home Basic on my machine than the latest build of Ubuntu, the Linux for "Everybody".
I don't have to make my own tools to feel good about the work I do with my machines, my work shines by itself. Oh, and yes, most Linux distributions are really ugly out of the install, Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are lightyears beyond them in terms of simply UI. Sorry to burst your bubble.
There are MANY Open Source applications that rival and sometimes are better than their commercial counterparts. Also Linux is NOT just about open source...there are many commercial applications available on it as well.
You make it seem like you think Open Source is a disease and if you truly believe that then I feel sorry for you...but feel free to live in your fantasy world if you want.
OS X > Windows
Linux > OS X
cold hard truth...whether you agree or you don't but if you don't and you haven't give Linux a legitimate chance then your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
What you're paying for with a Mac is good looks and industrial design. No shame in plunking down money for that if that's what you're all about. But don't talk about "build quality", that just makes me laugh.
I've owned plenty of both PC and Apple products, and from my personal experience, Apple products are aesthetically and functionally better designed, and, yes, they also have a better build quality. Anyone ever notice that most of the people who omplains about Apple's build quality never owned a Mac? Just an observation.
My HP laptop is still in perfect condition so as far as perfect condition it all comes down to how well you take care of something. I've never dropped it...I don't let people eat or drink anything near it...I treat it like a baby when I carry it. So sure maybe I overdo it but it is perfect new condition and doesn't even have any scratches on it.
However, that has nothing to do with how well the machine is built, because I would do that with ANY laptop or any tablet, or smartphone or any device that I spend a lot of money on...including a Mac if I had one. I have an ipod gen 5 I think maybe gen 4 and it is still in perfect condition.
That isn't proof to the build quality of the product, that is proof to a consumer who treats his devices well enough that they will last almost forever. (not forever because eventually the software will be too much but you know what I mean)
I'm using the Apple website and the HP website (direct sources) and the data collected from both proves the exact opposite with HP being always cheaper and better specs.
21.5" iMac, Core i3, 4GB RAM, 500GB HDD = $1,199.00
HP All-in-One 200xt 21.5", Core i3, 4GB RAM, 750GB HDD = $849.99
So again you get better specs from HP and pay $350.00 less.
You also have to think about the fact that people won't buy all-in-one with PC because you can pay the same price and get a more powerful desktop computer making the option even easier to say "no" to a mac.
- Monitors argument:
I'm sticking to the HP example simply for consistency.
Apple's 27" Display appears to not even be available to purchase yet so can't compare it to others yet, so using 24".
Apple's 24" Display = $799.00
HP's 27" Display = $359.99
so with HP you get a larger screen for...wait for it...HALF the price
The $849.99 200xt you quoted is not the same spec as the iMac. It's using integrated graphics, no bluetooth, no speakers, no wireless keyboard, no wireless mouse, no IPS display, no aluminum casing...
Please refer to this Engadget article:
"What has changed is that the low-end model now offers great performance at an extremely competitive price: the not-yet-shipping HP 200xt runs around $1,100 similarly configured, the Lenovo A700 offers a slightly bigger 23-inch screen with touch support but a slower 2.26GHz i3 and far worse integrated graphics for around $1,100 once you add in the wireless peripherals, and the Sony VAIO J clocks in at $1,100 with a touchscreen and the same slower processor and integrated graphics as the Lenny but adds a Blu-ray drive to the mix. We'd call that a wash, especially since none of this takes operating system preference into account -- an extra Benjamin to run OS X on a machine as well-designed and executed as the iMac isn't the worst tax Apple's ever demanded of its users, and the insane quality of the display and packed-in peripherals (if you can stand the Magic Mouse) certainly eases the sting."
The $359.99 HP monitor you quoted is not an IPS LCD. Here's a comparable monitor that's currently at the same price as Apple's 27" monitor:
p.s. The fact that you dislike all-in-one desktops has nothing to do with price comparisons. Obviously Apple is not the only company that offers all-in-ones, and I think they're still selling plenty of iMacs.
Apple on the other hand, the prices for Desktop (MacPro) vs All-In-One (iMac) is insanely different so there is a reason for people NOT to buy a MacPro.
Here is why people don't get MacPros or at least why they shouldn't EVER get one.
iMac 21.5", Core i3 (3.2ghz), 4GB RAM, 1TB HDD = $1,499.00
MacPro (no display), Intel Xeon, 3GB RAM, 640GB HDD = $2,499.00
You get a better machine in the iMac yet the MacPro costs ONE THOUSAND dollars more and you still have to buy a display. So of course, the sales for iMacs will be MUCH higher.
Now comparing the most powerful iMac with the PC desktop equivalent and you see the PC hardware will be better specs and half the price.
I understand completely why people like the Mac software, because I also like it...but how people can like the fact that they pay twice as much for inferior specs...that I don't get.
People don't get Macs because the hardware is better...it's because of the SOFTWARE...OS X.
When people talk about why macs are better they mention things like "they dont get viruses like windows", "they are easier to use", "its a better user experience", etc...all of the arguments are referring to the SOFTWARE...NOT the hardware.
So is there a reason to get OS X? YES, Absolutely.
Is there a reason to pay double the price for the same hardware specs and sometimes for inferior hardware specs? No, never.
You're right, the Mac is *mostly* about software, even jobs acknowledges it:
"The problem is, in hardware you can't build a computer that's twice as good as anyone else's anymore. Too many people know how to do it. You're lucky if you can do one that's one and a third times better or one and a half times better. And then it's only six months before everybody else catches up. But you can do it in software."
It's not always about specs. Macs are designed more like an appliance than a computer. I don't go through the spec sheet on a microwave or a lamp before I buy it, as long as they satisfy my minimum requirements. Mostly, I judge them using other metrics like user friendliness and design. I'm willing to pay a premium for a computer that looks nice, operates smoothly, has excellent customer service, and pretty much frustration-free, as long as it meets my minimum requirements.
For example, if you are a hardcore gamer, the Mac is obviously not for you. I don't think Apple tries too hard to impress that target audience neither.
It is kind of funny that you are just adding fuel to my argument, even Steve Jobs recognizes that his prices are ridiculous.
In computers it is ALWAYS about the specs when it comes to the Hardware...as for the software no it isnt about specs but again we are NOT talking about the software as per my complaint. I like OS X, just not their computers.
If we were to be talking about the software and then I wouldn't have an issue whatsoever. If Apple wanted to charge DOUBLE or even TRIPLE for OS X compared to Windows and have hardware prices that are reasonable then I would happily be a Apple fan. As you quoted, he even said that they can justify the software being double or triple the quality of Windows. Yet for some reason OS X is cheaper than Windows and the Hardware is double that of a PC.
It doesn't make any sense! And that is all I am really saying...their hardware is ridiculously expensive and if people just admitted that and say "I'm gonna buy it anyway" then thats GREAT...as far as I'm concerned that is all they have to do, admit the monstrous prices exist and they can be on their marry way.