this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
1087 points (97.6% liked)

Memes

45726 readers
628 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] scottmeme@sh.itjust.works 127 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Does less

Cost more

Fuck you

[–] patacon_pisao@lemmy.world 39 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Pro versions: Does a little more

Costs even more

Fuck you as well

[–] remotedev@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Pro versions: Does a little more

Costs even more

Best regards

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Want wheels sucker?

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wasn't that always the case? I mean compared to my IBM PC clone, mine did way more and cost way less. And it was upgradeable. And mine could play games.

[–] Cosmonaut_Collin@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

But does it have a cool rainbow apple?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zer0squar3d@lemmy.dbzer0.com 94 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (12 children)

Guess it's as good a place as ever to remind everyone who uses Patreon that if you are subscribing through Patreon app on iOS that prices are going up in Sept by 50-60% and if you want to save money go through the actual website. This is Apple charging more not Patreon.

Edit: Apple is forcing Patreon to abide by the 30% Apple store fee this going through Patreon App on iOS will increase costs for end users by at least 30%; easiest solution is subscribing through the website, still being able to access content through the iOS app.

https://www.imore.com/apps/your-next-patreon-sub-might-cost-more-if-youre-paying-with-iphone

This is a common trend actually, don't subscribe to services through Apple iOS apps if you want to save money. And to a lesser extent Android.

[–] fossphi@lemm.ee 35 points 2 months ago

The monopolistic shenanigans aside. I hope that companies also learn from this and have functional websites again and stop forcing people to apps. It's gonna a be a win win

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 50 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Most of Apple's history, actually.

Macs have a reputation for being expensive because people compare the cheapest Mac to the cheapest PC, or to a custom-built PC. That's reasonable if the cheapest PC meets your needs or if you're into building your own PC, but if you compare a similarly-equipped name-brand PC, the numbers shift a LOT.

From the G3-G5 era ('97-2006) through most of the Intel era (2006-2020), if you went to Dell or HP and configured a machine to match Apple's specs as closely as possible, you'd find the Macs were almost never much more expensive, and often cheaper. I say this as someone who routinely did such comparisons as part of their job. There were some notable exceptions, like most of the Intel MacBook Air models (they ranged from "okay" to "so bad it feels like a personal insult"), but that was never the rule. Even in the early-mid 90s, while Apple's own hardware was grossly overpriced, you could by Mac clones for much cheaper (clones were licensed third-parties who made Macs, and they were far and away the best value in the pre-G3 PowerPC era).

Macs also historically have a lower total cost of ownership, factoring in lifespan (cheap PCs fail frequently), support costs, etc. One of the most recent and extensive analyses of this I know if comes from IBM. See https://www.computerworld.com/article/1666267/ibm-mac-users-are-happier-and-more-productive.html

Toward the tail end of the Intel era, let's say around 2016-2020, Apple put out some real garbage. e.g. butterfly keyboards and the aforementioned craptastic Airs. But historically those are the exceptions, not the rule.

As for the "does more", well, that's debatable. Considering this is using Apple's 90s logo, I think it's pretty fair. Compare System 7 (released in '91) to Windows 3.1 (released in '92), and there is no contest. Windows was shit. This was generally true up until the 2000s, when the first few versions of OS X were half-baked and Apple was only just exiting its "beleaguered" period, and the mainstream press kept ringing the death knell. Windows lagged behind its competition by at least a few years up until Microsoft successfully killed or sufficiently hampered all that competition. I don't think you can make an honest argument in favor of Windows compared to any of its contemporaries in the 90s (e.g. Macintosh, OS/2, BeOS) that doesn't boil down to "we're used to it" or "we're locked in".

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Windows did a few vital things that Apple failed miserably on in the 90's.

Mac dropped support for legacy software and hardware on every new OS in the 90's. Microsoft maintained backwards capability. It was a major reason windows was more resource intensive and had more bugs. It was a smart move because windows OS was able to handle more software and hardware than Macs. This is the top reason why windows demolished Mac in sales.

Microsoft's business model allowed greater range of pricepoints. Most users in business or at home do not need the capabilities of the lowest priced Mac model. You don't need much to check e-mail, browse the web, and do some basic word processing. Apple did not service this largest section of the market at all.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Windows benefited by not being tied to the hardware. So if you could slap together a bunch of parts and swap out a few dozen floppies you could get a Windows machine. Which meant there were a ton of companies making Windows machines for cheaper than Apple could make Macs.

Apple tried to allow clones, but ran into the same problem because the clone makers could make cheaper machines by slapping together parts.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Does a small handful of things extremely well, is otherwise stupidly limited by choice and costs way too much.

Think different, even if it means thinking worse.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (6 children)

What small handful of things?

[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  1. Best trackpads. By far. Gaming? Use a controller. I will die on this hill.
  2. All of their OSes are a great user experience. They're stable, they're intuitive, and--most importantly--they're aesthetically pleasing.
  3. Logic Pro.
  4. Actually, basically every app that Apple makes is pretty good. I would swap out the majority of the software on my Pixel for Apple apps if it wasn't proprietary and exclusive.
  5. iPhone videos are outstanding. My Pixel can't match my old 13 Pro's video, and it's a newer phone. Photos are also slightly worse here, but not after some editing.
  6. Objectively better build quality ~~if you ignore planned obscelecense~~. My MacBook just feels well built. It feels sturdy and durable ~~even if a speck of dust can kill the display~~, and every factor of the build is just better than anything else available. Phones are mostly up to spec, but my Pixel just doesn't feel as nice as my old iPhone, especially the objectively worse button and camera layout.

Mostly everything else? No. I can't install cool FOSS projects on my phone, or know what's running on it. I prefer Linux as an OS, but not any DE compared to macOS. I've also had some periods where stuff doesn't just work, such as iCloud fucking my free space and wiping almost my entire system when I try to fix the issue as per instructions I was given by an employee. Then, there's just that Apple is gross. I don't need to explain that, or anything about repair. Else.. the closed source software is excellent closed source software. The unrepairable, proprietary hardware is excellent hardware.

They're just a few steps from being better than any other company or project.. a couple of several thousand mile long steps.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Number one is because they've patented the trackpad sol noone else can use the newer style. Number 6 is madecompletely moot by the high price and the fact that many other vendors have laptops with BETTER build quality. Especially if you factor in all the engineering missteps they seem to constantly make.

Doubt me? Just look up Luis Rossman teardown videos. He'll show you actual macs from customers, that he takes appart onscreen, and shows you exactly how Apple makes extremely basic engineering mistakes.

Don't like him? Look up anyone else that gets under the hood of Apple products without being in Apple's cultish parts program.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Macs are like uncannily good at real-time audio processing, also audio and MIDI routing in general has less friction. Less tinkering in general when connecting external synths

Like with anything you can find tons of people online who have no issues with their windows based production setup, YMMV. But macs are ubiquitous in the music space, from my experience I think it’s deserved

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

My Linux nerd friend swore by Intel Macs for recording/mixing music for years.

He hasn't tried the Apple silicon macs at all though.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

I’ve been in the unix and Linux world for 10 years now, with forays into administering windows when necessary.

I currently write software for Linux hosts, I have tux tattooed on my chest, literally.

Today the only laptop I’d purchase is an Apple silicon machine.

The only thing I miss is i3.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Eiri@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

You know, it's not always, but apple does sell things that are price-competitive with similarly performing competing products.

Some iterations of the Mac Mini have been hard to beat with a tiny PC with similar performance.

The M1 MacBooks had some surprisingly cheap options for the relatively premium laptops they were.

Samsung's Ultra phones tend to cost more or less the same as the Apple Pro Max phones.

The main difference is sometimes just that Apple doesn't make low-end or low-mid-range, or sometimes not even anything below "relatively high-end", products in a particular category.

[–] moonburster@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can confirm on the MacBook side. My girlfriend got a m series macbook and it's better than anything in it's price range. That device is so snappy while having a battery life that's incomparable to anything with windows

[–] DJDarren@thelemmy.club 10 points 2 months ago

I've owned 4 MacBooks. A white plastic one, a 13" MBP, a 15" MBP, and now a 15" M2 Air.

I've had the Air for a year and I still can't wrap my head around how it's technically in a class below the fully specced 15" 2015 MBP, but outperforms it in literally every way. Don't get me wrong, I understand that, even without Apple Silicon, computer tech jumped on in leaps and bounds in the 8 years between my last two, but the performance difference is astonishing.

Sure, it's a lot of money for an 'entry level' laptop, but this fucker is going to last me ten years or more. When Apple no doubt drop OS support for it in a few years, Asahi Linux will almost certainly be rock solid enough to fully replace macOS.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Well, that button probably dates from the late 80s or early 90s, when Apple was comparing Macs to branded IBM PS/2s and such that were sold to schools and enterprises.

And they weren't wrong, at the time. Those PS/2s were fuckin' expensive.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (3 children)

A study from 2022 found that deploying Macs in the enterprise has a lower TCO than Windows. Mainly because they have to buy less extra software and they don't need as many IT staff to support them. Also, employees with Macs are more productive and do better on their performance reviews.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't see this mentioned there, but that Apple has largely ignored enterprise works out as a strength; other companies wrote and open sourced pretty good tools. That can result in tools that better meet your needs, and generally will result in a lower TCO.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

And since Macs are just UNIX machines under the hood, a lot of those open-source things are already built-in or can be added without much trouble.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Yes and by contrast Microsoft has been enshittifying the hell out of Windows in order to extract more and more money out of the corporations they have contracts with. They force everyone to use Teams, Azure, OneDrive, and Office 365 so that they achieve total lock-in and ratchet up the cost of the support contracts.

Microsoft is basically following the same playbook IBM pioneered in the enterprise: use a slick sales team to get your hooks into into the CEO, CIO, and other senior VPs in charge of IT in order to force all their crap onto the company by top-down fiat rather than bottom-up informed decision making.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Shady_Shiroe@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

They meant that it costs less for apple, not the customer

[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I had an Apple ][+ in 1982 and an Apple ][c in 1984.

Cost less is a relative term depending on application.

They were cheaper than full business model IBM computers (who hadn't much entered into the home computer market) but significantly more expensive than other home offerings such as commodore or (shudder) radio shack.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thezeesystem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What's next? Google becoming evil ?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GooberEar@lemmy.wtf 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's true! My last mac cost me nothing because it was provided by my job. And the case popped open after the battery swelled within a year of me getting it, something my personal laptops have never done before.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 months ago

Does more, lol. Think Apple might need a dictionary considering iPhone is just barely getting home screen customization and the Mac mouse actively works against doing anything.

[–] corbin@infosec.pub 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The M2 Mac Mini is $599, or $499 if you can get the education discount. There is not a (new) Windows PC in that price range that has the same performance (especially performance-per-watt) and Thunderbolt 4. The M1 MacBook Air is getting a bit old, but it's on sale for $600-700 pretty often and will knock the socks off most PCs in that price range, especially in build quality.

Apple's pricing gets ridiculous when you try spec'ing up with certain memory or storage upgrades, sure, and most internal upgrades are a no-go. The base models of most of their computers are incredibly competitive, though.

[–] LANIK2000@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (4 children)

At 600 you can get a computer with an actual graphics card. The only outstanding feature of the M1/2 macs is the very low power consumption, the rest is quite subpar.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Johanno 6 points 2 months ago

Well now I just need apple to provide a real os.

I use Nixos btw.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kersplomp@programming.dev 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

This post was maybe true 5 years ago, but PC laptops have really started to suck. My macbook air was only $300 and it's way better than my work's $1k+ Dell laptop in terms of performance and battery life.

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Macbook air is only $300???

[–] kersplomp@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes. Supplier markup is 50% above cost, so set up a price watch and wait for it to go on clearance. You'll get it 50% off.

I got mine new at Best Buy last year when they were clearing out M1 stock.

[–] 01011@monero.town 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Where is a macbook air $300? Off the back of a truck?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Original iPod: Clunky, ugly, not the most storage.

But using jt will remind you of playing with nipples.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 6 points 2 months ago

Before I landed a good job, I was buying used Macs for years. Mac of All Trades is your friend.

[–] samokosik@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

That aged like milk lol

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

That pin can be found for $30 or $35 on on ebay here and here, where it is described as being from the 80s and as an "employee pin".

I was thinking that this might have been something aimed specifically at technology buyers in US schools in the 80s or 90s, to whom Apple offered substantial institutional discounts in a (relatively successful) effort to dominate that sector. However searching the phrase "does more costs less" i found this TV spot advertising the Quadra 605 which at $1000 was the cheapest computer Apple sold when it was introduced in October 1993 (and allegedly cheaper than something else they refer to as "PC Leading Brand" 😂). That system was sold under the LC and Performa brands up to 1996, but it was only sold as a Quadra until October 1994, so, to answer OP's question: that slogan was in use at least sometime in that year.

load more comments
view more: next ›