[boplicity]

> 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.

[peoplefromibiza]

> 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]

My 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.

[nix23]

>35 cents per hour to use

WOW that's kind allot TBH.

[PeterisP]

I 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.

[wdb]

Yeah, like only ~0.4% of a hour rate of a typical contractor in London (8 hours work day)

[nix23]

in London.....of a typical contractor....

[riquito]

You'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]

If they had instead bought a $700 laptop 8 years ago, they likely would have had to upgrade several times by now.

[peoplefromibiza]

800 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]

"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]

And 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]

If 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]

I don't own any Apple products.