[lynndotpy]

The impression I get is that is all already "known".

Over the past 10 years, I think the assumption is that Apple laptops cost more for equivalent computational specs, but are prettier* and built better (controversies aside), and have MacOS (which is a plus for many.) (I did pick this laptop for comparison because its RAM and SSD sounded good above its base numbers.)

I guess my main argument is that there's not enough here to "debunk" this trend, even with deeper insights into hardware. This might be different with the M1, which I have no experience with.

(*This is a quality that I don't mean to dismiss. A better screen is important for a device that might see >10h of use in a day.)

[karlshea]

I think the issue is that if one was to buy a typical laptop I'm sure one would be perfectly happy with it, and (that specific laptop aside) there are definitely PC laptops that are pretty decent. The Razer Blade has been reviewed well, there are some good ThinkPads, etc.

But if you've ever actually owned an Apple laptop and then use ANY of these other ones, it's completely obvious right away what you're paying a little more for. Apple has issues too (I had a previous model with the shitty keyboard, my current Touch Bar is dying, and it was a horrible idea in the first place), but even if I didn't care about macOS I'd still never even consider getting a different brand because those shortcomings are so stark.

The screens are great, they don't flex or creak, the touchpad is amazing, it's not covered in plastic, and it doesn't feel like you're paying for maybe a great processor and SSD but everything else is crap.

Those differences don't show up on a spec sheet though, so for many people it makes no sense why people pay a little more for Apple, and that "little more" really isn't a whole lot when you are actually trying to compare equivalents. When you get a similar-specced PC laptop and the MacBook is maybe $100 more, that $100 is actually going to better components in general. E.g. both have a trackpad but Apple's is significantly better.

Another example is monitors: why pay $1700 for Apple's Studio Display? Well, because literally no one else sells a 27" 5k display except for that one from LG which was widely known to have tons of reliability problems. Why do you need a 5k instead of 4k? Retina text. If you haven't lived with it this doesn't matter, but if you have then moving back to 4k kinda sucks.

[MrFoof]

Ubiquitous 5K displays has been a wishlist of mine since 2009.

Thankfully DisplayPort 2.0 compliant GPUs starting to surface (both the upcoming AMD and NVIDIA GPUs will do it) may finally see the start of their ubiquity in the coming years.

Been doing multi 1440p (or 2560x1600) since 2005, because I refuse to give up logical area by going to 4K. 3x5K will be happy days for me.

[karlshea]

I really hope so... my iMac is starting to age and depending on what products get announced in the next year or so I may end up replacing it with a Mac Studio. If there are other displays to compete with the Studio Display I'd happily look at them to save some cash.

[lynndotpy]

Oh, I certainly agree with this.

I guess what I meant to express is that, I think most people are roughly aware of these things as explaining the spec-cost gap. I thought there might have been something more? (My own experience is lacking-- I haven't used Apple laptops for more than a few weeks at a time, and I haven't used any of the recent M1 laptops.)

[karlshea]

> most people are roughly aware of these things as explaining the spec-cost gap

Ahhh I see what you mean.