[seanmcdirmid]

http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/27/apple-ad-spending/ quote "And while $691 million may seem like a massive amount of money, it’s still less than half of what Microsoft spent on advertising last year. And it’s less than what Dell spent last year."

I'm not sure what the case is like today, I'm sure its gone up a bit but would be surprised if they surpass Microsoft yet. Apple doesn't pay for product placements; see http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-10/apple-the-ot... quote "The cast’s (Gossip Girl's) sudden conversion cost the Cupertino (Calif.)-based iPhone maker nothing. Apple has spent decades strengthening its subtle but powerful grip over Hollywood, and unlike many companies, says it never pays for its products to appear on television or in movies."

Apple doesn't SPEND much on marketing, but the marketing done is incredibly effective. Turns out, just having the best product makes the job much easier.

[a45l98]

"Turns out, just having the best product..."

This is why Apple gets a bad rap in the forums. Who would say that that about their computer (except a Linux weenie)? The reality is these are cheap electronics in a hermetically sealed but stylish enclosure that use publicly available OS configured for dummies. So simple is the design they can be used by lower primates.

I like Apple hardware, it continues to look good after all these years, but comments "Turns out, having the best product..." make me like it a lot less. Apple is attracting some brainless users and will be catering to them more and more. This is not good.

Maybe this userbase explains the product placements. Hollywood wants to convey a sense that a character is not the type of person that would know anything about computers, hence she uses Apple products.

Touche.

And thanks for the links.

[seanmcdirmid]

The truth is brutal: they build the right products, they practically sell themselves, and once they've reached critical mass, what else do you expect them to do? Now you bring out the sheeple argument...ah...ok...

At all the computer science conferences I go to, Macs outnumber PCs; no I mean they actually dominate PCs! Now Apple has cultivated an image that the smartest people use Macs? Or maybe these people just use macs b/c they are the best coding machines out there, and they really don't care paying more that? Or maybe we CS PhDs are just sheeple and like shiny things just like less technical users?

Really?

[a45l98]

No. Apple has always been popular with intelligent people (whether they are technical or not) and it has always been the best choice for certain uses.

But things are changing. First they started selling mp3 players. Then phones. Now Etch-A-Sketches. And now we have CS PhD's getting defensive about their choice to use Apple computers. New types of users. New focus.

Xcode makes for "the best coding machines"?

You mean that's better than a machine that comes with a compiler already installed and ready to go?

With no certificates? And No hoop-jumping?

How is it better?

[seanmcdirmid]

(I'm not downvoting you , just so you know)

If you know if a laptop that is better than a high-end macbook pro, please let me know. I mean, please...I'm not supposed to use Macs myself given who I work for...I am desperate for a decent work laptop without a fruit logo on it.

Sometimes MBPs are bought and Windows/Bootcamp is installed, sometimes they install Linux, sometimes OSX is perfectly OK because they are using Eclipse or some other cross platform IDE anyways. And their are those that actually do Mac/iOS development. Fun stuff.

[a45l98]

(I know it's not you. You seem like a cool guy. But looks I've gotten under someone's skin, lol. Sorry, whoever you are!)

It really depends on what you want to do with the computer. There's no shortage of forum debates on the merits of one computer over another without any mention of the intended use. That's pretty silly when you think about it.

Can't you cover up that logo with a sticker? (Taking a tip from the movie studios in the businessweek article.)

I don't think you are buying the MBP just for the specs though, are you? I mean, the enclosure, Cocoa graphics layer, all that ease-of-use must factors, right?

If you are saying MBP specs really are the best for a laptop in that price range, then you have made me curious.

My solution to the hoop-jumping for development would be to boot another OS, that already has a compiler installed, from USB. But I'm not even sure that would work. I'm not writing stuff in Java or ObjectiveC. I just want a working clang/gcc.

[seanmcdirmid]

Just one more post in an argument that is probably misplaced and not very interesting to anyone else besides us :).

It used to be that buying a Mac was a hard decision. Not only were they more expensive (not a great value), but you also had to give up performance (especially in the PowerPC age) and app availability. Today, you no longer have to make those hard decisions, while the PC vendors have gone low end and have let their quality fall dramatically (which wasn't that great to begin with). That I say macs today are the "best" computers we can buy have something to do with Apple continuing to focus on quality, having value that compares to the PC vendors, and the PC vendors having sunk into a race to the bottom with each other, leaving Apple free to reign over the +$999 market.

So just show me a laptop that is "as good as" the the retina MacBook Pro that comes in at +$2000, a price I'm willing to pay (be it me or my employer, I'm worth it given how much time I spend using my computer). I honestly can't find anything that compares in the PC zone, and believe I've tried!