[potatolicious]

"If I spend $30 on a keyboard mouse/combo. And it breaks in 6 months, I can just throw it away and get a replacement and still have coffee money."

And through all of this you're still using a cheap $30 keyboard. Why buy something cheap and disposable just to replace it 6 months later? Sure, your TCO is still lower than the nicer keyboard - but the ease of use and satisfaction is easily worth the difference, not to mention a hell of a lot less wasteful. Why I would skimp on my primary interface to the computer (your hands are on that damn thing all day, after all), is a mystery to me.

"You've used the word "investing" in a way that makes no sense."

Of course it doesn't make sense to you - you appear to think that "investment" can only occur in a monetary sense. This explains your focus on TCO without regard for the quality of the product. When I "invest" in a nice suit, I'm not expecting my garments to appreciate in monetary value - I'm expecting to receive some tangible non-monetary benefit (landing that job, for example, or better networking) for it. In the same way, "investing" in tech gear is about greater satisfaction, reduced frustration, etc etc. It is not about my computer somehow appreciating in value.

"I could buy two or three Toyota Corollas for one BMW 3xx, get to where I want on time, more reliably, with better gas mileage (read: lower TCO), and the only thing I'll suffer for it is not looking like a pretentious prick will doing it."

Your objection against Apple is apparently more about its image than any tangible complaint. This is fine - and is in fact the most common argument against Apple products ("but you look like a hipster douche!").

Question: have you driven a BMW? Or are you presuming that there's no tangible difference except the image component? I've worked in the auto industry - and have done work for both cheapo Pontiacs as well as $100K+ Mercedes Benzes. The quality difference is extreme, but of course invisible on any consumer spec sheet. This is why spec sheet tunnel vision is generally a bad idea when it comes to purchases - there's more to a car (and computer) than its engine size, mileage, CPU speed, L2 cache size, etc etc.

If you've ever been behind the wheel of a BMW you'd know the difference between it and a Corolla. It's a far more satisfying machine to drive than a Corolla, by a really, really wide margin.

But by all means, cling to your unfounded prejudices about BMW drivers and Mac users. We'll be out there enjoying our products (in a non-douchey way, I promise). It seems you're willing to deny yourself better quality products simply because you don't want to be associated with the few people who act like dicks about having them.

[nitrogen]

+1 for non-monetary/intangible benefits. Even my ancient (early 90s) 3 series is an amazing drive, and well worth the disintegrating door panels and various other problems. I've driven a variety of cars, old and new, and this is my favorite so far.

There are some products that, because of attention to detail or other design features, are a pleasure to use, even if their performance on paper is worse.

[elblanco]

Disintegrating parts of a car does not speak to "attention to detail". :)

But I agree, there is sometimes a visceral, non-quantifiable "feel" to a product that makes it worth using. My favorite car was my late 70's Mercury. Stupid big, ate gas like there was a hole in the tank, small tasks like getting out of the driveway had lots of engine drama. But man it drove like a dream.

[elblanco]

> Why buy something cheap and disposable just to replace it 6 months later? Sure, your TCO is still lower than the nicer keyboard...

Thanks for answering your own question.

> you appear to think that "investment" can only occur in a monetary sense Well, we're obviously not talking about "the act of putting on vestments". So yes, "investment" only is defined in this sense as an outlay of resources or capital with an expectation of a greater return.

Buying something because it's pretty is not an investment.

You really really want to try and stretch the definition so that "can bring about higher productivity/efficiencies on a current process" which I think is reasonable since those higher efficiencies can directly lead to a greater return. But you provide no examples that an Apple branded keyboard can allow me to type at, for example 130wpm vs. 90wpm. I would be willing to put dollars down that said Apple branded keyboard would not demonstrate any increase in productivity or efficiencies over a $5 Taiwan built no-name bargain-bin keyboard. And since we both agree that the TCO is lower on the latter device, it's the better investment.

>Your objection against Apple is apparently more about its image than any tangible complaint.

To be clear, my objection against the entire Apple ecosystem is twofold: 1) Apple charges too much money for their kit. There is no sense in paying Two Thousand Dollars for a system I can find for less than half that. Unless said Apple system does bring about a massive productivity increase, it is not a rational purchase. Experience has shown me that Apple systems do not bring about any productivity increases.

2) Apple fanboys offer irrational, circular reasoning to justify their computing purchases. They offer up "design" as the deciding factor, and when I say "design makes no difference" they offer up "productivity", and when I say "show me the statistics" they say "it's an investment", and when I say "investment doesn't mean that" they say "it's about the design".

The users of Apple products are far more the problem with the entire ecosystem than Apple ever will be -- actually to Apple they are the life's blood.

I can understand Apple's business model. They know they will never have more than low double digit market share. And they also know that that market share represents people who would purchase a pile of smoldering rubbish for a 200% markup if it had an Apple logo on it and a Jonny Ive's video spot proclaiming how this "was the best designed pile of smoldering rubbish...in the world". That's called "being smart". They can make loads of profit selling commodity hardware that the Dell's of the world make only 5-10% margins on simply by fanning the flames of rabid fanboyism.

> Question: have you driven a BMW? Yes, several, if I was in the market for a performance auto (if that was what I considered "value") at those prices, I can think of several better alternatives at comparable prices. e.g. http://www.arielatom.com/ http://www.lotuscars.com/ http://automobiles.honda.com/s2000/ http://www.nissanusa.com/gt-r/

>I've worked in the auto industry - and have done work for both cheapo Pontiacs as well as $100K+ Mercedes Benzes. The quality difference is extreme, but of course invisible on any consumer spec sheet. This is why spec sheet tunnel vision is generally a bad idea when it comes to purchases - there's more to a car (and computer) than its engine size, mileage, CPU speed, L2 cache size, etc etc.

That's correct. There is TCO. A Pontiac and a Benz (and a BMW) share one thing in common, poor TCO. Between poor build quality, reliability, trade-in value, gas mileage etc. those vehicles all demonstrate poor thinking on the part of the purchasers. The Pontiac is probably purchased for the initially low sticker price. But it will suffer from poor reliability, bad gas mileage and when the owner goes to trade it in after 5 years, a shockingly bad trade-in price. The Benz, while being built of the finest materials (leading to a high sticker price), suffers from some of the worst statistical reliability in the business across the lineup, and generally very poor trade-in value (a 2005 S500 4d in excellent condition goes for the same price as a stripped low end Accord, that's an $70,000 loss in value in 4 years).

It's no mystery why Toyota is now the #1 car maker. They don't offer anything particularly attractive, they don't use the best materials, they don't make the fastest cars or have the best handling. They don't even have a performance offering in their lineup!

The equation is simple, they make decent vehicles, that get you from A to B in the same amount of time it takes somebody in a Merc S500 or a BMW 540 or a Ferrari Enzo, it lasts longer between services than the more expensive cars and the cheaper-to-purchase cars, it offers reasonable comfort for the price, and when it comes time to trade in, you might loose only 40% of the price not 70-80%. The most important factor for the vast majority of people is TCO.

Rewrite that previous statement in computing terms and you have the reason why Apple is not a good investment. They do not offer a competitive TCO to the competing Wintel type systems.

But the comparison isn't between a Corolla and a 540. It's between a Corolla and a Civic -- only I'm going to charge you a 120% markup on the civic because I stuck a "type R" badge on the back. Applers want to compare their computing choices to higher end autos with higher end specs. But that simply doesn't jive with reality. Their systems have identical specs to any other consumer Intel style system out there.

> If you've ever been behind the wheel of a BMW you'd know the difference between it and a Corolla. It's a far more satisfying machine to drive than a Corolla, by a really, really wide margin.

Yes, it is :) I've always been happy to drive my rental BMWs and Audis whenever I'm in Germany. I've been loathe to drive the Opels I sometimes get. That being said, I would never say that I received a tangible benefit from those cars and could never justify buying one for myself along any rational lines.

>But by all means, cling to your unfounded prejudices about BMW drivers and Mac users. We'll be out there enjoying our products (in a non-douchey way, I promise).

Apple users are certainly ways less douchy than BMWers.

I think the answer to "why should I buy an Apple" should be "because I like it better". And the answer to "why?" should be "dunno, just do". All the superfluous justifications don't hold up to rational examination. But they don't really have to. I like Bach better than Beethoven, but I can't give a rational reason why.