> The opposite ("macs are overpriced") is something I've never been able to understand.

It's simple: People without much money have basic needs and want a ~$600 laptop but Apple doesn't sell one.

It doesn't matter if the $1000 Macbook has better battery life than a $1000 Dell because they don't have a $1000 budget.

That's different from being "overpriced."

Overpriced would be "costs more than it should for what it is," not "costs what it should but is more product than I can afford."

> Overpriced would be "costs more than it should for what it is," not "costs what it should but is more product than I can afford."

But it's also that, because their bottom configurations are weird/crippled.

It's hard to find a PC laptop with a 4k screen for much less than $1000, but then the $1000 machine has 12 cores and 32GB of RAM and 512GB of storage. Apple's $1000 laptop has 8 cores and 8GB of RAM and 256GB of storage, i.e. overpriced.

Okay, but DDR5 is ~$3/GB and NVMe SSDs are ~$0.10/GB, so really that's only a value difference of like $100 and you could just upgrade it. Except that Apple charges $25/GB for DDR5 and $1.28/GB for storage and then solders everything, so you'd actually have to pay an extra $800. Except that the Macbook Air isn't available with 32GB of RAM, or more than 8 cores, so then you need the Pro, which is even more.

The bad part of Apple DRAM is that it's not upgradable or replaceable unless you can figure out how to open up the M3 multi-chip-module and nanosolder a new RAM module.

The good part is that the DRAM is connected to the GPU as well as the CPU.

Nothing stops them from doing both together. Put 8GB or 16GB on the APU package and then have a couple of SODIMM slots for more. The more wouldn't have the same bandwidth but it doesn't need to, because you're using it for browser tabs and filesystem cache, to keep that stuff out of the fast memory and preserve it for what needs it.

Moreover, they could put the APU in a socket and then if you wanted more of the integrated memory you could replace the APU without having to replace the entire machine.

DOS was ahead of its time with its ability to handle real mode vs. extended memory. ;-)

I'm not sure those people are the intended Macbook audience, though. How many of those people wouldn't be roughly as productive using an iPad or something? I've found myself doing almost all my non-development, non-media stuff on an iPad Air as of late and the environmental constraints have been really helpful for focus.

(My iPad Air was $599 new, and I use a shockingly pleasant $30 case-and-keyboard combination for typing--no, it's not a mechanical keyboard, but c'mon.)

I have tried several different iPads over the years and I have never found them to be useful in any way. A laptop is superior in every situation for me.

Also the M1 MacBook Air was on sale many times for $700. That's less than $100 more than your iPad Air + keyboard.

Macs are better for me for a lot of things, too, sure. When I'm not doing computer-toucher things, though, I find it isn't materially different. And a lot of people want the affordances without the need to do those kinds of things.

Apple's presentation has mostly been the Mac is a work truck, and most people have light-duty needs.

iPad has a tiny screen and a tiny keyboard. It's not a laptop.

As far as screen size goes, my iPad is about the same size as my 11" Air was, though not widescreen. And the keyboard's small, but Apple has prior art there too and you can get a bigger iPad if you really want to (though, sure, it costs more).

It's not a laptop, no--but that's also not inherently a bad thing. If you need what a laptop can do, sure. I have a 32GB M1 Max for a reason. But more and more it seems obvious to me that the median computer user doesn't need that, and the affordances from overlap with their more accustomed part of the ecosystem (their phone) are strong and pretty valuable.

I probably can't justify the expense myself anymore - last time I had a hefty student discount. But this doesn't make them overpriced, it just makes me poor.

Apple does partially cover that market, but only via refurbished.

https://www.apple.com/shop/product/FGN63LL/A/refurbished-133...

The thing that's really sad is that the build quality on sub $1k laptops is just such shite

> Apple does partially cover that market, but only via refurbished.

That's not the same thing. If you're budget conscious then you presumably need to keep it for a long time, but now you've got a used battery and a machine that will fall out of support sooner.

> The thing that's really sad is that the build quality on sub $1k laptops is just such shite

The secret to this one might be refurbished Framework laptops. Sure, you've got a used battery, but now it's easy to replace and costs $50 instead of $250.

Refurbished devices from Apple generally come with new batteries, and sometimes other parts will be replaced as well if needed. I’ve bought several devices refurbished and they’ve been excellent. With iOS devices they even replace the outer shell as standard.

Refurbished iOS devices from Apple generally come with new batteries. They replace the batteries in Macbooks if the existing battery is already defective. That doesn't mean it can't have 3 years of use on it already, and then fails 3 years sooner, it just means it's not already below the threshold for immediate replacement when you buy it.

You can check the charge cycle count on the battery, and have 14 days to return the device if it's a concern.

But how does that help? You don't expect it to be zero, you expect it to have 2-3 years worth of use on it because that's how old it is.

Apparently many of them are replaced. I found a thread on Reddit where a few people were saying they've bought refurbs and they often have 0 or 1 charge cycles on the batteries, indicating they were replacements.

So you, what, keep buying them and sending them back until you get one with a new battery? Even if that works for one person, it obviously doesn't work at scale because soon the ones they'd have left in inventory would be the ones without new batteries.

Is a brand new battery really the minimum acceptable standard for a refurb? If got a refurb and it had 6 months usage on the battery for example, I think I’d be fine with that.

3 years no, but given brand new batteries is reportedly a common experience for refurb buyers of laptops a lot younger than that it seems unlikely that actually ever happens.

> Is a brand new battery really the minimum acceptable standard for a refurb?

Of course not, it's a refurb, but that's the point. You know it's a refurb and you know it's not going to last as long as a new one. That's why the refurb sells at a discount.

> If got a refurb and it had 6 months usage on the battery for example, I think I’d be fine with that.

That's the other issue though. You can see the number of charge cycles but not e.g. how many times it was left in a car in the summer sun.

> If you're budget conscious then you presumably need to keep it for a long time

I don't know why you would assume this to be true. Maybe you need a new computer right now but cash is currently tight.

People typically choose low-paying careers because higher-paying ones are inaccessible to them or they value something else more than money. They buy the less expensive product because they don't make a lot of money and then keep it until it dies because they don't make a lot of money.

No, it's I need a 2 TB SSD in my machine. That costs $100 for a PC laptop, and $600 for the Mac. I need at least 16GB of memory, that's $300 for the Mac, and $60 for the PC.

It's the fact that Apple is grifting everyone who needs more than the base specs.

>nicest keyboard

When have MacBooks ever had the nicest keyboard? They have pretty good keyboards, but I have 10 year old ThinkPads with keyboards that I prefer.

Keyboard feel is very subjective. Different people like different things about keyboards.

Are thinkpads considered "ultra mobile" (or whatever the buzzword is nowadays)? I thought they were more hefty? The thin/lightweight laptops from back then had crappy clickety keyboards.

Of course they were heftier, but "nicest keyboard" and "nicest keyboard given ridiculous thickness constraints" are a world apart. No idea what you mean about crappy Thinkpad keyboards. The old Thinkpad keyboards are widely acknowledged to have been great.

> Back in 2013 when I bought my current laptop, the mac book air was the thinnest, lightest, longest battery life, nicest keyboard, and a bunch of superlatives I don't remember, and it was somewhat over £1000. The closest non-mac "ultrabooks" I could find in shops at the time cost the same, and felt like cheap rubbish.

It seems like you've changed my requirements and then decided the thinkpads were a great fit.

Not at all. Maybe what you intended to write was "nicest keyboard given my other constraints". But that's not what you wrote. And it's not what "superlatives" suggest either.

You're a pedant, Harry!