Are Apple's machines really more expensive than they used to be?

[freeradical]

The original MacBook Air had a 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU, 2 GB of RAM, and a 64 GB SSD, all for a cool $3098.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/ma...specs.html

[Onamuji]

Note that Apple quickly dropped the price on that configuration to $2598. Apple is pushing the 13-inch 2-port no-touch-bar MacBook Pro as the current equivalent. Max it out and it's $2599.

...So, not much difference at the low-end.

But what about the MacBook Pro?

Max out a 15-inch MacBook Pro in 2008: $2599.
Max out a 15-inch MacBook Pro in 2017: $4299.

...Before AppleCare and a couple of hundred bucks for new adapters.

...So, yes. Apple's Macs are more expensive than they used to be.

[jdc]

More.

Although not sure the MBP comparision is apples to apples, since $1200 of that $4300 price is for the 2TB flash drive.

[hal]

MBP 13 minimum prices:
from 2009-2012 min was $1199
early 2013-mid-2015 min was $1299

2016 min is $1499

Yes, they are more expensive than they use to be

[NewtonMP2100]

.....feels that they are.......also 'less' is being included/you are getting less.....I mean some models you get 8 MB RAM which can't be upgraded....the hard drive is glued can't be upgraded.......you have to pay more for dongles.....etc....

[ka jowct]

How far back do we want to go?

My IIci with a 120MB hard drive and 9MB of RAM was around $3600 by the time I bought it, toward the end of its status as a new model. The Extended II keyboard was another $175.

Apple 13" 640 x 480 RGB monitors were about $800. Luckily, a repair guy who had a tech support contract with our company left one of those behind and didn't want to come back for it, so I got a free monitor.

The IIfx was crazy expensive when it came out.

[OWC Larry]

And don't forget - by design, Apple expects a faster replacement cycle on these Macs as well... What you configure is what you get... no memory, no storage, nada internal upgradeable or user serviceable.

[ka jowct]

OWC Larry wrote:
And don't forget - by design, Apple expects a faster replacement cycle on these Macs as well... What you configure is what you get... no memory, no storage, nada internal upgradeable or user serviceable.

Yes, that's where we get reamed by Apple these days IMHO. We pay Apple's premium prices for RAM and storage, and then have to throw away the whole machine when it becomes inadequate. The current strategy rubs me the wrong way.

[rich in distress]

I think I paid 3k for my Quadra 650, sans monitor. 3k for the power mac G3 266, with monitor. 3k for Titanium PB G4.
I paid less for the he Santa Rosa because I made compromises, as it was not the top model.
Right before that one, I got the FireWire iBook for mobility reasons, and then realized that the amount of computing power I wanted was better realized with multiple machines, hence the compromise with the SR.
I had a DT tied up with audio I/O cards, SCSI or LVD, and synth cards, and the portables were running soft synths and FX.
I still think the same paradigm applies, so I find the new machines a bargain. They run circles around the old ones, and the software, while more intensive in requirements, is about the same.

[OWC Jamie]

ka jowct wrote:
[quote=OWC Larry]
And don't forget - by design, Apple expects a faster replacement cycle on these Macs as well... What you configure is what you get... no memory, no storage, nada internal upgradeable or user serviceable.

Yes, that's where we get reamed by Apple these days IMHO. We pay Apple's premium prices for RAM and storage, and then have to throw away the whole machine when it becomes inadequate. The current strategy rubs me the wrong way. does anyone spend money on any 10 year old PC these days ? 5?