Surely it's a myth that macbook hardware is of superhero "unrivalled" quality. I haven't seen links to comparative data backing up the claim. Failure rates, service rates, lifespan, side by side images of components at a microscopic level, data showing resistance to heat, cold, dust, impacts etc.
What you will find is a lot of people repeating the claim about Apple hardware and the OS. A belief based it seems on one fact - they are happy with their Mac and haven't used anything else for ages, so how can other computers possibly be as good.
We know also that the glowing Apple logo proudly displayed by too many DJs, speakers at conferences, and certain movies and TV shows, is an effective marketing campaign. Ever-present, hitching a free ride on whatever is taking place on stage. This matters, it's not like a Marshall logo on speaker stacks, it's more prominent, center stage, often the only light source in frame.
I wish more presenters and performers opted out of the glowing marketing campaigns of the equipment they use. The brand of your equipment is not the reason why you're up there presenting.
This is so interesting! Your parent said "unrivaled hardware" and went on to give some examples of the types of things meant by that: frequent component updates, nice high-res displays, battery life, support, and form factor. (Left out the trackpad, which really is a huge differentiator.) You replied by questioning things like failure rates, lifespan, side by side component images, and resistance to heat, cold, dust, and impacts. There is a big difference between your lists, his are things users care about day to day, and yours are things engineers or IT managers care about. Well, I'm a user, and while I have very little affection for Apple, as far as I can tell they're the only ones making very nice user-focused laptop hardware at reasonable prices ($1000-$1200 vs. more like $2000 for a similarly nice (but, irrelevantly, more powerful!) non-Mac in my experience).
I find the logo and "sameness" rather embarrassing, but it seems to be the only game in town. Please do link me to a $1200 non-Mac laptop with a high-res 15" screen, thin form factor, and nice trackpad.
> Please do link me to a $1200 non-Mac laptop with a high-res 15" screen, thin form factor, and nice trackpad.
The cheapest high-res/HiDPI/Retina 15" MacBook costs $1999, not $1200. The baseline 13" rMBP costs $1199 after the education discount though[1].
[1] By the by, if you order from the Apple Online Store in the US, you can get the student discount no matter what. There's no verification of any kind (like to possession of a .edu address and what not): http://store.apple.com/us-hed
Whoops, I did actually mean 13". But also: I did buy last year's 15" model new-in-box for $1200 - there seems to be a pretty fast price drop-off, perhaps because Mac buyers really do have an above average focus on latest-and-greatest.
Edit to add: My point is really not about the price but that taking away the "brand status" as a factor or even making it a confounding factor, Mac laptops completely own the "nice-for-user hardware" space.
Did you really get a Late 2013 15" rMBP, new, for $1200? Where'd you get it?
I'd like to (perhaps) get the Dell UP2414Q monitor, which is Retina-esque monitor (3840x2160 -- double of 1920x1080), and the Late 2013 15" rMBP is the only Apple laptop that can use the monitor in Retina mode at 60Hz.
Also, I've heard quite the opposite with regard to MacBook prices -- they stay up, while the prices of all other laptops drop significantly. For example, a high-end Late 2008 MBP still sells for nearly a thousand dollars on eBay, whereas a ThinkPad X200 will cost you only around $100 . As a side, you can squeeze 7-8 hours of battery life out of the ThinkPad X200 (running Arch).
I guess it's possible I got a really good deal! I got a late 2011-model from ebay around this time last year (so May 2013), which turned out to be new in the box (but I wouldn't have minded a refurb), for $1199 plus tax.
I guess you're right that PCs retain their value even worse, but even $2000 to $1300 in a bit more than a year seems like a good deal.
A friend of mine own a Yoga 2 Pro. He's using Chakra Linux, and he had to go through a great deal of difficulty to adapt KDE to the HiDPI screen. He somehow managed to do it partially (like by setting font sizes to insane numbers, etc). Even still, there UI elements scattered around that still appear as though you're looking at them from space.
> I wish more presenters and performers opted out of the glowing marketing campaigns of the equipment they use. The brand of your equipment is not the reason why you're up there presenting.
This. It looks like everyone is happy to promote the Apple brand on top of themselves. For free.
A bar graph comparing failure rates among manufacturers appears on page 6. Asus and Toshiba represent the top tier, but Apple's better than average and not far behind them.
That said, I think much of the "unrivaled quality" that many perceive in Macs has less to do with failure rates and more to do with the details - MagSafe power adapters, fantastic trackpads, the general lack of crapware; all these details come together to give an overall impression of a more put-together piece of electronics. This is coming from someone whose first act upon firing up a brand-new Mac is to stick a copy of Windows on it. (Nuking the price advantage I'd otherwise be getting from going with Macs in the process.)
I run GNU/Linux on a CF-53 [1], and the experience has been nothing short of perfection. I say this having owned a 2011 iMac, 2013 Macbook Air which I still own, and the usual Dells and Lenovos: I would never willingly use any other laptop to get work done.
The CF-53 features a hardware on/off wireless switch, magnesium alloy casing that you can jump on, port protectors that fight dust and debris, and a keyboard that is to die for. The tactile feedback on the keyboard is absolutely incredible. It is the best laptop keyboard man has ever devised.
I hear it all the time, that Macs are the highest quality money can buy, but compared to what? Compared to cheap, plasticky crap run of the mill consumer Windows laptops from HP? Yea of course, get a Macbook there's no doubt.
But compared to a Panasonic? No way Jose, Panasonic makes better quality hardware that lasts longer and will take any abuse, which is why you'll read reviews by armed forces deployed in the ME use who recommend Toughbooks over competing ruggedized machines, including machines made by military contractors like General Dynamics.
You can spill water all over the 53, and drop it to the ground from three feet. Order one with built-in GOBI wireless card or GPS to make up for the bulk. Buying on ebay is commonly done to obtain toughbooks on the cheap. They last forever anyway, and they are often dumped on the market en masse once off of corporate and government leases. I would take my whatever-priced CF-53 with 10,450 operating hours over a brand new $1200 Macbook or brand new $1800 plasticky feeling consumer Windows PC without hesitation.
The only other laptop I'd consider buying for a mobile workstation is a CF-52, and only because it offers a higher resolution display and a higher performance GPU.
It looks like an excellent laptop for what it's for, but at 2.7kg its just far too heavy and overall large for me. I have a bag with me at all times of every day with my MacBook Pro retina in it, and at 1.5kg and 13" screen plus a LOT of power under the hood (at least, more than enough for the VMs I'm running on it, I have the 8GB + 256GB SDD model) it's just perfect for my usage.
And that's the thing. When someone says "It's the highest quality|best|perfect laptop" I add a "...for me" to the end of the sentence mentally. :)
The only major gripe I have is with the apparently decreased battery life.
There are ways of extending battery life [1], but I'm usually plugged in when I work so I haven't played with it.
I also haven't tested Linux support for:
- GOBI
- GPS
- touchscreen
- multiple monitors
- printers, scanners, fax machines
as I don't use those things or they did not come with my particular CF-53 model.
Otherwise, the keyboard fn-buttons to adjust brightness, volume, etc work straight out of the box without any need for configuration. Wireless works better for me straight out of the box on Arch than on Windows, even taking into consideration the host of proprietary Panasonic wireless drivers [2]. Overall it's a very clean experience.
It's fallen from about 4 feet flat onto a hardwood surface once before without any discernible side effects. That was one of those times I realized if it was any other laptop I'd have a major malfunction on my hands. It's also fallen off the bed numerous times before. It just keeps going like nothing happened.
The bulk definitely takes some getting used to, but the machine has become so indispensable to me that I'm willing to have it weigh me down. I really do consider it the Lamborghini of mobile workstations, very excessive in many ways, but once you've used it there's nothing anyone can say to you to shake your belief that it is the very best workstation computing experience in the world.
What the 53 compromises in form factor it more than makes up for in productivity, enjoyment and peace of mind. It's a clear level up from Macbooks and Thinkpads galore, form factor aside. And it runs Linux real g00t.
That's why I have manufacturer logo on the back of my laptop covered by a innocent "no free advertising" sticker all the time, not only when presenting.
Even for the clothes, the only logo I occasionally have printed on my clothes is the logo of my employer on a clothes provided by them for free. That much advertising is acceptable for me.
It's not like I'm going out of my way to prevent advertising. Of course I don't cover a logo of my car, but I also don't drive cars on races or other events where I am publicly presenting something. If I were a famous car driver or even running mechanic shop, I would make sure not to show any, eg. tire manufacturer poster unless I have clear financial interest to do so.
But, if I'm presenting something computer related to an audience interesting in computer related stuff, it's perfectly reasonable not to show any unpaid advertising related to computers. I don't want that anyone in the audience get an impression that I recommend any specific laptop brand.
I wouldn't buy one of those 4WD's with the big TOYOTA lettering on the back. This is comparable to the Apple logo because its going out of its way to be noticed, "look at me, look at me".
Covering up a car's logo with a sticker is obviously not an option, so personally I would avoid those big TOYOTA cars.
Regular car logos aren't so greedy for attention. They don't glow at night, or cover the entire rear panel of the car.
I'm quite surprised that so many people in this industry, and DJs at gigs are happy for the logo to sit there glowing all night on stage. I don't get it, Apple isn't sponsoring your talk or performance.
I guess I'm too optimistic about people caring about keeping a good distance between marketing, capitalism and the expression of ideas and art. To me, those things should remain completely separate.
Actually it's exactly Apple's strategy to have their glowing logo shown around everywhere when people are using them. If you have a Mac and use it in this way you are basically acting as a promoter for the brand whether you like it or not.
Here's the one piece of hardware that really matters to me: the keyboard. This is totally in the realm of champagne problems, I realize, but my muscle memory is so tuned to the apple layout, down to the key size, that using something at else this time is a constant reminder that my fingers aren't quite home.
What you will find is a lot of people repeating the claim about Apple hardware and the OS. A belief based it seems on one fact - they are happy with their Mac and haven't used anything else for ages, so how can other computers possibly be as good.
We know also that the glowing Apple logo proudly displayed by too many DJs, speakers at conferences, and certain movies and TV shows, is an effective marketing campaign. Ever-present, hitching a free ride on whatever is taking place on stage. This matters, it's not like a Marshall logo on speaker stacks, it's more prominent, center stage, often the only light source in frame.
I wish more presenters and performers opted out of the glowing marketing campaigns of the equipment they use. The brand of your equipment is not the reason why you're up there presenting.