# How does Apple charge these prices?



## DMGrier

Please Apple Users do not jump on me like I am hating on you guys cause using  a Unix based OS myself I am a fan of the OSX. 

So me and my wife went to Best buy the other day and even though I am not in the market for a new laptop I like to go look and see what hardware the manufacturers are putting in there computers these days. I got to the Apple stand and I was looking at the macbook, this macbook is the $999 one and literally has not changed in a year. Last year I was considering getting a Macbook until I found my Dell that smoked the macbook in all areas and got the same battery life. I thought a year later still offering the same Hardware they would have dropped there price. I mean look at my laptop, it was $999 when I bought it  year ago and it is still sold at Best Buy but since it is a year old it is down to $699 cause the hardware in it is cheaper now. How does Apple sell laptops at those prices using such out of date hardware and I mean every time I go in there I see someone buying one. You know that macbook does cost Apple anything to build anymore and they have to have a huge profit margin on those now, how can people trust that company?


----------



## Manakore

I agree.  People who buy mac bewilder me.  I don't understand why anyone would want to spend more cash than they should have to.  A company who makes computers and doesn't allow the consumers to build their own desired version of it is a company I would rather avoid.  Think about it, the reason people cannot make mac computers like pcs is because everyone would realize how much cheaper it is to build it yourself versus paying way more than you should for the manufactured product.  Apple just has this aura over people I suppose.  

Sorry for the rant, /rant finished.


----------



## Motoxrdude

You are paying for more than hardware. When you look at computers you need to consider the bottom line, what can it do, not what is under the hood. Just something to consider.


----------



## Manakore

It can do whatever the stuff under the hood allows it to do.  I have always thought macs to be over priced.  I personally will never buy one.  PCs give me the freedom to build exactly what I want and are much better for gaming.


----------



## speedyink

Because Apple doesn't have much competition within it's userbase..PC manufacturers are in an all out war to sell cheaper PCs.  Apple can charge whatever the hell they want and people will still pay it to get it. 

Do they care I'm running OSX on my $300 netbook?  Nope.


----------



## DMGrier

Motoxrdude said:


> You are paying for more than hardware. When you look at computers you need to consider the bottom line, what can it do, not what is under the hood. Just something to consider.



Your right, your paying for a name that is it. I bought this Dell which at that time has/had greater performance then the Mac and came with a two year warranty included in the price. I installed Ubuntu which gives me the same security features and stable OS and my Linux music recording software allows me to do the same production that a mac could give me and I pay less, so why would I buy a mac? Not to mention if I really wanted to use OSX because Linux fell off the face of this earth then I would just build a hackintosh, but that is just me.

Mac is suppose to be for picture/video/music production, god forbid apple users hear about ubuntu studio, apple would go bankrupt.


----------



## ian

I bought a HP windows laptop a while back and seriously hated it.
Last week I bought a 13" macbook pro and it is excellent, in just a day, I used it more than I did the windows laptop since I had it. I would never consider buying the cheaper macbook though, if that is what this thread is about, I cant understand why anybody would buy that, when for not much more you can get the macbook pro.
Battery life left the windows laptop for dead. It is very fast surfing the net. And the overall quality of the aluminum case is awesome, much better than the cheap plastic rubbish of a lot of (NOT ALL) competitors. The backlit keyboard is very nice to type on, especially at night. It is a number of factors combined which make it a very nice laptop to use.
Being the cheapskate I am, I found the cheapest price online that I could, and went into the apple store and asked them to match it. The dude who took the order, just disappeared on me, and did not finalise the order. I was a bit ticked off, they normally have excellent service, so I asked another person to help me. They gave me another $35 off the discounted price, because I had to wait. I thought that was good of them.


----------



## Motoxrdude

DMGrier said:


> Your right, your paying for a name that is it. I bought this Dell which at that time has/had greater performance then the Mac and came with a two year warranty included in the price. I installed Ubuntu which gives me the same security features and stable OS and my Linux music recording software allows me to do the same production that a mac could give me and I pay less, so why would I buy a mac? Not to mention if I really wanted to use OSX because Linux fell off the face of this earth then I would just build a hackintosh, but that is just me.
> 
> Mac is suppose to be for picture/video/music production, god forbid apple users hear about ubuntu studio, apple would go bankrupt.



Lol that's not what i'm saying at all. I don't really want to get into because your mind is already made up on the matter, but i'm just saying there is more to computers then just what processor, ram, etc it has.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

DMGrier said:


> Your right, your paying for a name that is it. I bought this Dell which at that time has/had greater performance then the Mac and came with a two year warranty included in the price. I installed Ubuntu which gives me the same security features and stable OS and my Linux music recording software allows me to do the same production that a mac could give me and I pay less, so why would I buy a mac? Not to mention if I really wanted to use OSX because Linux fell off the face of this earth then I would just build a hackintosh, but that is just me.
> 
> Mac is suppose to be for picture/video/music production, god forbid apple users hear about ubuntu studio, apple would go bankrupt.


I'm sorry, but comparing the production software bundled with Ubuntu Studio to the software available for OS X is like comparing a tricycle and a Ferrari. 

The vast majority of people couldn't care less about specs. It's about user experience and ease of use. Apple delivers that bundle better than any PC maker, and it's something people are willing to pay for. Myself included.

I wouldn't touch another laptop brand with a barge pole. There is a reason why PC manufacturers are copying Apple, and not the other way around.


----------



## bm23

I agree with the OP. I've always thought of apple computers as being overpriced. Granted, their built quality and customer service are great but im not sure if that is enough to justify the price. I've not had a lot of experience with their computers, only some office work here and there. If their OS is anything like itune/ipod/iphone (ie extremely low level of customisation), that would be a major turn off for me. 
I also agree with the part about paying for experience but isnt the experience determined by the user? I mean, i customise my PC to suit my needs and preference.


----------



## iGeekOFComedy

It's all to do with experiences. With a PC you get experiences for all manufactures but with apple it's all from one company and it works seamless so for e.g: 

If you go with apple you can have an entire seamless apple experience where it all ties in with synergy:

Mac (Computer), iPhone (Your Phone), iPad (Tablet), iPod (Music), AppleTV (Your settop box), Airport Extreme/Time capsule (Router then some). 

Then with the software suite mobile me etc. It's hard to explain but it's the experience OS X gives you that ubuntu can't compete with. Ubuntu may have the same features but the layout doesn't feel right... Oh and Ubuntu studio really? Can it:

Do facial recognition and geo tagging OFB on photos. 
Can it green screen video and do GFX
Can ubuntu studio tie in with a tablet music app?

Also, the computers are just a pleasure to use. (I'm talking about the MacBook Pro here, I think the MacBooks are more for educational because they would be a little more protection proof then aluminium as it doesn't have as much glass.


----------



## CrayonMuncher

Well the jurys out on the actual hardware comparison to another laptop of similar spec, and it has been shown that apple products do have certain benefits over another similarly priced laptop, at launch at least.
Anyway regardless of the above I completely agree that the price should have dropped some after a year as the cost of the hardware is is less, there really isn't an excuse for apple keeping it at that price, unless apple has changed the price but best buy hasn't.


----------



## DMGrier

I will give you the OSX thing, even though depending on what area we are dicussing Linux is just as good if not better, and a persons experience with the quality of the laptop is them doing there research on the model's, fine example under the laptop area of this forum for the last year or two if you would have asked about HP laptops just about everybody on there would tell you to stay clear of them, happens all the time.


----------



## tlarkin

DMGrier said:


> I will give you the OSX thing, even though depending on what area we are dicussing Linux is just as good if not better, and a persons experience with the quality of the laptop is them doing there research on the model's, fine example under the laptop area of this forum for the last year or two if you would have asked about HP laptops just about everybody on there would tell you to stay clear of them, happens all the time.



Linux is not meant for the end user really, at least not until end users get smarter.   So, by design any Unix based OS (including OS X and Linux) run of a standard called POSIX (wikipedia it), and what this does in a very simplified explanation is set a series of permissions for users, groups and everyone on every file on the system.   Since Unix is a true multi-user platform this means if any virus/malware/etc got on your Unix box and it was destructive, like it deleted personal data, it would wipe out your home directory but nothing else could ever go outside your home directory.  Thus, leaving the root file system, all the under-the-hood binaries, and all the configuration files of the OS intact and untouched.   So, worst case scenario a piece of malware screws up your home directory and nothing else the OS lies uninfected.   This is super awesome for any machine in production, ie business, enterprise, server side stuff, etc.  

However, at the end of the day does the end user really care about making sure the Apache service is still running if they get a virus?  I am going to say, 99% of users won't give a crap.   They are more concerned with the pictures of Mary's first day of kindergarten, or the video of little Billy's first recital, and of course their documents and music.  An end user doesn't care that by design OSes that use a standard POSIX are more secure than Windows in every way shape and form.  Of course most people don't even know what I am talking about.  They just want a computer they can use and want it to work.   

So, to say Linux is superior is well, true, because I think it is.  However, is Linux superior in usability to the average end user?  The answer simply is no, it is not.   What OS X does well, is blend the security and rock solidness of a Unix based OS, with a great end user experience. 

Also, any cheap PC you try to compare to a Mac is not the same hardware but cheaper.   Macs use things like IPS screens, which are super expensive to begin with.  Saying that a $700 Dell laptops is comparable to a Macbook is actually a false comparison, because the Macbook has more features and more expensive parts.  Also, look at Apple's design.  Show me an all in one computer that is as good as an iMac.  Show me a micro form factor computer that is as small and as powerful as a Mac Mini.  Show me a professional level desktop that is cheaper than a Mac Pro.  For a Mac Pro having Xeon processors in it, they are in fact pretty decently priced.

Macs also have other pros that PCs don't.  For one they retain resell value.  This makes future purchases cheaper, because you can sell your old one and get a decent chunk of change back.  Considering that a PC is probably the worst investment you can ever make because it decreases in value so fast, Macs actually retain their resell value.    This makes overall cost of ownership cheaper.  Furthermore, since Apple builds and designs their systems from the ground up, their life cycle is generally longer.  Show me a 6 year old PC that can run Windows 7.   The first generation Intel Macs can run 10.6 (Apple's current OS) and they can run it quite well.

In the end you are going to buy what you want, and it is not going to be because it is better, or too expensive or really cheap, you are just going to buy what you want.   If you hate Macs that is fine.  Just say you do not like them, and you prefer PCs.  You cannot argue against an opinion.  Looking at the facts though, Macs really aren't over priced and from a technical level they are more secure.  Though almost all security breaches these days involve end user interaction, and the user is the weakest link when it comes to security.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> Macs use things like IPS screens, which are super expensive to begin with



Thats kinda misleading, the macbooks/pro don't use IPS screens.  

In the end no OS is perfect..Windows is extremely customizable but less secure, Linux is secure but not user friendly, and OSX is secure and user friendly but seriously lacks customization.

But this isn't about software..you can run any os on any computer..it's all just x64 processors and ddr3 ram and nvidia graphics chips etc.  Hackintoshes are everywhere (i'm also guilty of it despite owning 3 macs), so that's not an argument either.

Hardware wise, Apple does add some niceties, like SMS, backlit keyboard, aluminum unibody, long battery life, but most of this can be found in other manufacturers too.  The part that strays me personally away is crap like only putting in a mini-dvi port, making retarded adapter dongle things necessary; excessive heat buildup on some of the macbook pros (my personal experience was from the generation with the 8600GT gpu); generally a lack of usb slots; non user replaceable batteries now; just stupid things that bug the hell outta mean.  All for the means of looking 'modern' and 'minimalist' or whatever bland monotonous look they're going for.

The other part that stray me away is the cost.  Yes, technically it's worth it with the extras you get, but I really don't wanna pay $1000 for a base model laptop.  If i'm paying that much it better damn well have an up to date processor, more ram, better than an ok-ish gpu, at LEAST 500gb hard drive..2 usb ports???  Still????  Damn, and definitely more than 2 usb ports...

Like I said, personal preference..but it ain't mine.


----------



## CrayonMuncher

Either way I think regardless of what you prefer we can surely all agree that after a year the exact same laptop should have dropped in price to reflect the dropping hardware costs.


----------



## joebob1235

I think that its a combination of the name, the UI and just the general amenities. I agree that Apple products are rather over priced but you have to give them credit, their products are very innovative. Their Macbooks just have a nice feel to them, that just intrigues people. The average person would say they prefer PCs only because they grew up with them. In reality, Macs are also very user-friendly and come with great programs like iMovie and Garageband. On the hardware side, its not just the specs, its more of what its made of that's different (I know I'm being obvious) but really, the design is very soothing and attractive. It's what gets consumers, more than what's under the hood. I mean, besides Macbooks, there are very few lighter colored laptops which tend to be more attractive to the user. In a room full of black and gray laptops with the occasional red or blue, white just seems to be the more soothing and relaxing laptop, almost more casual and connecting with people on a more personal level. I don't know where I'm headed but all in all, Apple makes great products that do tend to be overpriced (in my opinion).


----------



## Nanobyte

If the PC was the same price a year later, generally speaking it is costing less due to inflation.  Without a detailed knowledge you would not know if it had changed under the hood.

Basic economics - supply and demand.  If people think it's worth it, they will pay the price.  Not everybody wants the ultimate value for money.

I would be more concerned about the idiots that line up for the latest Apple products just to be first, and increase the selling price to everyone else for the next few months.  Apple would probably pay those guys just to provide the hype.  They would get the money back multiple times.


----------



## Troncoso

I'm on the "it's too expensive side" What's funny, while going through the introduction of my apple training (so I'm certified to sell them) they say "apple offers a solution for anyone, even if you are on a tight budget"......their lowest option being about 1k kind of protests that. I think they are cool and all that jazz but the arguments that support the prices are rather weak. One was the back-lit keyboard??? Cause that was never done before... anyway, I think their biggest feature (for the imacs anyway) are the screens. They have such brilliant displays. When it comes to the laptops, you are paying for the OS, and that's really about it. Yeah it's sleek, yeah it works flawlessly with all other apple products (if you really want to pay that much just for simple compatibility, then go for it)  they don't have more features than other brand laptops, they have different ones. The parts that are more expensive are the casing and display. They don't make their own components. They didn't create the i processors.

Anyway, what's good is good. people like them, so they buy them. From a software standpoint (besides the OS) there really is no debate. you can get any comparable software for windows that you can for OSX. Here's a funny picture:

http://scoopertino.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/apple_water_page.jpg


----------



## DMGrier

Okay lets make a few things straight. 1, by end user I am assuming you mean a everyday pc user who nows little about the OS and the computer it runs on. To say that Linux is not user friendly in this area shows you have not seen a "end User" use it. While I was on deployment I had installed Ubuntu 10.04 of three different "end users" computers and with in a few weeks of using there new OS (all where windows user) where moving through it with no problem. My wife just switched to Ubuntu and she does things with photos, download and listen to music and sync's to her android device and does her school work and I literally showed her very little due to its user friendliness was able to figure things out. Debain packaged OSes are very user friendly.

2, are we discussing apple plain boring white? I can walk into a best buy and find laptops in red, blue, green, grey, black, silver, two tone in any of those and polished Aluminum. Not to mention you bring up apple screen? Well I could get a PC with true 1080p HD screen and bluray (Apple does not offer on any model) and have a much higher resolution quality.

I will say it again, OSX very nice. The computers them self not so much, Apple honestly believes it users base is retarded and I think they are as well to continue to purchase from a company that charges those prices on out of date hardware.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

DMGrier said:


> 2, are we discussing apple plain boring white? I can walk into a best buy and find laptops in red, blue, green, grey, black, silver, two tone in any of those and polished Aluminum. Not to mention you bring up apple screen? Well I could get a PC with true 1080p HD screen and bluray (Apple does not offer on any model) and have a much higher resolution quality.


Higher resolution =/= higher quality screen.

Most laptop manufacturers put the cheapest screen they can in their mainstream models. Asus and Acer are the bigger culprits of this. Just because they have a high resolution doesn't mean the screen is better. Accurate color reproduction, good contrast, white balance, response time, and viewing angle are more important factors, in my opinion.


----------



## DMGrier

This thread was not started to complain about Apples high prices on there laptop's, it was started on how they rip off there consumers due to a aging hardware that we all know that Apple's cost to build that laptop is no where near as high as it was a year or more ago when they released that version of Macbook and how Apple does not adjust there prices accordingly or put better hardware in there to keep that price understandable.

When you do your PC shopping you just have to be smart, there could be a HP that has the same features as a Macbook but if it is $699 then you should know it is running some crappy hardware. I was looking at a Macbook last year so what did I do, I looked at a PC that was in the same exact bracket and non gaming type cause that just means corners where cut to pay for that gpu when you are only shopping for a 1k laptop. I will go as far as to argue that my laptop is just as good quality as a Macbook, more powerful hardware, HD screen, slot load disc drive, extremely thin/lite weight and back light keyboard and a plastic shell, free 2 year warranty through Dell. Which I prefer a plastic shell cause that Metal shell will not protect it from falling and further more if you know anything about heating and cooling plastic cools much faster then metal, but what would I know on that subject only being a gas turbine system mechanic.

With PC you literally get what you pay for, a computer for $499 will last and run like... well......... $499.


----------



## ian

speedyink said:


> Thats kinda misleading, the macbooks/pro don't use IPS screens.


he was probably referring to the imac's. He didn't exactly say macbook pro.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> Thats kinda misleading, the macbooks/pro don't use IPS screens.



Only iMacs and iPads use IPS screens, but I was using it to make a point.  Also, very very few laptops use as high quality screen as Apple does on their laptops.  They use a screen with full sRGB spectrum coverage, and a high wide view TN screen.   Any PC laptop that has the same quality screen (and it is only a few) start at higher prices than the Macbook Pro 13".   This is why the native resolution on a 15" is 1440 x 900.   Not many laptops actually support those resolutions native.  So, regardless of not all of them having IPS screens, they still use higher quality more expensive screens than almost all PC laptops do.



> In the end no OS is perfect..Windows is extremely customizable but less secure, Linux is secure but not user friendly, and OSX is secure and user friendly but seriously lacks customization.



What exactly do you want to customize in OS X?   You always say you hate certain things, like pixel size or whatever it was, and I just see that as being something you dislike.  I can really hardly seeing the average user wanting to have more customizations.




> But this isn't about software..you can run any os on any computer..it's all just x64 processors and ddr3 ram and nvidia graphics chips etc.  Hackintoshes are everywhere (i'm also guilty of it despite owning 3 macs), so that's not an argument either.



It is about quality of use.   My Macs run faster, faster than my higher spec'd PC.  This is because my higher spec custom built PC runs Windows.  It has longer boot times, longer load times, and when I quit a rather heavy game like Starcraft II, my PC takes forever to free up that RAM it was using.   When I quit on my Mac the memory is released almost instantly it seems in comparison.  My Macbook Pro is just a core 2 duo with 4 gigs of RAM and an ATI x1900 (I think I could be wrong) and my PC is easily double the specs.   Then again the Mac version of SCII is written in Open GL, where the PC version is written in DirectX, which probably makes a huge difference.



> Hardware wise, Apple does add some niceties, like SMS, backlit keyboard, aluminum unibody, long battery life, but most of this can be found in other manufacturers too.  The part that strays me personally away is crap like only putting in a mini-dvi port, making retarded adapter dongle things necessary; excessive heat buildup on some of the macbook pros (my personal experience was from the generation with the 8600GT gpu); generally a lack of usb slots; non user replaceable batteries now; just stupid things that bug the hell outta mean.  All for the means of looking 'modern' and 'minimalist' or whatever bland monotonous look they're going for.



I have had this discussion so many times I think I am just going to stop having it.   You are correct, Apple does add in the bells and whistles.  However, you try to match the Mac with a PC with equivalent features and benefits, the PC will cost the same, or sometimes more.  The only downside is there is no option to take those features out for a cheaper Mac.



> The other part that stray me away is the cost.  Yes, technically it's worth it with the extras you get, but I really don't wanna pay $1000 for a base model laptop.  If i'm paying that much it better damn well have an up to date processor, more ram, better than an ok-ish gpu, at LEAST 500gb hard drive..2 usb ports???  Still????  Damn, and definitely more than 2 usb ports...
> 
> Like I said, personal preference..but it ain't mine.



Well, find me a PC laptop, that has a 13" screen that supports 1280 x 800 native and is under $1,000.   There is somewhat of a trade off here.  If you want more USB ports, and more RAM and a better GPU you may find that in a laptop that has a crappier screen.   The overall cost of ownership on a Mac is cheaper than a PC though.  Macs have a resell value, and PCs do not.  Every time I buy a new mac, I sell my old one for several hundred dollars, sometimes more, and apply it towards my new Mac.  A couple years ago I sold my 5 year old dual G4 MDD desktop, for $700.   I don't think you can ever sell a 5 year old PC for $700.   I know you get it, and I am not picking on you, but after all of our debates you are one of the more level headed people here 



> This thread was not started to complain about Apples high prices on there laptop's, it was started on how they rip off there consumers due to a aging hardware that we all know that Apple's cost to build that laptop is no where near as high as it was a year or more ago when they released that version of Macbook and how Apple does not adjust there prices accordingly or put better hardware in there to keep that price understandable.
> 
> When you do your PC shopping you just have to be smart, there could be a HP that has the same features as a Macbook but if it is $699 then you should know it is running some crappy hardware. I was looking at a Macbook last year so what did I do, I looked at a PC that was in the same exact bracket and non gaming type cause that just means corners where cut to pay for that gpu when you are only shopping for a 1k laptop. I will go as far as to argue that my laptop is just as good quality as a Macbook, more powerful hardware, HD screen, slot load disc drive, extremely thin/lite weight and back light keyboard and a plastic shell, free 2 year warranty through Dell. Which I prefer a plastic shell cause that Metal shell will not protect it from falling and further more if you know anything about heating and cooling plastic cools much faster then metal, but what would I know on that subject only being a gas turbine system mechanic.
> 
> With PC you literally get what you pay for, a computer for $499 will last and run like... well......... $499.



You cannot really get a PC that is spec for spec just like a Mac and cheaper.  The problem is, people look at three things.  CPU, RAM, and GPU.   There are many more components that go into a computer.

It sounds to me like you already made up your mind and didn't really fully research it.   Battery life, ABGN wireless, Blue Tooth, SMS, back lit keyboard, high quality high resolution screen, multi touch track pad, built in web cam, unibody (this makes it chip way less), and of course weight.   These are all features in a laptop that are important to many users.  

I have owned, serviced, repaired, and supported the following laptops over the last decade:  Sony, Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq, Acer, Asus, Lenovo, IBM, Apple, Toshiba, and so forth.   Out of every laptop I have owned, and I have owned many over the years, and my work buys me new ones from time to time, and I also have had to support them as my job, the Apple laptops are of the highest quality.   Just using all of those over the years the Apples always felt higher quality.  

Don't get me wrong, I really liked my HP business class laptop and I really liked my Asus laptop, and if I wanted a laptop to just run Linux on and do some work or control maybe other PCs/Macs in my house, I would probably buy a cheaper PC from HP (business class only) or Asus.   There is nothing wrong with buying PC laptops.   However, if you really want to compare a Mac to a PC you need to do so with actually comparing each feature to feature and each spec to spec.  Otherwise it is not really a comparison.

The thing is, my Macbook Pro has 4gigs of RAM in it.  I run virtual machines of Linux and Windows in it, so I don't need to buy a separate laptop.  Though I am considering some sort of netbook for basically a very thin and light e-Reader with web browsing abilities and remote connections (ssh, sftp, etc).


----------



## PohTayToez

tlarkin said:


> Well, find me a PC laptop, that has a 13" screen that supports 1280 x 800 native and is under $1,000.



Here are about 30 of them.


----------



## tlarkin

PohTayToez said:


> Here are about 30 of them.



OK, but how many of those meet the other specs?  I should have been more clear I suppose.

The ones that are similar spec are similar in price though. That was the point I was trying to make.


----------



## AE7

To hardware-centric people, who know nothing about software, a Mac is going to be hated. Remember folks, you're not buying just hardware, you've got OS X, iLife, and other nice things that Apple builds into a fully compliant POSIX OS.

I had a Mac, buying another soon, but my reasoning was being able to run Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, InDesign, etc., while having a decent terminal. Yes, I use GIMP for some things, but sometimes GIMP takes twenty minutes to do something that would take five minutes in Photoshop. Try putting something together that's RESTful- you'll need cURL in your terminal, which is possible with CygWin or MinGW, but that's an annoyance.


----------



## Dystopia

Honestly, I think Macs are "luxury" computers. Fancy case, things like back-lit keyboards, ect. What makes a BMW so much better than a Ford? The way it is built, the quality, comfort, ect. Extra features, things like that.

It's similar with my laptop. It's a very nice laptop. I love the back-lit keyboard. The keyboard was really nice before I spilled juice on it, now the less used keys are a stick a bit before coming up, but thats my fault. It operates very smoothly. Cost me $500. My dad pay something around $400 new for his, but the keyboard sucks, isn't back lit, trackpad is absolute crap, and the computer just doesn't run as nice.

IMO that's why Mac gets to charge so much more for 'similarly' speced machines. It's got all these nice features.

From now on, everytime some basically makes a mac debate thread, they should be re-directed to the tons of discussions we've had before, so the same thing isn't said over and over again...


----------



## tlarkin

AE7 said:


> To hardware-centric people, who know nothing about software, a Mac is going to be hated. Remember folks, you're not buying just hardware, you've got OS X, iLife, and other nice things that Apple builds into a fully compliant POSIX OS.
> 
> I had a Mac, buying another soon, but my reasoning was being able to run Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, InDesign, etc., while having a decent terminal. Yes, I use GIMP for some things, but sometimes GIMP takes twenty minutes to do something that would take five minutes in Photoshop. Try putting something together that's RESTful- you'll need cURL in your terminal, which is possible with CygWin or MinGW, but that's an annoyance.



I've brought up the POSIX thing before, it usually gets ignored.   Unix POSIX by nature is more secure than anything else done.  It is also the most tried and tested technology out there.  Since it was out before Microsoft even made an OS.  Well, maybe DOS since POSIX came out in the 80s.   

Actually, Microsoft, with Vista released something called the power shell.  Which is a Unix-like shell with some Unix-like commands.  It is lacking but at least it is a start.

Also, Windows 7 is the closest thing MS has done for an actual true multi-user platform.  Windows is getting better, all they need now is a more robust shell and less bloat and become POSIX compliant.


----------



## PohTayToez

I know, I know, I just wanted to point out the absurdity of that particular statement.

My main issue with your pro-Mac argument is that your points, while factually sound, are sometimes all over the place and opposing.  You argue that Mac is a good choice for the average end user because of it's simplicity and reliability, however how many end users do you think care about 802.11a compatibility, bluetooth, or IPS screens.  More so, how many end users (if properly informed) do you think would choose to forgo these features for a cheaper or more powerful computer?  

My issue with Apple has never been about quality, but price.  The only reason that certain features Apple has would be so expensive on a PC is because Apple is the only company out there mass producing components with these features.  Yes, it might be true that Apple offers these as a whole package for less than anyone else, however you could apply to the same argument to some PC with five CD drives and one of those stupid fingerprint scanners and say that there is no way you could find a similarly priced Mac with all of the same features.  Or hell, let's just say I want a laptop with a 17" screen for less than $2,500.

Basically, my argument is that if you're going to spend $1000 on a computer, you could spend it on a PC where you can choose what the money goes towards and have a computer that is best suited to your particular needs, or you can go with what Steve Jobs thinks you should have which is a solid mid-range computer with lots of bells and whistles.


----------



## tlarkin

PohTayToez said:


> I know, I know, I just wanted to point out the absurdity of that particular statement.



I should have worded it better.



> My main issue with your pro-Mac argument is that your points, while factually sound, are sometimes all over the place and opposing.  You argue that Mac is a good choice for the average end user because of it's simplicity and reliability, however how many end users do you think care about 802.11a compatibility, bluetooth, or IPS screens.  More so, how many end users (if properly informed) do you think would choose to forgo these features for a cheaper or more powerful computer?



Well, that is also part of it.  For example my work has like 60 to 70 buildings.  Each with 100s of access points.   We run 802.11A for three reasons:  1)  5Ghz band 2) Not everywhere is pre N compatible yet and 3) 802.11A has less support, so users cannot hop on their smart phones, psps or gameboys and take up wifi bandwidth.  So many users bring in personal laptops, or devices that support wireless and want to use them at work, but they cannot.  Since you don't think about it, Apple puts it there for you, because you never know when you may need it.   802.11A radio networks are still used in very large wireless networks for several reasons.  1 of them is security.  When you run A radios, you take out a ton of rogue devices that cannot connect simply because they do not support A radios.  We will go N soon, but that is millions of dollars to upgrade all those buildings with new access points.  You are right the end user doesn't think of those things.  I have had to have departments return all sorts of wireless stuff they buy because it is not A radio compatible.   If we went to G, we would lose the 5Ghz band, and allow smart phones and every other devices a way to connect.   Yes our wireless is encrypted with a WPA passkey, but too many people know the passkey and it does get leaked.  There is nothing I can do about that because that is all politics.  When someone 4 pay scales above you asks for the WPA key, you give it to them, because you have to.



> My issue with Apple has never been about quality, but price.  The only reason that certain features Apple has would be so expensive on a PC is because Apple is the only company out there mass producing components with these features.  Yes, it might be true that Apple offers these as a whole package for less than anyone else, however you could apply to the same argument to some PC with five CD drives and one of those stupid fingerprint scanners and say that there is no way you could find a similarly priced Mac with all of the same features.  Or hell, let's just say I want a laptop with a 17" screen for less than $2,500.



I get your point.  Your point is about choice, and you want to choose exactly how much dollars go into each component because you wouldn't mind cutting corners here and there to mitigate the price yet at the same time, put your money into the components you want to be higher end.  Well, then Apple will never be for you.  If you look at Apple's business model it is quite simple.  They usually have 3 versions of every product.   Each of them at a set price rate.  Every 6 months they get refreshed with newer hardware, but the same price and the same 3 model tier pricing system.  Not only are their machines simple to use, they give the consumer simple choices.  The choice for every computer is, entry model, middle of the road model, high end model.    I think this concept has actually helped their sales, as it makes it less tedious for a person with little knowledge to decide what is best for them.

Of course things like this don't apply to you and me, as we are probably considered advanced or power users, and are a whole different demographic to the average user.




> Basically, my argument is that if you're going to spend $1000 on a computer, you could spend it on a PC where you can choose what the money goes towards and have a computer that is best suited to your particular needs, or you can go with what Steve Jobs thinks you should have which is a solid mid-range computer with lots of bells and whistles.



You know I used to be an Apple hater.  In the 90s I only built and used PCs and I only ran Windows and occasionally dabbled in Linux.   That was until I actually had to use my computers for work.  When I started making my living through computers I started to use Macs.  Over the years I became less of a hater, and by about maybe 2003 or 2004 I was almost fully switched to using Macs for work, and once they made the switch to Intel, it was a sealed deal.  When I do my job, I want it to be done right the first time.  I am 10 times more productive on my Mac than I have ever been on my PC.   Once I learned the Mac layout, keyboard shortcuts, and had a feel for the OS I just went with it.  I manage windows servers from my Mac, and it is awesome.   

When I was younger and only really a hobbyist/gamer I wanted zero to do with Macs.  The switch to NeXT based OS, intel, and how smooth the OS operates for multitasking I slowly switched over the years.

When I write my opinions or show out factual data how a Mac is not over priced, at least I am doing so with over a decade of usage and experience.  Where as others just like to make false or blanketed statements.   Take it for what you will, as some of it is my opinion.   Some of it also though at the same time is factual information.


----------



## AE7

PohTayToez said:


> My issue with Apple has never been about quality, but price.  The only reason that certain features Apple has would be so expensive on a PC is because Apple is the only company out there mass producing components with these features.  Yes, it might be true that Apple offers these as a whole package for less than anyone else, however you could apply to the same argument to some PC with five CD drives and one of those stupid fingerprint scanners and say that there is no way you could find a similarly priced Mac with all of the same features.  Or hell, let's just say I want a laptop with a 17" screen for less than $2,500.
> 
> Basically, my argument is that if you're going to spend $1000 on a computer, you could spend it on a PC where you can choose what the money goes towards and have a computer that is best suited to your particular needs, or you can go with what Steve Jobs thinks you should have which is a solid mid-range computer with lots of bells and whistles.



Which brings us to the argument, "Are you paying for an experience or just a product?"


----------



## DMGrier

The main thing that keeps coming up is end users. I can find a pc that will match and out perform the macbook, I think the only thing I think I could not find is the magnet plug in and multi touch pad but other then that I could match it everywhere else and if windows runs to slow or you prefer something stable then there is linux witch any of the ones based on debain is retarted easy to use and a end user will find any software they need in opensource. End users wont be using things like photo shop.

I think what we forget is I am basically calling apple a crook for the price they charge on the macbook, not the macbook pro or imacs. I would though go as far to call there mac desktop towers over priced as well.


----------



## tlarkin

DMGrier said:


> The main thing that keeps coming up is end users. I can find a pc that will match and out perform the macbook, I think the only thing I think I could not find is the magnet plug in and multi touch pad but other then that I could match it everywhere else and if windows runs to slow or you prefer something stable then there is linux witch any of the ones based on debain is retarted easy to use and a end user will find any software they need in opensource. End users wont be using things like photo shop.
> 
> I think what we forget is I am basically calling apple a crook for the price they charge on the macbook, not the macbook pro or imacs. I would though go as far to call there mac desktop towers over priced as well.



Well then prove it.  Find me a PC that out performs a Mac in every regard.   Also, good luck finding a dual Xeon work station cheaper than the Mac Pro, that thing is actually very competitively priced.

End user using Linux?   That would mean an end user would have to install Linux since Linux really doesn't come preinstalled, and I don't see that happening.

I have already pointed out that what you get when you buy a Mac is pretty fair market.  Plus the fact that I can buy a Mac and then sell it for 80% of what I originally paid for it 2 years previous means that the over all cost of ownership is cheaper with a Mac.  I am getting more out of my investment.


----------



## CrayonMuncher

[YT]gPYromrN7OI[/YT]

Specifically the bit about why apple is so special.

Btw may have seen this vid on here, so sorry if some else posted it before.

Edit: Just dealing with another thread and speaking of ridiculous prices dell charge an extra $420.00 to go from 6GB to 16GB, so basically $420.00 for 10GB of ram, you could buy at least 32GB of faster, higher quality ram for that. This is just the first ram I came across and it proves the point.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145345


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> Only iMacs and iPads use IPS screens, but I was using it to make a point.  Also, very very few laptops use as high quality screen as Apple does on their laptops.  They use a screen with full sRGB spectrum coverage, and a high wide view TN screen.   Any PC laptop that has the same quality screen (and it is only a few) start at higher prices than the Macbook Pro 13".   This is why the native resolution on a 15" is 1440 x 900.   Not many laptops actually support those resolutions native.  So, regardless of not all of them having IPS screens, they still use higher quality more expensive screens than almost all PC laptops do.



You forgot the iphone 4, but i'll forgive you 

I'll use my Acer Aspire 6920-6141 as an example.  16", 1920x1080, Wide Color Gamut, huge viewing angle (around 170 degrees).  To me, it looks great.  I get my specs and usb ports and pretty much everything I want in a laptop, and a pretty decent screen, all for i'm pretty around $1000 when it came out a couple years ago.  



tlarkin said:


> What exactly do you want to customize in OS X?   You always say you hate certain things, like pixel size or whatever it was, and I just see that as being something you dislike.  I can really hardly seeing the average user wanting to have more customizations.



The DPI thing was so I could keep my tv at it's full resolution and still be able to read things while i'm on my couch.  Oh, and for my touchscreen netbook which may or may not have osx on it >_>.  Really though I'd love making it not look like it has for almost 10 years.  A different looking menu bar, custom dock background, different window looks..that sorta stuff.  Otherwise, more power options for laptops would be nice, like disabling the sleep on lid close feature, and adjusting cpu throttling, I dunno, pretty much more than just brightness and screen timeout.  The whole settings application in general seems pretty barren in the way of options,  I realize terminal has the ability to change more settings, but I really don't have the spare time to learn command line.  I don't even like using DOS even though I've learned it before.
I'm a control whore I suppose...Never ever been one to leave settings as default, I always like making it 'mine'




tlarkin said:


> It is about quality of use.   My Macs run faster, faster than my higher spec'd PC.  This is because my higher spec custom built PC runs Windows.  It has longer boot times, longer load times, and when I quit a rather heavy game like Starcraft II, my PC takes forever to free up that RAM it was using.   When I quit on my Mac the memory is released almost instantly it seems in comparison.  My Macbook Pro is just a core 2 duo with 4 gigs of RAM and an ATI x1900 (I think I could be wrong) and my PC is easily double the specs.   Then again the Mac version of SCII is written in Open GL, where the PC version is written in DirectX, which probably makes a huge difference.



No argument there except for you can install Linux on PCs for that experience.  I know, both performance and ease of use in osx but honestly the users who need the easy to learn interface anyway aren't gonna notice the couple seconds or milliseconds in some instances of difference.  Even for me, my windows machines seem speedy.  Things happen when I click them, I'm never waiting, and that's all I ask.  I'm not sure what you mean by the games thing, if your referring to the slowness after exiting a game, or at which point you see your ram usage go down, since It's been years since I've encountered the former.  In the end though the difference is pretty negligible.



tlarkin said:


> I have had this discussion so many times I think I am just going to stop having it.   You are correct, Apple does add in the bells and whistles.  However, you try to match the Mac with a PC with equivalent features and benefits, the PC will cost the same, or sometimes more.  The only downside is there is no option to take those features out for a cheaper Mac.


That's exactly my point.  They make their computer and say your gonna have it like this.  Nuh uh, at this point the biggest setback is the mindset.  Not only that, but then they do stupid crap like blatantly leaving out display outputs on the actual machine so you need a dongle, which leaves more room for problems (in my experience anyway...i love having to have the dongle in the exact right position to not get static or blue vision).  Not to mention blatant lack of USB ports, or hard drive space for that matter.  Things like this just boggle my mind.



tlarkin said:


> Well, find me a PC laptop, that has a 13" screen that supports 1280 x 800 native and is under $1,000.   There is somewhat of a trade off here.  If you want more USB ports, and more RAM and a better GPU you may find that in a laptop that has a crappier screen.   The overall cost of ownership on a Mac is cheaper than a PC though.  Macs have a resell value, and PCs do not.  Every time I buy a new mac, I sell my old one for several hundred dollars, sometimes more, and apply it towards my new Mac.  A couple years ago I sold my 5 year old dual G4 MDD desktop, for $700.   I don't think you can ever sell a 5 year old PC for $700.   I know you get it, and I am not picking on you, but after all of our debates you are one of the more level headed people here



Even some 11" netbooks have 1366x768 displays in them.  1280x800 is nothing impressive anymore, especially for a 13".  I remember seeing a 7" sony netbook with a 1600x 900 wide(r)screen.
Macs do resell for more, but when you can buy a new PC for $300 you can see why.  It's a matter of demand.  I did however sell my old desktop (no monitor) for $350, when I had spent $900 on it 3 and a half years previous.  Still almost half it's value, and a nice amount to go to my now computer (also $900)


----------



## DMGrier

tlarkin said:


> Well then prove it.  Find me a PC that out performs a Mac in every regard.   Also, good luck finding a dual Xeon work station cheaper than the Mac Pro, that thing is actually very competitively priced.
> 
> End user using Linux?   That would mean an end user would have to install Linux since Linux really doesn't come preinstalled, and I don't see that happening.
> 
> I have already pointed out that what you get when you buy a Mac is pretty fair market.  Plus the fact that I can buy a Mac and then sell it for 80% of what I originally paid for it 2 years previous means that the over all cost of ownership is cheaper with a Mac.  I am getting more out of my investment.



Well for starter mine that is listed, I think that the mac has a slightly higher resolution screen but I could not tell when I did the comparison at Best Buy a year ago when I bought mine, I was on this deployment running Ubuntu 10.04 and when I sat next to my mac buddies I didnt see there computer being able to open, run or close programs any faster then me. Oh and I got news for you, my wife without my help installed Ubuntu 10.04 on her laptop and set it up and my wife falls into the end user area. I am guessing you you do not have much experience with Debain packaged flavors cause then you would know how easy they install.

I am not arguing that certain macs are worth there value such as the Macbook Pro or even the Imacs and my apologies on the Mac Pro. I will stick by my guns though and the Macbook is well over priced. I would say my only issue with the Macbook Pro is I have to pay around $1800 for one with a decent gpu but thank god I don't believe in laptop gaming.

Can someone explain to me why Apple went from Nvidia to Radeon for a gpu?

innercx that was a amazing video


----------



## lucasbytegenius

tlarkin said:


> Show me a 6 year old PC that can run Windows 7.


I could  

I have a PowerMac G4 made in 1999 with dual 1.3 GHz G4s and 1.5 GB RAM, the monster is running 10.5, and rather well too 
Just need to upgrade the Rage 128 Pro GPU :angry:

Linux and EUE? Well, that's mixed I believe. I have a 64 year old grandma (well, like a grandma to me  ) using Ubuntu 10.10 on her laptop that was previously running Vista.
You know what? She loves it. Total noob with all respect, but she learned the ropes fairly quickly and doesn't want me to take it off.
And as an end user myself, I had no problem at all, just fyi 

Also as an end user, if I went shopping for a MacBook I would gladly dole out the $1k for it, because that PowerMac ran circles around my PC in my sig that is easily 3 times what that Mac is. I found myself using my Mac more than my PC.


----------



## DMGrier

lucasbytegenius said:


> I could
> 
> I have a PowerMac G4 made in 1999 with dual 1.3 GHz G4s and 1.5 GB RAM, the monster is running 10.5, and rather well too
> Just need to upgrade the Rage 128 Pro GPU :angry:
> 
> Linux and EUE? Well, that's mixed I believe. I have a 64 year old grandma (well, like a grandma to me  ) using Ubuntu 10.10 on her laptop that was previously running Vista.
> You know what? She loves it. Total noob with all respect, but she learned the ropes fairly quickly and doesn't want me to take it off.
> And as an end user myself, I had no problem at all, just fyi
> 
> Also as an end user, if I went shopping for a MacBook I would gladly dole out the $1k for it, because that PowerMac ran circles around my PC in my sig that is easily 3 times what that Mac is. I found myself using my Mac more than my PC.



That is cool your grandma uses it. The debain packaged are so easy to use, my wife has said she would never go back to windows. The main reason why my wife went to ubuntu was a few weeks ago she made the comment that her windows machine was running slower then normal and was crashing a lot. We did anti virus scan's and even used malwarebytes but could not find a thing, I even looked through her software and she didn't have anything installed that wasn't MS. So I recommended ubuntu to her and told her to do the install on her self cause that is the best way to learn. She has loved it ever since.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

DMGrier said:


> That is cool your grandma uses it. The *debain* packaged are so easy to use, my wife has said she would never go back to windows. The main reason why my wife went to ubuntu was a few weeks ago she made the comment that her windows machine was running slower then normal and was crashing a lot. We did anti virus scan's and even used malwarebytes but could not find a thing, I even looked through her software and she didn't have anything installed that wasn't MS. So I recommended ubuntu to her and told her to do the install on her self cause that is the best way to learn. She has loved it ever since.



Debian 

Yeah they are easy to use, but I have found that OpenSUSE is pretty slick too. I keep switching between Ubuntu and OpenSUSE.


----------



## DMGrier

I liked Ubuntu 10.04, but I was noticing there to be a lot of glitches as they keep coming out with new releases. I remember using Ubuntu Hardy on my main machine which is my older Dell that is still moving along and I also had it on my Dell Mini 9 that came installed from dell and it was flawless. I recently switched to Mint cause I have it installed on three different laptops and it has that flawless operation that in my opinion Ubuntu used to have.


----------



## tlarkin

> I am guessing you you do not have much experience with Debain packaged flavors cause then you would know how easy they install.



At work I manage 40 OS X Servers, which is a Unix based OS derived form NeXT, and I have 3 Debain servers used for file storage, which I have set up samba and users/groups for.  One also runs apache for internal use only.

I know how easy it is, but I use the command line package managers anyway.  I don't use the GUI when setting up or configuring OSes.   It is so much faster to use vim, pico, nano, or emacs from the command line to edit your config files.

Really the bottom line is this.  When buying a Mac, you gotta look at every feature and spec it gives to honestly compare it to a PC.   Only then can you make unbiased remarks on it being over priced or not.  Otherwise, you are not actually comparing the two products, you are instead setting up the Mac to fail on a bias.   Just because you don't want ABGN wireless built into your PC doesn't mean you cannot account for the cost difference in the Mac since the Mac has it.

Now, if you aren't going to use every feature on a Mac, or don't like them then don't buy one.   However, that doesn't make them crappy machines or over priced.  People instantly see a Mac Pro and call it way over priced, not realizing that the thing boasts dual Xeon processors, a super expensive high end motherboard with dual memory pipes from each processor, and they do this out of ignorance of the product.   Dual Xeon processors by them self are probably going to be $1200-1400.


----------



## DMGrier

I never called Apple bad computers ever, and last year when I was looking into getting a new laptop I came very close to purchasing one. But my laptop met the macbook in every way and excelled way past it in most for the same price. I did my research and I even talk to some of the guys on macforums.com when I was considering it and every single person on there told me when I asked them that I have been told macs are a better quality and they said a pc in the same price range is of just as good quality and will last just as long as a mac. To much of my surprise many of the users on that forum still uses and owns a windows based systems and that is coming from Apple users. I dont not know why you keep bringing up the mac pro cause we have already decided that it is worth its value, in fact the only item from apple I am calling over priced is the macbook and that is it, it is a known fact that apple is getting that same hardware for a lower price then they did a year ago and all I am saying is for apple to lower its price accordingly. I truley believe that apple keeps it at 1k for the fact they don't want to be generalized with the lower end pc market.


----------



## Alpha_00

Dunno, I guess apple can regulate prices as long as sales are still up.


----------



## moogle301

DMGrier said:


> Your right, your paying for a name that is it. I bought this Dell which at that time has/had greater performance then the Mac and came with a two year warranty included in the price. I installed Ubuntu which gives me the same security features and stable OS and my Linux music recording software allows me to do the same production that a mac could give me and I pay less, so why would I buy a mac? Not to mention if I really wanted to use OSX because Linux fell off the face of this earth then I would just build a hackintosh, but that is just me.
> 
> Mac is suppose to be for picture/video/music production, god forbid apple users hear about ubuntu studio, apple would go bankrupt.



It isn't just the name though, Apple have AMAZING trackpads. I'm not saying that a trackpad alone is worth the extra that Apple charge, but it does make me really sad that (from what I can tell testing in shops) despite non-Apple trackpads/touchpads looking a lot better in recent years and attempting gestures, they're still pretty rubbish.  Because I got my macbook fairly cheap and if it breaks I probably wouldn't want to pay to replace it, and I'd really miss the trackpad. (This includes desktop macs now they have a plug in trackpad).
HOWEVER
I heard that people have made it possible to use plugin trackpads on Linux so maybe this is a solution. 

(Just to be clear, I have a mouse plugged in 99% the time and I use a ton of keyboard shortcuts, I just love the trackpad + gestures as well and am slightly slower on Windows because of this).

There are a few other things I prefer about Macs but I like stuff about Windows too and find both very easy to use (I don't prefer Macs because I find Windows 'hard' as some people assume all mac users do). 

I wouldn't be without Windows though just because Macs are so far behind gaming-wise and just the thought of being without Windows scares me a little  thus I have a very old windows computer also. 

I really don't understand people who pay a ton for Macs but then don't use the trackpad gestures/mac only apps etc and just use Word/a browser. Then you really ARE paying more for the same thing.

I think I'm fairly balanced and don't understand fanboys of either side!

edit: I don't have an iphone/ipad etc but I can see how people would pay more if they did because they do seem to sync together rather well. Then there's people who have enough spare cash that they may as well get Apple if they prefer the brand. There may be better solutions but I guess some people prefer to spend extra money and not do research to find out.


----------



## moogle301

Just seen this ^.^ http://www.gizmag.com/logitech-wireless-touchpad/19822/
Hopefully it (and the gestures) work as well as on Apple, or will at some point. It would greatly close the gap for me in terms of preferring to work on an Apple computer.  The only prob is that a laptop wouldn't have this built in (I'm guessing with Windows 8 being more gesture based the trackpads might finally be improving?) so laptop-wise I don't know where it leaves me. I don't have a desktop mac anyways, just a macbook but this is still a good move into decent trackpads for allllll! 

(The trackpad is the reason I disagree when people say that paying for Apple is paying for a name/style over hardware, because even though people generally mean the hardware specs (and so are correct in their general point) the trackpad *is* hardware and it is amazing. Not necessarily worth the entire cost difference but certainly lots of it for me (back when buying with a student deal at least).


----------



## moogle301

... Just noticed I'm posting in a very old thread and nobody else is still commenting. Embarrassing...


----------



## nellschmertz

I have an experience to share with you guys. Once I was in a remote place, my signal in my phone got jammed, i thought the problem would be with my service provider. After coming back home i gave black and blues to my customer care highlighting my issue. They pleaded me saying that the problem is not with them. Then i browsed through the search engine regarding my issue, i got a remedy for my cell phone, there i came to know the problem called signal jamming that is experienced in most cell phones. They have a product called cell phone jammer could be very useful to get rid of these problems. Check out the details here 868w jammer and hope this information would be beneficial. Hope that u would pass this information to all your friends, so that they too would benefited, Stay safe, Cheers


----------

