• 2 Posts
  • 649 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • You are right about the accessories, horribly overpriced.

    They have consistently been averaging at 150-200% the price of comparable hardware at least since the 90s

    I used to fix laptops for a living. I worked at a place where we had used Apple products and stuff from other brands. Sure, you could buy a core i5 Toshiba laptop that had a similar Intel CPU (though Apple tended to use Intel chips with slightly more GPU performance) at a fraction of the price. The screen was garbage, the WiFi stalled, the touchpad was unusable, using the keyboard made the chassis flex, etc. The comparable products from Lenovo, Samsung, HP were similarly priced.

    You can find some laptops with decent Intel or AMD chips for $600 these days. Usually they will be plastic or bricks. Which is fine of you don’t mind that. People want thinner products and that calls for a better design to (1) handle the heat or (2) buy the better binned CPU that operates better at lower frequencies.

    Not only that but people were willing to buy the used Macbooks. Much better than the other brands where the plastic and PCBs were sent for recycling MUCH more often. Better for the environment.


  • That’s not true at all. Macbook Air starts at $900. You can even find a used M1 Air for cheaper. Absolutely was a steal compared to the budget thin laptops from Asus, Acer, etc. which start around $700. Once you go below $700 in laptop market, corners are cut. Perhaps Mediatek WiFi chips are used, laptop isn’t thin, touchpad is awful, screen colors are worse. Apple usually puts iPad + keyboard in that market segment instead.

    Tl; dr: Apple products are more expensive than budget electronics but priced comparatively to items that compete with it. However, electronic prices in the high end tier are getting hirer.








  • mightyfoolish@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldGNU-Linux
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    get upset about it being referred to as gnu+Linux or gnu/Linux

    I would say it’s the opposite. Certain people get angry if you do not refer to it as GNU/Linux. These people used to be technically correct.

    GNU tried to rewrite Unix from scratch under the GNU GPL license. They view their copy left license (a license where if you incorporate any code under their license, you must release the code of your project as well) as morally superior. Their kernel didn’t work out, but Linus Torvolds wrote another kernel for that GNU OS.

    Obviously, GNU wanted credit for the OS components that were not Linux. That’s where the copypasta about “What you are using is in fact GNU+Linux…” came from. GNU is the heart of the free software movement so they have their fans as well that of course would also make that claim.

    Of course, as the meme in the OP suggests, you can now have a Linux distro that either does not use code owned by GNU or uses very little of their code. I would argue Ubuntu, Arch, etc still are technically GNU+Linux as they use GNU’s C compiler, their C implementation, their userspace programs like Bash and grep, etc. However, Alpine uses alternatives to GNU software such as the musl C implementation.