quote:
No, he's refering to how things with equal computing power cost more when mixed with fruit.
I agree to a certain extent. Now that Apple is using Intel stuff, it's easier to make comparisons. From what I can tell, Apple's hardware isn't generally terribly "overpriced" when it first comes out. Apple tends to offer high end stuff (e.g., the minimum configuration of their Mac Pro tower is a dual Xeon Woodcrest). It was actually cheaper than a comparable Dell Precision workstation. The same was true of my Mac Pro.
Of course, now you look at the same machine, you can get "consumer grade" quad core chips that perform just as well for far less money.
The issue is the price and spec usually stays the same (or close to the same) over the course of the year or two during the product's lifecycle, and they're slow to offer new versions of their products. So depending on where you buy in the product's lifecycle it's somewhere between high end and overpriced. They don't do "bang for the buck".
The upshot to all of this is that Apple has more definitive hardware platforms. Because they hang onto a certain configurations, they are more likely to maintain them and deal with quirks that may arise. You're less likely to end up with an "obscure" model that's hard to find support for.