iMad: Is an Apple worth the cost?
.
March 6, 2010 • Oliver Han
Filed under Editorials, Top Stories
Apple Inc. has done it again. Once more Steve Jobs has millions of people begging for one of his hot gadgets. At first there was the iMac and iPods, then the iPhone and now the iPad, the much-anticipated touch screen apple net-book that is as thin as a pancake and can run iPhone apps for a day on a single charge. As much as I have drooled over one of those iPod Touch myself, I can’t help but wonder – is an Apple worth the cost?
By this time it should be clear that Apple is going to come under fire in this article, so for the sake of fairness, I’ll begin by making some honest and positive statements. First, Apple’s electronics are some of the most, if not THE most, elegant and coolest-looking among their kind. They are intuitive and easy to use, yet packed with features and designed with performance in mind. Very few MP3 players could come close to an iPod in terms of audio/video quality and features. Apple products also tend to have long battery life and great reliability. To top it off, customer support is fantastic and the sales people are pretty hip.
That being said, Apples are expensive. A typical Apple product can cost around two times higher than a similar product from a different manufacturer. Apples are fantastic, but is the ratio of cost to value 1:1? I mean, when you are buying an Apple product, you are paying for the iconic Apple logo stamped on the back of every Apple.
The word “iPod” has so successfully infiltrated the English language and changed peoples’ perceptions of MP3 players, in fact, that on two separate occasions my Sandisk Sansa has been referred to as a “cool iPod,” which is not the same as a “cool MP3 player.” In short, Apple electronics have been so highly acclaimed and adored that the brand name itself is worth a good portion of the price you pay.
Remove the name, the logo and how much will people be willing to pay for a Shuffle or Mac? What if the aesthetic element of an Apple is removed without compromises to its functionality? How much will people be willing to pay now? The point here isn’t that people shouldn’t buy Apple products but that they need to be aware of what they are paying for.
Then there is the issue of planned obsolescence, or the business strategy of making a product obsolete relatively quickly to stimulate the purchase of a newer product. While touch screen technology has been out for a long time, for example, Apple inc. chose to slowly implement such features incrementally in order to stimulate long-term sales and maximize profit.
Other companies use this strategy too, but Apple in particular is taking planned obsolescence to new levels; the fifth generation iPod Nano differs from a fourth generation model by the sporting of a larger display and the addition of a video camera that is unable to take still photos (a feature to be added in the near future!). The most recent version of iPod shuffle, although as small as a large paperclip, lacks the radio and microphone commonly found on rivals such as the Sansa Clip.
Furthermore, a third generation iPod Touch is practically identical to a last generation model aside from the addition of a few features and insufficient hardware upgrades… and it STILL lacks a camera. The iPad? Comments have been made comparing an iPad with an oversized and more expensive iPhone. Regardless of how rich someone is, there is no rationality in paying $200 for just about the same thing year after year.
I think Apple products are cool and my opinion is unlikely to change soon. The question, however, comes down to just HOW cool and superior an Apple actually is. The MacBook Air released a while ago hasn’t quite taken off because it is impractically thin and under-powered. The iMacs in the labs are outnumbered 10 to 1 by PC’s because Macs cost twice as much as a high end PC and doesn’t offer much winning features aside from its built-in camera.
Even the iPod, despite its overwhelming sales figures, is not without close competitions. Many MP3 players such as the Sansa Fuze and Sony Walkman do not lag in features and quality compared to an iPod. A Sansa Fuze, for instance, while lacking the “genius mix” option, high resolution display and the video camera found on a Nano, still has very good audio quality, 24 hours of battery life (the same found on a Nano) and features such as FM radio, voice recorder as well as a memory/ music card slot which the iPods sorely lack.
Best of all, the Fuze costs around $60, half that of a comparable Nano. And if a Fuze can resemble a “cool iPod,” then it doesn’t look so ugly either, does it? Yes, Apples are certainly superior to most of their peers, but unless you are absolutely want the top-brand and don’t mind paying a tiny fortune, you probably don’t need an Apple.
Loading ...
