> I think the moral of the story is that you shouldn't be paying $50k for a machine that can do essentially the same stuff as a machine that costs 10x less. You didn't get screwed on the trade-in, you got screwed on the purchase.
Lots of companies (and sometimes people) pay up the nose for hardware, because their software has a dependency on it. See all the weird "new model" mainframes that just run an emulator on Intel chips (e.g. Unisys Dorado 8590 https://www.unisys.com/siteassets/collateral/pi-sheet/pi-200...).
Are there not alternatives, including other cheaper MacOS devices? If someone "needs" it, they should know that a $50k PC is basically a rip-off and are paying that money knowing it's never coming back. Electronics in general depreciate spectacularly fast.
Mainframes are a completely different class for which a $50k bill would be quite low. It's a different paradigm. Companies know they're using it until it's obsolete, or will get pennies on the dollar.
> Are there not alternatives, including other cheaper MacOS devices?
There are always alternatives, but sometimes buying "overpriced" hardware is the cheaper/better option, at least in the short/medium term.
If you want/need the fastest Mac and/or one with certain expansion options, this machine is probably it.
> Electronics in general depreciate spectacularly fast.
Apple itself is selling a refurb today for $37,939.00. That is a lot more than $1,000.
> Mainframes are a completely different class for which a $50k bill would be quite low. It's a different paradigm. Companies know they're using it until it's obsolete, or will get pennies on the dollar.
Look at the spec sheet I linked. It looks like that "mainframe" machine is a 4 CPU Xeon server. I don't know how much one costs, but I'm guessing it's orders of magnitude more than similar "commodity" PC hardware.
"There are always alternatives, but sometimes buying "overpriced" hardware is the cheaper/better option, at least in the short/medium term."
That's fine, but the people buying it should realize they aren't getting that money back. If they're complaining, then they should probably have made a different choice.
"Apple itself is selling a refurb today for $37,939.00. That is a lot more than $1,000."
And Ebay has them around $5K-10K.
"Look at the spec sheet I linked. It looks like that "mainframe" machine is a 4 CPU Xeon server."
You don't know how much it costs, because as I said, it's a different paradigm. You can pay fixed cost or by performance/use. You also would be going through a sales pitch. There is some research out there suggesting that hardware costs are higher, but software costs are lower for mainframes when compared to similar server farms. So when comparing similar solutions the costs would not be orders of magnitude higher.
> That's fine, but the people buying it should realize they aren't getting that money back. If they're complaining, then they should probably have made a different choice.
I think they do. No one's expecting to get dollar for dollar.
The issue is Apple seems to be low-balling to an almost offensive degree. Pointing to other hardware, that you think would have been a better deal to buy in the first place, is a distraction and doesn't address that issue.
Not if you want/need to run MacOS.
Also that machine appears to have a proprietary accelerator card that a cursory google leads me to believe has no clear substitute: https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-equivalent-hardware-of-a-....
Lots of companies (and sometimes people) pay up the nose for hardware, because their software has a dependency on it. See all the weird "new model" mainframes that just run an emulator on Intel chips (e.g. Unisys Dorado 8590 https://www.unisys.com/siteassets/collateral/pi-sheet/pi-200...).