i mean honestly STEM is pretty over saturated too, at least at the junior level, which is what fresh college grads would be at. it’s tough to get any non lab job with a chem/bio undergrad. shit, a close friend of mine had a 3.9+ gpa, honors, did good research for 3 years in undergrad, did a bunch of other crazy shit and he still got denied from every grad school he applied to in bio, including the school we got the undergrad from. i did a degree in math and i was able to get a job but i also did two minors to be employable.
Are you seriously arguing about mini-LED displays only found in expensive MacBook Pro when I mention a cheap 500 dollars Chromebook.
There is at least a 4x difference in price for those machines, it is ridiculous to even pretend they are somewhat comparable.
And if we are talking about expensive high-end hardware, mini-LED is worse than OLED found in those machines anyway so it's not like if that would be a strong argument.
My argument isn't about Chromebooks vs any MacBook.
My argument is against a base MacBook Air that is too expensive for relatively limited added utility against something like a cheaper Chromebooks.
Sure, the MacBook Air is better built and will do some things better but those things are not extremely relevant for someone who would be satisfied by an entry level MacBook Air, because while an MBA has some very nice attributes, in the end everything is limited by its RAM/storage (and to a lesser degree, ports).
For a concrete example, in my country the cheaper MacBook Air you can get is the old M1 design at 1k€, then there is the M2 refresh at 1.2k€ and M3 variant at 1.3k€.
But you can get an Asus Chromebook Plus for 600€ that has either the same amount of RAM and storage or more RAM (16Gb) or more storage (512Gb) depending on the variant you end up with.
The display is worse (100 nits less bright and worse resolution) but slightly bigger (14") and that may matter more to many people. It has an older Intel i5 (you can find some AMD options for better efficiency) but it hardly matters for the vast majority of people who just want a laptop to do the basics (basically the target of a MacBook Air). Its battery life would be a bit worse than an MBA but not in a way that can be relevant for the vast majority of customers.
One major advantage it has over an MBA is better ports selection, with an HDMI port, a USB A port and an SD card reader on top of the 2 Thunderbolt/USB C ports the MBA has, allowing a dongle free life without having to buy anything else, providing much better utility. That can be way more relevant for many peoples than a better build quality (that I would argue do not even bring better longevity, since with Apple you are hostage of the software support anyway).
You see I am not against MacBooks; in fact, I would advise purchasing a MacBook Pro for some specific use case.
But the reality is that the entry level Apple hardware is rather compromised for its price, and if someone would be satisfied by that choice, I'm arguing that there is another choice (worse on paper, better in some ways) but at half the price (40% off minimum).
If you start loading up a MacBook Air, you end up in MacBook Pro price territory and it doesn't make a lot of sense to not add the 100-200 more to get the much better machine.
I know from experience that entry level Apple hardware is a terrible deal, both because I made the mistake myself or I had to help/fix the issues for other people that made those choices. I have a cousin who remind me every time how much he fucking hates his entry level iMac (an old one with a compromised Fusion Drive and minimum RAM) even though it was rather expensive compared to most computers.
My answer is always the same: you spent a lot, but not enough, because with Apple you do not deserve a good experience if you don't go above and beyond in your spending.
In my opinion it is way more disingenuous to advocate for entry-level Apple hardware to people who would be very much satisfied with products costing half as much. The value is just not there, Apple went way too far in the luxury territory in locking down everything and creating a pricing ladder that is engineered to confuse and upsell customers to extract as much money as possible.
For someone who really needs a computer to do more intense work, provided they can work around the tradeoffs of Apple Silicon/macOS and they are willing to spend a large amount of cash, Apple has some great hardware for sure.
For everyone else the value is extremely questionnable, especially since they are going full steam ahead into services subscription and the software can be lacking in some ways that will require purchasing even more stuff, the total cost of ownership doesn't make sense anymore.
For example, their iPhone SE is absolutely terrible, at 500€ you pay for 6 years old technology with small screen compared to the footprint, terrible battery life, etc. A 500€ mid-range Android is so much better in so many ways that it is just stupid at this point...
As for OLED, I don't think burn-in is a significant concern anymore, and if it is I would argue that you are using it too much like a desktop. In my country you could buy 2 decent OLED laptops for the price of an entry-level MacBook Pro anyway so it doesn't matter as much (and replacing displays of hardware manufacturers other than Apple is much easier and cheaper, so there is that).
I think the MacBook Pros are very good for some niche applications, but at viable minimum 2.23k€ price (16Gb RAM/512GB storage) there are a lot of good options so it really requires a careful analysis of actual use case. If you do things related to 3D or engineering it is probably not worth it...
I said camrip. It wasn't about my home setup being marginally worse or better than the theater. Rather it's because the file I was watching was made with a video camera on a tripod in a movie theater. It had subtle problems throughout the movie, like the audio cutting out a bit, or random voices talking, or weird shadow. Not all the time, just little bits that ruined the experience at the wrong moments.
Larger point being that mass piracy is really about the inevitability of independent distribution once studios have released things in widely available digital formats. Studios could play their cards closer to the vest longer - theaters already have that whole trusted hardware chain they want to force upon everybody. But if anything they've been moving post-theater-format release dates sooner and sooner.
i think THIS view sucks. some things are objectively true. why should we have to tolerate people who literally don’t understand basic statistics and harm reduction? at all?
reply