Why should I buy an apple computer?

It's more $2500. $3000 is if you overspec it.

To fit in with the cool kids

Didn't overspec this 16"er, $3500. If you opt for the M1 Pro instead, the price starts at $2500 but you get dropped to a fairly unusable 512gb storage and an alright 16gb RAM. 16gb RAM is fine, though for my uses I would actually need the 32. Comes out to around $3000 with 1TB and 32gb RAM or $2600 for just 1TB.

Attached: sdasdswn.png (538x1282, 79.56K)

are you tired on the overdone shitstain that is x86? they are your only reasonable option

For the typical, average user who just needs something to browse 4chinz, shitpost and watch porn on, there's really no reason to ever own an Apple product.

Some example use cases for when it's OK to buy a Mac include:

A) You're building a studio with Pro Tools as your main DAW and you want it to not suck tons of dick

B) You're building a studio with Logic as your main DAW
C) You're a video editor or graphic designer and you want your Adobe shitware to not crash every 20 minutes, or you need Final Cut
D) You want to start making beats or whatever and found a $300 craigslist macbook or whatever with actual decent specs
E) You have traveled down the cheesegrater Mac Pro rabbit hole and want to buy a 4,1 or 5,1 and turn it into a cheap 12 core machine
F) You're a Linux user who is tired of Linux but still wants a halfway Linux-like experience

Other than that, avoid

The cheapest one they offer is a 14" m1 pro with an 8-core CPU, 14-core GPU, 16GB memory, and 512GB storage, and that's for 2K.

That's still plenty of computer—more than most use-cases need. If you compare that to the Air with 16gb and 512gb, which is $1,450, I guess you could say you're paying $550 for a bigger screen, promotion display, hdr, 6 more GPU cores, 6 instead of 4 high-speed CPU cores, and, uh, better speakers maybe? ports?

You probably shouldn't.
Only buy one if you're relatively financially secure and the premium won't induce too much hardship and you don't really give a shit about having the absolute fastest most powerful machine possible.
You can get more powerful spec'd machine for less, sure, but if you like MacOS and like the feel of their machines, then they're good and their newer laptops are decently efficient. The only reason to get a mac is if you like MacOS, or if you find a good deal.

I bought a MBP 16" base-model (+1tb) because I wanted a laptop with a decent looking screen, upward firing speakers, centered keyboard, haptic trackpad, good battery life (on low-power mode and dim screen I get almost 20 hours).
I only use it for basic web development, office-tier tasks, and browsing the internet... so I didn't really need a MBP, but I like using it.

If you want a desktop, don't care about MacOS, and are only concerned with raw power, then just build your own PC. If you want the convenience of an all-in-one the imac is the best, most well-rounded one on the market.

Why are you using so much local storage? 512GB is plenty if you use iCloud or have your own NAS.
16GB on the M1 is not the same as 16GB on x86. Just double the memory to find its x86 equivalent since the M1 is about twice as efficient.

>You can get more powerful spec'd machine for less
Show me some.

Sir if you want an elegant computers that just works and allows you to become productive. Also if you desire privacy, that's apple.

>most powerful spec'd machine for less
if we're talking about laptops then laptops more powerful than the current MBPs will get shit battery life and run hot as fuck

NTA, but I agree with you that I don't know of any laptops on the market that match the performance/price ratio for any of the macbooks, not to mention build quality.

But for desktops, you can definitely build a more powerful machine for cheaper, but then it might be correct to factor in time spent researching parts and building (especially if it's for a business instead of a hobby or just personal computer). And then AGAIN, how do you find parts??? (You can find them, but it's hard)

Development for the most part and time constraints. I need around 800GB total to do my job on the go, which is what this would be for. Tapping into my network would require too much time to sync it all as that itself would have to sync with my work network through a shitty VPN. Quicker to just sync it directly to my laptop in bulk so I have all the forwarded changes as they come in.

As for RAM, my co-worker has the 16GB version and frequently complains that it's not enough, so 32GB would be required.

Yeah, but at that point you lose the portability so you may as well build a server instead. Desktops feel like a weird middle ground nowadays.
Why would it take time to sync? You would also offload the processing itself to the server. Every company I have worked for has had a server that ran VMs for compiling and testing.

Because it would have to hit my server before it hits my laptop, which would then have the higher sync rate to my laptop, or it has to go directly through the whopping 8mb/s down from the work VPN which would inevitably be quicker. On the go means on the go, I would be away from home. This would have to be sustainable when I have no physical network access to the NAS, and a virtual desktop to my home computer has too high of latency for what I need to do.

You don't have to send the whole display server, I just used secure shell.