Mac Tax, Dell Tax, HP Tax 858
Harry writes "Microsoft's new Windows ad, with shopper Lauren buying a cheap 17-inch HP laptop instead of a $2,800 MacBook Pro, has unleashed the whole 'Are Macs Expensive?' debate again. I'm diving in with a pretty exhaustive comparison of the MacBook Pro against machines from Dell, HP, Lenovo, and Sony that were as comparably configured as I could manage. The conclusion: High-end laptops tend to carry high-end prices, whether their operating system hails from Cupertino or Redmond. And the MacBook Pro wasn't the priciest of the systems I compared." We looked at this question, not in as much depth, a couple of years back.
Upgrading (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever priced a stick or two of RAM from Apple?
I know it doesn't affects us geeks, but it'll give Grandma a heart attack.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This just in: Buying from the manufacture cheaper then going with someone else.
Your news is sure to rock the automotive world.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This just in: Buying from the manufacture cheaper then going with someone else.
Your news is sure to rock the automotive world.
Buying replacement wipers for my 2007 Ford Focus cost half as much at the Ford dealer than it did anywhere else. Surprised me too.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's true. I was checking out prices for an upgrade from Crucial for a MacBook Pro. To my surprise, I found that just ordering the configuration I wanted from Apple would be cheaper.
Disk prices, on the other hand....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Upgrading (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone including non-geeks know that when you call tech support you tell them there are no changes to the config and if they send someone over you swap out to the stock configuration
Just saying.
Re:Upgrading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Who has the time to read so much text to get convinced a Mac could be cheaper??
Personally, I don't have the time tu submit to this kind of convincing.
If I was an average Joe, I would be convinced enough by M$'s simple ad. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No she won't. Grandma would likely stick with the default system and anyone close enough to suggest it to her would likely buy it 3rd party and install it for her.
I'm sure people buy extra ram from Apple (and I wish they lowered their prices overall), but I would venture a guess a big percentage of people have a semi-technical savvy person in the family that steers them otherwise anyway.
Even for the premium, I know I prefer extended
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh Lord (Score:3, Informative)
that ram from apple is far better than that crap you get from the bottom price rung on newegg.com ... please tell me you don't really believe this.
Please tell me you don't actually believe that Apple's RAM is anything other than thoroughly mediocre.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try explaining to a novice the difference between just closing the window and exiting the application. Most will still be calling you a week later asking why their computer has gotten so slow.
Back when Macs came with embarassasingly small amounts of RAM, and OS X's memory management was atrocious instead of just average, this argument carried a bit of weight. These days, it's irrelevant.
Re:Upgrading (Score:5, Interesting)
You know... I have a problem with that statement. That's half of the fun of using a computer; trying out new stuff. It always has been and always will be.
Of course, the other half is tied between fixing what you've broken or learning to do the first half without breaking it at all.
Re:Upgrading (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying new stuff is fine. I do that a lot too, but generally my new stuff comes from Sourceforge, or is applications that I've red reviews and opinions on before trying it. CometCursor, that stupid purple gorilla thing, Gator, etc, are a bit different than those.
Re:Upgrading (Score:4, Informative)
You are right - you cannot buy a $400 (new) macbook.
You also cannot buy a $20000 (new) Ferrari.
What's your point?
I believe the article shows that for similarly spec'd machines, the cost between an Apple and an HP/Dell/Lenovo is comparable.
Just because Apple doesn't offer a very low end laptop doens't necessarily mean their stuff is overpriced. And according to the article, it is not, with regards to the systems that were compared.
Re:Upgrading (Score:5, Insightful)
Comparing a Mac to a Ferrari is delusional. At best a PC is like a Dodge and a Mac is like a Honda. A little better-engineered perhaps, but still a mass-produced car for the masses, not a collectors item.
>>>I believe the article shows... ...that its study is irrelevant to people looking for a low-end product. Which is most consumers. An article about 4000 dollar machines has no relevance to John Q. Public who wants to spend less than a thousand, or can't afford anything but the cheapest possible. ----- This study reminds me of the Hybrid lovers who insist a $22,000 Civic Hybrid is the better choice to save money because it gets ~50mpg... but they conveniently ignore the fact you can buy a standard Civic for just $14,000 and still get 40mpg & therefore save more money with the non-hybrid. It's called gaming the study to get the result you desire.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
That's fine but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Apple tax is the lack of variety.
It isn't that the expensive laptops aren't worth it.
It's that there is no low cost Macs.
Re:That's fine but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's fine but... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for Apple's RAM upgrade pricing... well... yeah, that's a technophobia tax (or an I-can't-be-bothered-to-comparison-shop tax). If you're afraid to DIY, you pay some pretty inexplicable prices for them to upgrade it for you. About the only thing I can say in their defence on this point is that if you go to the Apple Store and you want to buy a machine with more RAM than the units they stock, they'll upgrade it there in the store, and they'll give you full credit (at Apple RAM prices) for the chips they pull out to replace with bigger ones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The pricing of Macs is really pretty simple to explain: Apple doesn't make cheap computers. That's "cheap" in the sense of "low price" and in the sense of "low quality". The have a wide range of performance specs available, but none of them are built like crap, which puts a floor on the product pricing. But at just about every level of quality, the price is pretty comparable to equal machines from the competition.
That might be true, but there is clearly market demand for a lower-cost version of Apple laptops. For example, they could have a 17" model in the Macbook line in addition to the 17" model in the MacbookPro line. Furthermore, there are a lot of people who find the 13" Macbook fine, except for its tiny monitor. There's no reason that they should have to shell out over $1000 more just to have a larger screen.
Re:That's fine but... (Score:5, Informative)
Simply, they do everything they can do to limit 3rd party markets. The non-removable batteries we see in iPhone and the latest laptops mean little more to me than trying to limit 3rd party parts. If they made batteries removable, there are plenty of laws in various locations that make it illegal for them to attempt to prevent other people from selling parts compatible with your computer. Apple does this with everything it possibly can and control the market for 3rd party software as much as possible as well. Ostensibly, this is to control the quality of the user experience.
Re:That's fine but... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Ostensibly, this is to control the quality of the user experience."
I know that some of the advertising and fanboi's make this statement, but the reality is that they are a company looking to profit from as much as they can within their market.
IMO, Apple is a solid company with a tendency to be over-protective, over-aggressive, and over-bearing. That is how they stay in business in the long term, because the technology and ideas really only last so long before someone comes along and improves it.
I'm an Apple user, but that's a choice I make knowing that in the end, there really isn't all that much different between Apple and MS, other than that MS is watched closer by those in power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you are right at all for most fo Apple's products.
In most of their products that have non-removable batteries it is because putting on a user-serviceable door would either make the battery smaller (and thus last less long) or the device bigger. Making the battery removable means you have to engineer a well for the battery to sit in (so the user doesn't have accidental access to the rest of the device while replacing the battery) in addition to meaning that you can't use the part of the case th
Re:That's fine but... (Score:5, Informative)
Why can't they offer the equivalent hardware of an iMac in the shell of a Mac Pro and meet the halfway point in terms of price? That would be the sweet spot for me.
Because Apple stopped catering to people who upgrade their computers a long time ago. The vast majority of consumers never upgrade a single component in their computer, and that's the lowest common denominator that Apple is appealing to. This means they can save cost and increase margin in a very competitive market.
I'm sure I'll come across as a Mac apologist, but it's the god's honest truth. I would love a mid/low powered expandable desktop, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
re: catering to people who upgrade (Score:5, Insightful)
Truthfully, I have to question just how important the "expandability" really is for most people anyway?
There was a time when this was a *huge* deal, but as technology has advanced, I've watched a lot more consolidation.
EG. Back in the days of my Intel 486 motherboard, even the serial and parallel ports were on cards, and I had such options as upgrading a basic 8-bit or 16-bit ISA I/O card with a more capable VESA local-bus version. Now, every PC motherboard you can find has all the ports built right onto it, permanently.
Same goes for sound cards. Remember when *everybody* who was remotely into gaming went out and bought the latest Soundblaster offering (or maybe a "Gravis Ultrasound" or something)? Now, you get full Dolby surround capable sound and often, even optical outputs right on the motherboards.
On the Mac side, I even remember some people arguing they "needed" to go with a PowerMac G5 tower or Mac Pro tower vs. an iMac, because those expansion slots were so critical. Yet, show me how often you see a Mac tower with expansion cards installed in it these days? At least in the days of the G4 towers, you often had an Adaptec SCSI board in there for somebody's scanner, or maybe a card that added more USB ports.
And look at the Windows users who brag about their hardware's superiority, all because they can "upgrade with faster CPUs and video cards". Nice, in theory, but by the time they're ready for that new video or CPU? Most likely, the pin architecture has changed again, rendering the socket they've got unsuitable for that new processor ... or maybe their power supply can't put out the wattage required for that new video board, or ?? You quickly realize it makes more sense to sell the whole machine and start over with a whole new one.
So Apple may just be doing this the sensible way, anyway.
you do realize macs can upgrade memory and disk (Score:3, Insightful)
You're ignoring many things. First, upgrading the RAM is still relevant and easy to do on a PC. My work computer was choking with the 512 MB it shipped with trying to view PDFs, edit PowerPoints and have other applications open at the same time. Simple, I spent $30 on RAM and doubled it to 1 gig. There is absolutely no reason for me to have bought a new desktop, this one has the processing power necessary, and now the RAM to multitask with today's more memory heavy programs.
What about a new hard drive? HD's keep getting cheaper, maybe I want to upgrade to 500 gigs from an old 60 gig? Maybe I want to add another one for internal backup, or maybe my boss decided a RAID setup would provide better protection against HD failure and the subsequent data loss?
At home I can get by just adding RAM and replacing the video card every few years. Sometimes you want to add another drive in the bay, maybe something proprietary or card specific, maybe you want to take your DVD read and CD RW to a DVD-RW. Pretending there's not a lot of circumstances in which upgrading is the best option is foolish, and this applies both in the office and at home.
I don't own any Macs, but as the subject says, all macs can upgrade ram,and almost all macs have easy hard drive upgrades. As for extra hard drives,USB external drives work great for most people
The only thing at all correct in your post is your comment about upgrading the video card...
Re:you do realize macs can upgrade memory and disk (Score:4, Informative)
-Go to www.crucial.com.
-select your model mac
-buy ram, which is the same ram (price and spec) as the crucial ram you'd buy for any other computer...
Re:That's fine but... (Score:4, Insightful)
How is a mac mini [apple.com] different from what you want?
Where's the MTTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
pretty exhaustive comparison
I don't think it was exhaustive at all. What I feel like I'm buying when I buy a laptop is more than what this article implies. I am buying into a brick of hardware where if one piece fails or becomes obsolete, it might as well be the whole brick. Which is why it surprises me that talk of hard drives (though they are the easiest component to replace) doesn't even list the manufacturer of the drive! How about a Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) of each of the products used? How about even just telling me that all the USB ports are 2.0 (I mean, I'm assuming that but who knows)? And what about the support that comes with each laptop as far as # of updates (BIOS/firmware) issued for the mainboard and all devices?
High-end laptops tend to carry high-end prices, whether their operating system hails from Cupertino or Redmond.
Actually I advise people that high end Macs are a tiny bit more expensive than high end other laptops while low end Macs are much more expensive (percentage wise) to low end Dells or HPs. And I think that's better information (and I thought I read that in the article). You usually get what you pay for and I wish the article had done a more thorough analysis of the laptops component by component.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where's the MTTF? (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe this will lead Apple to lower their prices a little. That would be great. Cheaper Macs.
It would be one of the worst possible things that could happen to Microsoft though.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
The question isn't just "are Macs expensive" (Score:5, Interesting)
... the question is also, "does Lauren need an expensive notebook."
Let's say the MacBook CAN justify its $2800 pricetag (i.e., it's not overpriced hardware, it's just good/expensive hardware and a lot of it). Ok, so the question is, is a $2800 laptop necessary? My $1350 dell ($2050 minus $800 deal) has been working for several years now (battery has died, that's about it. It's old enough that it has a dual core Centrino (32 bit processor).
"Overpriced Mac" can mean more than "the hardware added up doesn't equal the pricetag" ... it can also mean "it's twice as much as you need to spend for what you're going to do with it."
mod parent up! (Score:5, Insightful)
or not. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this canard, or at least misconception, is that it takes the notion "I would buy this kind of thing if Apple offered it" (which may or may not be true) and assumes that, therefore, it would be a good business move for Apple to offer that configuration.
In the mid 90s, Apple had so many product lines and options that you couldn't keep track of them: Classics, Performas, Quadras, whatever. There were Apple-manufactured machines that had two processors for dual-booting, not to mention several brands of clones. (This is another thing that many people still say: "if only Apple would get their head out of their asses and license their OS to other manufacturers, they would increase their market share, blah blah blah...") At that time, it looked like Apple wasn't long for this world.
After Jobs came back in 1996 (1997? whatever.), the company slowly reined in the product lines and started to concentrate on making a few identifiable, distinct products, with a limited number of options for each. Apple is now a quite successful company, and, while their non-computer products are a large part of this, the company has managed to continue to hang on to, and even expand, its corner of the computer and OS market, a market that is surely stacked against it. Not only that, Apple has become a trendsetter in this market.
You can bet that there are some pretty savvy financial analysts at Apple who have probably looked at this a lot more closely than you have, and, if they really thought demand was high enough for a mid-range tower, they would make one. I would bet that the average computer user (not the average Slashdot reader, which is something else) never expands their PC past the basic configuration that they bought it with during its lifespan, and, furthermore, doesn't need anything more powerful than what comes with a Mac Mini. The population of customers who need more than a Mac Mini, but less than a Mac Pro (like you) is real, but too small to be profitable for Apple. Apple's success is not based on a shotgun approach but on carefully maximizing the profitability of a small number of product lines.
Re:I'm going to pick on his Fanboi here... (Score:5, Insightful)
To me one of the the biggest issues with Mercedes is that they don't really offer a full range of vehicles. So if for instance somebody wants a pickup truck they are out of luck. Or a dirt bike. What they do make I think is competitive in those markets. But an expanded lineup would really help.
The GGP and the GP had some very interesting points. For what I use a laptop for, a MacBook Pro is just overkill. It's too much machine and there's no reason to spend the money for it. The other laptops makers offer lower end models that are the right fit for me. If Apple did the same, I would consider them, but they don't.
I see. What you're saying is that a Mercedes isn't too much machine for your daily commute to work, and that's why you bought one.
Your idea "picking on the fanboi" was an epic fail, dude. You just reinforced his point. If what you need is a truck or a dirt bike, you shouldn't be looking to buy a Mercedes. Similarly, if what you need can be had in a cheaper laptop, don't buy an Apple. If, on the other hand, you want the extra power because you need it / want it / must compensate for your small dick, you can buy the Apple, the Mercedes, the high-end Sony laptop, or the Aston Martin.
The point of the article and of the poster you were responding to was not that everyone should buy an Apple. It's that spec for spec, the Apple is competitively priced. If you don't need those specs, then you're absolutely right, you shouldn't be buying that computer, be it an Apple or a Sony, or a Dell, or an HP.
There is no "apple tax" there are only expensive high-end computers of all brands. And if you want and can afford them, there's nothing wrong with that. They're subsidizing the development of faster components that will eventually make it down to the affordable, more bang for the buck range you're interest in. So you should thank those people.
Re:I'm going to pick on his Fanboi here... (Score:5, Insightful)
One brand, and a premium one at that, is not well served by having hundreds of different computer models. Sure, Apple could make a cheaper laptop with a 17" screen and they could make a netbook and a mid range tower and all those other things. But now they have the over head of twice as many computers and configurations. Twice the overhead of manufacturing twice the overhead of warehousing cases and other parts that are specific to a given model. (ok, maybe not twice as much, but the overhead is non trivial)
As a result, they might sell a few more computers, but not twice as many. The proper tactic from an economic point of view is to try to make as few models as possible while still covering the needs of as large a user base as possible. This keeps cost down and margins up while still maintaining brisk sales.
Now one could argue that the computers that apple makes aren't the best choices for the market, but I dont know that the data really backs you up. The few extra mid range towers they might sell doesn't really make up for the cost of adding a whole new line when for the vast majority of consumers, an iMac or mac mini is quite sufficient and professionals almost always buy a top of the line machine anyway.
Sometimes I think that we here on slashdot forget that there is a room full of economists, market analysts and manufacturing experts at apple that help shape the nature of the mac line. If a mid range tower was going to help apples bottom line significantly, then they would be making one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:mod parent up! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have an iphone and a mac mini and I love Apple, but why do you feel the need to make shit up like this? ASUS has over 150 laptop models currently available [asus.com] and Apple has less than a dozen. You're off by an order of fucking magnitude!
No Mac Tax then (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say the MacBook CAN justify its $2800 pricetag (i.e., it's not overpriced hardware, it's just good/expensive hardware and a lot of it). Ok, so the question is, is a $2800 laptop necessary?
That's a good question that everyone should ask, but it has nothing to do with a Mac Tax. It's a "high-end computer tax." If Apple is making a business of only selling high-end computers, that's the market they've chosen, nothing wrong with that. Now if you want to say that macs are overpriced, you need to compare equivalently specs, you can't say, "look, the other company sells a less powerful laptop for cheaper." Of course they do, if their less powerful laptop was more expensive than a high-end computer, everyone would buy high-end computers!
I also don't really understand why there's all this hate against people who choose to buy high-end computers. It's true that they're not getting the most bang for the buck, but if it weren't for those buyers financing the high performance parts, the mid-range computers wouldn't advance as quickly. Basically, the reason you can get a very fast machine for cheaper today is precisely because of those people who buy the expensive high-end parts. It's the same concept Tesla Motors is trying to leverage. They can't build an affordable electric car, so they build a car for the rich. Those buyers fund the development of the technology and eventually they'll be able to build an affordable electric car.
If they want them, and can afford them, who are you to tell you they're wrong? Especially when you're indirectly benefiting from their choice.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
but how much for .... (Score:2, Interesting)
And how much are the Macs with features compared to the lower priced notebooks? You know, the ones with fewer features that I don't need/want?
Re:but how much for .... (Score:5, Insightful)
> neither is reliability, nor support.
Oh puleeeze... A Mac is "just another PC" anymore. Cheap crappy PC components are
just as cheap and crappy regardless of what sort of prissy logo is on the outside
of the machine.
Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
The question isn't "what does a comparably specced machine cost". It's "what does a machine that does what I need cost". I can get a $500-700 PC Laptop that will work great for most of my use. I can't touch that with a Mac.
Re:Wrong question (Score:5, Informative)
I could really care less if I could have bought a "PC" for $500.00. I do high end video editing and a lot of virtualization as well. I use every 800 Firewire bit of my 17" MBP and am very happy with the purchase.
That's fine. Of course you could be doing high end video editing, virtualization, and Firewire on a PC too, for a fraction of the cost... but if money is no object to you, knock yourself out!
As long as you realize that your experience isn't typical: most people do care how much money they spend, and would rather save $500-$1000 getting a system that still meets their needs.
Non-Silverlight video link? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know no one reads the fine articles but does no one really watch the fine videos? Or does everyone here have Silverlight install?
Would someone be kind enough to post up a non-Silverlight version. Bonus points for a direct link to an open video format (i.e. not flash), but I'm not picky.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to have already figured this out, so perhaps you're being rhetorical, but the heirarchy goes like this:
1. Open Format
...
2. Closed But Free Format
3. Closed But Expensive Format
99. Microsoft's Closed Format
Microsoft is worse than other proprietary formats because it has the means (and lack of morals) to crush an ecosystem of competitive products with its own crappy bundled product, which then gets even crappier due to lack of competition.
The OP was just asking for any format besides the Very Worst F
Rehash... (Score:4, Informative)
Haven't we all reached the conclusion that:
a) no, Macs are not significantly more expensive than PCs
and
b) there are far fewer hardware configurations available such that when you take any one premium feature and then try to go bargain hunting on other features, Macs will be significantly more expensive.
If you want a laptop with a 17" screen, 512M RAM and a 60G HD, suddenly you're comparing an $800 PC against a $2700 MBP since Apple doesn't make a computer with a 17" screen and less than 2G RAM. But if you actually want all the stuff in the 17" MBP, a comparable PC won't be all that differently priced.
Long story short, buying a Mac forces you to upgrade in areas that you may not need whereas buying a PC allows you to save money on any component of the system that is less important to you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
a) no, Macs are not significantly more expensive than PCs and
I don't know about that. My fiance is looking for a Mac right now. Their low-end MacBook is $1150 CDN for a laptop that has, suprisingly, almost exactly the same configuration as my (nearly) 2 year old Lenovo Thinkpad I got for $1250. Mine also came with a 3 year warranty. For the same price, you can get a significantly better hardware with another manufacturer. Yes, in the high-end, all computers are expensive, but I am talking about the $1000-$1500 range.
Re:Rehash... (Score:5, Informative)
a) no, Macs are not significantly more expensive than PCs
$1600 Dell:
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/913148 [fatwallet.com]
$2800 MacBook Pro:
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB604LL/A?mco=MzA3MTE3NA [apple.com]
You can keep trying to peddle that nonsense, but I think most /.ers are capable of comparing $1600 and $2800 and coming to their own conclusions. It's not even a close call.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Rehash... (Score:5, Informative)
Look over your own figures, asshat. That 0.26GHz processor difference REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY matters!
In case people take this anon post seriously, let me quickly point out that it's not just a clock speed difference, but an architecture difference. This means a slightly different processor design with a faster bus and faster RAM. I've heard a 10-15% clock-for-clock boost over last gen is the number thrown around, but that's a general number across desktops and laptops of different shapes and sizes. That would make the performance difference about 21% (10% on the clock speed, 10% on the architecture), taken with about a pound of salt (only matters in heavy use cases, doesn't help if you're IO-bound (disk/network), architecture improvements result in very asymmetrical speedups).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fine, get the same processor on the Dell -- $375 upgrade (not worth it IMO, but whatever). It's still $1100 cheaper than the MBP. While we are at it, add $35 for 802.11n wireless, $20 for bluetooth, $55 for a creative expresscard sound solution (not that I believe you can hear the difference, but I'm humoring you guys here).
Still $1000 cheaper than the MBP.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rehash... (Score:4, Informative)
Score 5 informative? No, not informative. Simply wrong.
A 15.4 inch Dell Latitude E6500 with the same 2.53 GHz Core 2 Duo as the 15" Macbook Pro, an NVidia Quadro NVS 160M (a much higher end card than the 9600 that comes with the MBP), 2GB of RAM and a 250G SATA disk with a freefall sensor goes for $1229, right now on Dell's website.
The equivalent Macbook Pro is over $2000.
If you don't believe me, go check Apple and Dell yourself.
Flawed process? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way most of these comparisons work is that they take the feature set of the most expensive laptop and start there as a base point, or start at the most feature rich, like this review did. I've seen the commercial in question and the girl/actress/whatever had two requirements: a 17 inch screen and a sub thousand dollar price. Say what you will about that but that seems like a pretty common way to start shopping. Sure, the Macbook Pro is $2800 (?!) but I'm sure it has a ton of stuff she's simply not interested or aware of. The general public likes cheap computers, and I personally think it's a pretty effective ad.
It would be nice if they could have had a longer version where she's in the Apple store and finds her 17" laptop but not at the price she wants.
Effective ad for me, but it's personally not going to influence any of my purchases. I buy most of my stuff off Craigslist (17 inchers for under $100? yum - that's what she said).
Re: (Score:2)
So the MacBook doesn't qualify. But there is a difference between expensive and poor value.
What this review did was perfectly correct - they baselined the specification and compared prices of similar machines. Any other way and you just get into pointless value judgements about whether this feature or that feature is worth the ext
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The general public likes cheap computers
You've pretty much nailed why Apple doesn't sell them. The effort involved with selling commodity hardware is as great or greater than the effort involved selling premium hardware - and yet the margins are lower. They simply don't want that business.
The problem with Macs (Score:2)
We looked at this question... (Score:5, Funny)
We look at this question, not in as much depth, on nearly every Mac story.
Fixed that for you.
Re:We looked at this question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dells, HPs, Lenovos..... they all go on sale for significant discounts.
Do Macs? Not from my experience.
I can buy a souped up T series lenovo laptop for probably around half the price of an equivalent macbook (in the 1250-1500 range vs. 2500-3000 range for the macbook pro.
And one can get features in the T series that apple just doesn't think there's any market for (such as the old T42p I'm currently typing on that had a 15" 4x3 lcd w/ 1600x1200). Try to find any mac that has anything approaching that pixel density.
Mid-range Apple Notebooks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone got any insights into Apple's complete disinterest in the mid-range notebook market?
If they start to appear common, they lose their hip mystique and can't charge as much for the higher-end models. And to be fair, I'm regurgitating something I've read on /. a bajillion times, so it's not my insight.
Graphics? (Score:2)
So a NVIDIA Quadro FX 2700M is the nearest he could get to a 9600M GT on the Dell site?
"I didn't want anyone to be able to accuse me of rigging my research, consciously or unconsciously, to make Apple look good."
Sorry, that's exactly the way it looks to me.
Apples and Oranges err... Vistas? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know I'll spark off a debate on this one but you never hear folks complaining that Macs are slow. Part of that is likely to do with OSX but the other part has just as much to do with the fact that Macs are NEVER sold under powered.
On the other hand we have PC manufacturers selling dirt cheap machines that "run" Vista but not well. If those same manufacturers only sold machines that ran their intended software well, the price point comparison would be pretty moot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are other factors, as well... Support and Configuration.
In the last two weeks, I have spent multiple days and nights trying to get my partners new HP notebook to talk to an HP LaserJet 2840 all-in-one machine. The HP software for the HP host to communicate with the HP scanner just does not work. Some similar hardware or network or software compatibility issue soaks up a whole week every few months.
By comparison, my current Apple MacBook Pro has had zero difficulty. Zero. Nada. Each new thing jus
Advantage points seem a little dubious (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving the Apple a point for "construction" seems a little dubious to me. There's no doubt that the fancy aluminum shell on the Mac is much sturdier than my all plastic Dell from work, but my Dell laptop seems to stand up just fine to the rigors I put it through. If the Mac were made of aircraft grade aluminum, would it be even better? Not really.
Giving a "point" to Apple for Firewire seems equally dubious. Most consumers who are choosing between a PC laptop and a Mac likely don't know what FireWire is, and the other laptops all HAVE a FireWire port, just a slower one. FireWire 800 is a "feature" that very few people need.
The point to Apple for "sound" is perhaps most dubious of all, since the Sony has some slick specs in this department as well.
Methinks the TFA is slightly biased.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One comparison is the Nikon Camera. Some will buy buy a D300 for $1,500. They will want the features, and have the skill to use them. Some will want the D80 because of the simplicity and the fact that it is plastic and lighter. Even a D80, at $400, is pricier than
Fanboy reacts to negative Apple publicity... (Score:5, Insightful)
News at 11.
Whether you want to say Apple doesn't make notebooks most people can afford or they're notebooks are too expensive in general, it's essentially a wash.
Also, the entire basis for this comparison is wrong... as the ad shows, it has nothing to do with the "exact" features. Consumers look for a couple key features and operate "within a market." If you want the real take-away here it's that Apple either a) doesn't understand the market they're targeting with the 13" macbook or b) is purposely trying to drive people to the more expensive machine. Either way, they don't have a product that meets what I think you can safely say is the "vast majority" of US consumers.
Personally I just hate the "I know what's good for you" Apple mantra. I be surprised if more /.ers wouldn't agree given the fact that Apple is essentially the antithesis of open source.
-rt
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple is essentially the antithesis of open source.
CUPS makes printing on Unix-style systems far easier. CUPS came from Apple and is open source.
Also, don't forget about Darwin(GNU Mach) and Webkit(KHTML). They actually do give back to these things once in a while.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nonsense, CUPS was open source before Apple. Apple liked the technology but not the GNU license. First they negotiated with the developer to grant an exemption for OS X. Eventually they bought the rights to it. Now as the copyright holder they can do whatever they like in their own products. Anyone else is bound by the GNU licensing.
Selling Silverlight (Score:4, Insightful)
So is it an ad for Windows or Silverlight?
What is the point of putting out an ad to sell a product if you limit your market to those who are already using your product? Are they simply trying to stop the bleeding of market share?
Yeah, I know, there are ways to view the ad without buying Windows, no thanks.
Initial investment (Score:5, Interesting)
The point? The cost of ownership over 10 years for a Mac vs PC is a whole lot more comparable than the up front cost. You may not have an extra PC laying around a year later after you buy your Mac, but you can upgrade to this-year's-model for next to nothing if you are willing to sell your Mac.
* You being most people
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be honest, I don't quite get your point. What is the point in selling a year old computer? It sounds like a waste of money and time buying a new one. Secondly, 5 or 10 year old computer (mac or a "pc") is pretty much worthless. It doesn't really matter if you get 50 or 80 for them. I just never understood people who would gladly pay say 20% more on a new $product1 and so they can sell it 5+ years later for 10% more than the compared $product2. The problem is that both products are worth just a fraction o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't see any clear statement on the page provided that said that. Having ran a macbookpro before under Linux, I was able to determine that while there was dedicated videoram, the video memory was still in fact, shared with system memory.
Then something was funny with your Linux install, because all the Macbook Pro's ever made came with dedicated memory. The first [apple.com] Macbook Pro's came with ATI Mobility Radeon X1600's, which had dedicated, not shared [wikipedia.org] memory. Then Apple switched to Nvidia 8xxxm [apple.com]/9xxxm [apple.com] chips,
That was painful to watch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you actually argued that I'd say you're a bit naive. Looks matter to everything where people decided that they do. For most things, an object is quite often (almost always)) not merely about it's function, unless you never see it (I don't think many people care about how their home water heater looks, but you can bet they care about how their stove looks).
To suggest that this is magically not important to most people because you don't deem it to be so personally is just ridiculous.
I hate to say it, but MS had a good point (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been a Mac user for 6 years now, and have loved every machine I've purchased. Having said that, I'm a certain kind of user who matches the machines that Apple sells. I want mid- to mid-high range hardware, capable of pretty extensive multitasking (which, in my experience, works better under OS X than Windows), and the ability to do graphics design and layout (I admit, this was much more hardware-constrained in 2003 than it is now). Macs are a pretty good fit for the featureset that I want, and are price-competitive with Windows boxes.
HOWEVER in the ad, Lauren wants a machine with a certain amount of raw horsepower, a keyboard she likes (which, with Apple, is either entirely true or entirely not) and a 17" screen. That could mean a wide variety of machines -- processor architectures, memory, integrated or discreet graphics -- but Apple, when you want a 17" laptop, assumes you're a higher-end user, that wants a very well engineered battery, a lot of horsepower, a fast dual-core CPU, etc. etc.
Lauren doesn't. She doesn't want a lot of those things. She just wants a computer with a 17" screen. Apple doesn't sell the machine she wants -- but because there's at least 3 or 4 PC brands at any Best Buy, she can walk in and get what she wants for a fraction of what Apple sells it for.
It's a question of mapping: the goal isn't to take an APPLE to start with then compare it to the price of a similar PC; instead, it's to take a PC you want, and asking if there EVEN IS a similar Mac -- in a lot of cases, there just won't be.
Yep (Score:3, Interesting)
This has always been a big problem I've had with Apple, and Apple comparisons, is that Apple doesn't sell what I want. I either have to get much more or much less, there's nothing at the level I want.
In my case, it is a mid range tower. I have a Core 2 Quad system at home and it is precisely what I want. A single quad core processor (was a dual until recently) a very high end consumer video card, and so on. Basically I want a good amount of power, but not excessive, for a reasonable price. I don't want prof
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a question of mapping: the goal isn't to take an APPLE to start with then compare it to the price of a similar PC; instead, it's to take a PC you want, and asking if there EVEN IS a similar Mac -- in a lot of cases, there just won't be.
That's a damned good point, and the main reason that I'm typing this reply on a [somewhere between eight years, or one month old - depending on how one measures it] custom box. By most measures, it would be described as mid-range, and I'd love to own a mid-range mac. Except, not stuffed into the back on my monitor, because it's nice to be able to improved the video card every-so-often. Or disconnect the 'display size' from from other performance metrics. That mid-range mac has been missing-in-action for
ORLY? (Score:2)
"Microsoft's new Windows ad... has unleashed the whole 'Are Macs Expensive?' debate again."
It has? I thought intelligent people figured this out years ago. If you compare comparably-specced machines, Macs are usually in the neighborhood. If you want a stripped-down machine, which Apple doesn't offer, then the next closest Mac is usually higher. If you want a form factor that Apple doesn't make (tablet, netbook, etc.) you're SOL. Did I miss anything?
What about resale? (Score:2)
Meaning:
$600 (when new) PC laptop is worth maybe $200 after 2 years. $1000 (when new) MacBook is worth at lest $600 after that same 2 years.
If you believe that (And I do, personally.. based on Ebay prices of used laptops), then the whole thing is a wash.
Oh, look, fanboy whining (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's rile them up some more: I've owned four laptops in the last ten years, from IBM, Toshiba, HP, and Apple.
The Macbook Pro was the most expensive, has the worst LCD viewing angle, has the worst speakers, is the only one that overheats if you use it with the lid closed, and the only one to have a battery go all 'splody in slow motion. I also had to reflash the power management firmware because it stop charging due to a bug in the previous version. I don't care how much or how little they cost, I'm never making that mistake again.
Re:Oh, look, fanboy whining (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, look, fanboy whining (Score:5, Interesting)
Well your milage may vary. I used to buy Sony laptops, and my office uses Dell and for a time Gateway laptops.
I purchased a 15" Macbook Pro three years ago to replace my comparably priced Sony laptop that died while I was out in the field. I have not had a single issue with my laptop. It has logged over 44000 miles of being tossed in a satchel, thrown in the back of a car, and used at many locations. I spent more months than I care to admit using it in the middle of nowhere in the fine state of New Mexico, and I used it while outside during hot and extremely humid days on the gulf coast. My laptop has operated at a variety of temperature and humidity levels. This is my one and only personal computer and it's been on almost constantly during the past three years.
If my laptop failed today, I would immediately buy another one from Apple. This laptop has lasted a year longer than my similarly priced Sony laptop.
During the same 3 year period, some of my friends and colleagues replace their much younger Dell laptops because they failed prematurely. My sister's Dell laptop is a little over a year and a half old, and she's looking at replacing a $250 battery. Most of my non-apple work laptops stay in the office because either they're now too slow (hard drive issues), the plastic clam shell case is broken, or the cheap ass hinges they use have failed.
In addition, my boss still uses his 12" powerbook, and pretty much all the Apple users where I work are not only happy with their current Apple computers, but continue to purchase Apple computers for themselves or their interns (much to the dismay of our Windows centric IT department).
I believe the reason Dell has been more troublesome for my friends and family is the fact that Dell tries to fit as many features as possible to make the laptop look good in a print ad while using the cheapest parts available to meet a price point that their marketing department determine that people are willing to pay.
But like I said, your milage may vary.
Dell has much more variance in prices ... (Score:5, Informative)
In my experience, Macs are priced by Apple and rarely discounted much until they are EOLed for the next generation. Sometimes Microcenter or Macmall has $100 off or something like that.
Dell, on the other hand, changes their pricing and offers more often than I change my socks. I've found that you can get killer deals on them if you are willing to wait a few weeks until a deal rolls around. For instance (now expired), there were great deals for 17" laptops at 30-40% off what TFA paid:
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/913148 [fatwallet.com]
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/912911 [fatwallet.com]
Of course, if you are incapable of that kind of patience, preferring instant gratification, then Dell is more than willing to charge you a lot more if you are foolish enough to just go to dell.com and start clicking on things. [ Slightly OT Side Story: Ever since my boss found out that I know how to work the magic dell website, I've earned huge brownie points for buying the same equipment at basically half the great educational rates offered to my university. Actually, at one point I accosted the school's Dell Rep with a printout of the various orders I put in through Dell Home and asked if they would give an educational institution the same deals available to everyone -- no points for guessing the answer. ]
Bottom line: Dell's prices are volatile and the author of TFA is totally clueless on how to best work that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I may lose points for this, but Dell offers too much choice.
I'm a Mac guy who is buying a Windows-based laptop and I find the Dell site damned confusing to get around. There are too many options, too many tiny variations on a theme.
Honestly, who knows the difference between an Intel WiFi Link 5300 (802.11a/g/n) Half Mini-card and an Intel WiFi Link 5100 (802.11a/g/n) Half Mini-card. Dell's little "? Help Me Choose" popup was no help at all. It didn't mention these products at all, but made vague references
I'm a Mac. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
and I can admit that PCs are WAY cheaper. The issue is that the pricing of Macs is completely devoid of choice. Don't need a built-in, high-res webcam? Too bad! Don't need the latest processor? We know better than you!
If you build a PC laptop like you build a Mac laptop, you may get similar prices in the end. The problem is that you can't build a Mac laptop like you *would* build a PC laptop. One good example is that when choosing a processor, often times the price of the processor will go up exponentially in relation to performance improvements. I have absolutely no need for the utmost in processor performance (everything I do is going to depend more on RAM). However, when buying my new MacBook Pro, I had to get a hefty processor with it. For almost all users (and most users aren't /. readers), processor speed isn't going to matter much. Heck, I make my living on my computer and it doesn't matter much.
It's also that there are good deals and bad deals from every PC company. So, if you cherry pick the outrageously marked up PCs against the Macs, the Macs look good. But you can also find very good PCs that are half the price.
The fact is that for under $700 I can get a Dell Vostro 1510 with the same resolution display, more RAM, but with an Intel Core 2 Duo at 1.8GHz rather than 2.4GHz. Part of the problem is that the latest processors cost a lot more for very little gains - and Apple only offers me the latest, high-margin product. Upgrading the Dell to 2Ghz bumps the price up $125 (for a measly 10% gain in clock speed). That's an about 20% increase in the WHOLE COMPUTER'S PRICE for a 10% gain - possibly an increase of 50% in the processor cost for a 10% boost.
I'm not trying to say that Apple products aren't worth the cost - since I shelled out $2K for one, I clearly think they are. But let's not get into a stupid "Apples are just as cheap" rhetoric match. That's like saying, "Dell costs twice as much if you buy 3 months groceries as part of the purchase". You can rig anything if people are passionate enough - and this is a situation that makes people passionate.
Apple likes to have their high margins. You have to pay up to buy Apple computers. Don't try to justify it as the same price. They aren't. I think they're worth the money, but you need to be able to objectively evaluate situations. Most people can't - they bend data to justify what they wish were true. Apples are wonderful. They aren't cheap.
All These Comparisons Are Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
These Apple vs. Dell competitions never account for the constant sales that Dell has on their products. They keep the list price relatively high so their salespeople can give "favorable pricing" to their corporate clients. Very frequently, though, Dell issues coupons good for huge discounts. You can get 10-25% off a new Dell laptop [techbargains.com] if you wait a few weeks. Apple hardly ever has huge sales.
Most rational consumers would wait a bit to save a few hundred dollars. I would love to see a comparison that took these Dell discounts into account.
Why even argue? (Score:3, Insightful)
interesting article about gross margins (Score:3, Insightful)
The Cheaper PC (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been thinking about this ad the last few days. First of all, it was essentially scripted. There is absolutely no point in going to the Apple Store first when one is looking for a 17" $1000 or below laptop. She could have checked the Apple website; shoot, she could have looked at the Apple display in the Best Buy. She could have checked craigslist or ebay for a used one, though used Apples aren't necessarily cheap either.
When Microsoft suggests that it is the OS of budget computing, well, that's a tad backhanded and self-inflicted, too. Argue as you will over the merits of Windows, there is no denying that no matter what level of system you build, you can save money by putting Linux on it. Microsoft skates here because they keep the sales channels in line and there's no hardware manufacturer who has really thrown in their lot with Linux and created a user experience that was clearly differentiated from the Windows experience the way Apple did with MacOS first and NeXT/BSD later. If someone did, that would be the winner on power and value for low cost.
It also occurs to me that if every manufacturer's Windows pc was less expensive than the Apple in its class, then wouldn't that suggest there was not an Apple tax, but a Windows discount? The more I thought about it, the more I think we may state a law. As long as Microsoft allows multiple manufacturers to assemble Windows pc, there will always be at least one brand and model that is cheaper than the Apple in its class, otherwise the price-sensitive will choose a Mac.
Think of it this way, if Microsoft could get $500 for its logo, they'd do it. Any company would. You'd do it. You'd be nuts not too. Small margins, high volumes is Plan C.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's not as customizable as a desktop, but DIY laptops are possible... http://www.tomsguide.com/us/diy-laptop-whitebook,review-1286.html [tomsguide.com]