Most Mac Owners Also Own a Windows PC, But Not Vice Versa 814
Barence writes "More than eight out of ten Mac owners also own a PC, according to a new piece of research. The NPD survey found that 12% of US computer-owning households have a Mac. However, 85% of those also own a Windows PC, suggesting that the Mac/PC divide is nowhere near as clear cut as both Apple and Microsoft suggest. Mac owners are also far more likely to have multiple computers in the house. Two thirds of Mac owners have three or more computers in the home, while only 29% of PC owners have two or more PCs."
CALLING CAPTAIN OBVIOUS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, I could have deduced that most PC users DON'T also have a Mac. How? Maybe the bloody marketshare? Appologies for the US-centric market data [i4u.com], but I'm sure Apple is less than double-digit in the ROTW.
This is really a story in search of a topic, isn't it? :-)
Re:CALLING CAPTAIN OBVIOUS! (Score:5, Insightful)
No kidding... even from the fanboy front, supporters can easily call out that this is just a natural progression of all the "switchers" out there.
After all, just because you buy a new computer (in this case a Mac), doesn't mean you simply toss out the old one. You give it to the kids, leave it loafing around the house for specific tasks you hadn't transferred to the Mac yet, keep it around for the occasional PC game you don;t want to get rid of, use it for backing up your Mac (e.g. you copy stuff from new laptop to the old desktop), etc.
Re:CALLING CAPTAIN OBVIOUS! (Score:5, Funny)
You give it to the kids
you give kids a Windows computer?!!! You are a monster!
Re:CALLING CAPTAIN OBVIOUS! (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe TFA's point, which the headline fucked over, is that most primary Mac owners also own a secondary Windows machine but most primary Windows users don't own *any* kind of secondary computer, even a Windows one.
In fact, if one were a bit fanboyish about it one could say that it's proof Windows is a more complete OS than OSX, as the owners of the latter still need a Windows machine by their side, whereas Windows users have their needs satisfied by it alone. Though of course that's ignoring the myriad of other factors affecting it, such as household income as noted by TFA, but it should serve to illustrate why is it Slashdot-worthy news.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another perspective might be that Mac users are connoisseurs of the the OS, preferring to taste multiple experiences, and are far more proficient at the tools unique to each platform, whereas pure windows users are, well unilingual.
Horribly misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a survey about households, not individual owners, so the fact that most Macs exist in households that also have Windows machines is largely just an expected result of Microsoft's high market share. Even if one person in a household has a Mac, others are statistically like to have Windows machines because, statistically, most people have Windows machines.
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
While that is true, there's certainly people who like to have a second pc for other purposes too. If you have a mac, you probably get Windows for its apps and especially games. Most people who have Linux PC (either as a server or a desktop) probably have a Windows PC too because you can't really do everything with Linux. I have a Windows pc and a linux server. I would probably have a Windows pc too if I had only a mac.
You have a point with the household's share, but it certainly counts for individuals too, only a bit less.
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:5, Funny)
... because you can't really do everything with Linux.
(voices hush, piano stops playing)
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:5, Funny)
Do I need to have Javascript enabled to hear voices and piano on slashdot?
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:5, Interesting)
A few people I know have Mac laptops even though they primarily use Windows PCs. I even know a couple of dudes who bought Macbooks and then installed Windows on them, for the shiny case I suppose. Even my friend who is Apple Or Die (tm) and buys everything that ever comes with an Apple logo has a Windows box running. I've been looking at getting a cheap Mac (relatively cheap; we're still talking Apple here) for iPhone development on a supported platform versus a VM or Hackintosh, but I sure as hell wouldn't use a Mac as my primary computer for the same reason.
For a lot of us to do what we use our computers to do, running anything other than Windows is a matter of convenience or personal preference, but running Windows is a requirement. At the same time there are certainly plenty of people who can get by just using a Mac, but most of them could get by on an eMachine just fine and so have no reason other than personal aesthetics to drop the extra coin.
Re:Horribly misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
If we assume that 15% of people have a mac and the other 85% have a windows (I know, a terribly insulting assumption on Slashdot!), and that everyone's computer choice is independent of the other computers in their household, then statistically a 2 computer household with 1 mac will have an 85% chance of having at least one windows computer. A 3 computer household - almost 98%. Likewise, a 2 computer household with 1 windows computer is only 15% likely to have at least on
Re: (Score:2)
What, exactly, is misleading about that?
Do you think your statistical hand-waving means anything? You don't even know how many people are in the typical household, much less how many are financially independent. But never let reality get in the way of a good fanboy rationalization. (Mac owners tainted with sin! No! It can't be! That's impossible!)
Statistic (Score:5, Funny)
This count dual-booting Macs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just sayin'
Quite simple really (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes perfect sense..... (Score:2)
Doesn't make sense to just throw them out though.... yet
So... (Score:2)
People who have both a mac and a windows PC are more likely to have more then one PC?
Gosh, the shock! Can society survive this revelation? The pope is calling for calm, islamic jihadist are calling it a crime of the west. More at eleven, stay tuned!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most research isn't done to discover something shocking... its so that someone can say with some certainty that X is true.
Sure this research tells us what we already knew... sure it's stupid that someone was paid to do the research... but even if you "knew" it before, assuming this study was done properly, you can now say you KNOW it for certain.
What this does though is throw the numbers out of wack. If Apple claims ~10% marketshare, and Windows claims ~90%, but there is overlap in most Apple households, y
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what they said. They said people who have a mac are likely to have multiple computers. In fact, 85% of them also have a Windows PC.
Yeah, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
How many Linux households have a token Windows box? There are good reasons to keep a Winders box around for the occasional piece of Windows only software (I use mine for video editing) but there isn't as much compelling Mac software. And you might buy a PC that already has Windows on it and it's a pretty popular gaming platform. So there are several paths to a token PC.
In video editing, the Mac app would probably be FCP. But a full price copy of FCP is over $1,000, plus you have pay through the wazzoo for the hardware. There are several Windows NLE's that rival FCP in features and undercut it in price. And, if you have a PC for any of the other reasons outlined above, that makes the Apple investment that much less attractive.
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Any true followers of Linus would consider it a sin to allow such an evil as Microsoft Windows into their home, how dare you speak such filth... your Windows machine must be exercised immediately, let me if you need a High Priest of Linux to assist or some information about a 12 step program that can help.
Honestly though, I don't run a single Windows machine in my home... unless you count my work laptop that I only use to VPN into work. I made it a point to remove all Windows machines in an effort to force
I have both... (Score:3, Insightful)
...unfortunately. One of them has proven itself to be much cheaper to maintain (basically zero dollars), and with the ability to continue using it even after 10 years of age. I won't say which one, because I don't want to get flamed, but I bet you can guess.
Re: (Score:2)
The Amiga?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it a Commodore 64?
Re:I have both... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well at least you can still "do things" on a ten-year-old PC (with Win98, or upgraded to XP), whereas a ten-year-old Mac is completely unsupported. You can't even find any third party software.
Even a 5-year-old Mac is difficult to keep up-to-date, since Apple is so quickl to obsolete old hardware and thereby force its users to go buy new equipment.
Uh oh... here come the Apple fans with pitchforks.
that's my big gripe with the Mac (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a Powerbook G4, bought a year or so before the Intel Macs came out, so it's, what, 5 years old? There's nothing wrong with it at all, but it's had its last OS upgrade, because Steve won't release Snow Leopard and followon versions for PowerPC Macs. And even before that, Apple started crippling versions of the iLife products for PowerPC Macs. It really pisses me off that a computer that's otherwise fine is doomed to obsolescence years before it either became too slow to use or physically broke.
10 years, well, that's maybe pushing things as far as I'm concerned. I've got a Windows box of that vintage too (upgraded to XP at some point in its life). It's so behind the times that I just don't find it that useful anymore. I do like to wring as much use from my machines as I can, but at some point I do want to replace them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why don't you ask those who bought Windows on non-Intel architectures how well Microsoft helped them once they decided that they were no longer pertinant for their bottom line? Hell, why don't you ask them how bad their support was for during the period microsoft pretended to give them sup
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
5 year old Mac hard to keep up to date?!
What crack are you smoking and where can I get it.
A 5 year old Mac would be something sold in 2004 (2009-5 = 2004), so that would be models like the iBook G4 (1Ghz), PB 12", iMac G5 (slim white - same case as the 1st gen intel iMac), Powerbook 15" G4 (1Ghz to 1.5Gz), Powermac G5 and Xserve G5.
I have 3 Macs in that range (Powerbook 15" 1.5Ghz, iBook G4 and iMac G5 1.8Ghz.
The Powerbook G4 is running on my desk *right now* with the latest version of 10.5 on it, running j
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you sure all the features of OSX are intact and working with your PPC unit?
I bought a PPC Mac to test Java compatibility after a number of people complained that my apps weren't working on the Mac. I would have been better off buying a paperweight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
Mac owners more computer literate? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No all it implies is that Mac owners have more *money* than the average Windows user. Which we already know, because they own a Mac.
Your logic fails. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, no, it doesn't. There is not enough information to come to that conclusion.
One could also conclude that Mac owners need Windows based PCs because the Macs don't do everything the owner needs.
Or, one could conclude that Mac owners own more computers because are more affluent and they can.
Or, one could conclude that Mac owners own Macs because they are more affluent and can.
Also, there is no indication of the number of PCs versus the number of Macs in multi-computer house-holds nor the age of the respective computers. If someone owns two new PCs and one only Mac, what does that say about the owner? What if one has one Mac for one of one's children, but everyone else uses Windows PCs?
There is not enough information provided to come to any conclusion other than what is stated in the write-up.
you have no logic (Score:3, Insightful)
The point was that owning two platform increases computer literacy because they have
My setup (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if my setup is typical as a long time Mac user? Primary machine is a Macbook Pro that I only boot into Windows whenever I want to play games. An old PPC G5 that still soldiers on connected to the TV in the bedroom, and then a couple of super cheap Hackintoshs for family use: a Dell Mini 9 and dual bootPC desktop, and then a bunch of old Mac laptops and desktops that have been given out to family members.
Going forward, it looks like that will be the template. One "real" Macintosh, a Macbook, for primary use and Hackintoshs and hand me down Macs for the rest of the family.
There's no "switching" going on (Score:5, Insightful)
I never got people who were talking about using a Mac as "switching". Like you would suddenly not use the operating system you have been using for the past 20 years by buying a computer that runs something different.
I don't know a lot of people who are devoted to a single platform. Most people I know use one OS on their desktop, something else on their notebook, something else on their phone etc. So when someone buys a Mac, they just add that platform to the list of systems they were already using. There's no reason to stop using all of your other stuff because a Mac got into the house.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to drink the kool-aid!
Re:There's no "switching" going on (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, I think it's about time to let go of your DOS 4.01 system and upgrade.
Of course more than one computer! (Score:3, Funny)
When it breaks, how would you google how to fix it?
"Mac/PC divide"? (Score:2)
Can somebody remind what the difference in hardware there is between a Mac and a PC these days. Shiny white plastic boxes don't count. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Open Firmware.
As I understand it, It's the bit that means Windows doesn't run without help.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but that doesn't help. We're asking for a difference between a Mac and a PC and you just told us how they're alike! ;)
I kid, I kid. :)
Re: (Score:2)
They make low-end PCs with all sorts of crappy hardware. They do not make low-end Macs.
Re:"Mac/PC divide"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Mac/PC divide"? (Score:4, Interesting)
So? (Score:4, Informative)
These findings are pretty un-surprizing. Did anyone really think that computer owners could only own one computer at a time, or would typically own only one platform?
Mac owners tend to have a lot of money. They probably have an older PC or two laying, because they still work. Or, perhaps the Mac is older, and they bought a cheap new PC to run games and Windows applications. Newer Mac owners likely run OS X and Windows on the same hardware, if they run Windows at all. But if they have an older PC sitting around, they probably still have it and use it occasionally, or let other family members use it, etc.
The whole "fanboi only uses $platform" thing is probably overblown, with highly visible zealots who only use one platform being much more vocal and visible than those who work on both platforms.
So what they are really saying is.. (Score:5, Funny)
Not really (Score:5, Funny)
Most of us are just iCurious.
Does VMWare count? (Score:4, Informative)
I have only Mac hardware at home, but I do have VMWare Fusion for the extremely rare occasion I need a Windows machine.
I bootcamp'ed my Intel-based Macs on the thought that I would perhaps need to use the machine as a pure Windows box once in awhile, but that hasn't happened; I've been surprised to find that between what I can do on a website, or what Java can provide, or what developers have been good to provide both a Mac as well as Windows version, there's nothing so exclusive to Windows that I've needed to run Boot Camp. If anything, there's just a couple of programs I use for development written in Delphi of all things that are exclusive to Windows.
Math (Score:5, Informative)
Need help with Mac problem... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a Mac Pro with two 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processors and 6GB of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Warcraft will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Safari is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2x 2.26Ghz 8-core machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
Hey, that's us! (Score:5, Interesting)
Our house has had Windows, Mac, and linux (ubuntu, knoppix and OLPC right now) systems for a long time now. The interesting case is my wife's machines. She has long worked for several local medical organizations (HMOs), and at work everything is Microsoft (with IBM mainframes). She has also worked part-time from home for several years now, because she gets so much more done there where the schmoozers can't reach her). So she has always had to have a Windows machine at home. She hates it, and loves her Mac(s).
But for the past year, she has no longer had a "Windows machine" at home; she just has "Windows". The reason is that she replaced her creaky old Mac Powerbook with a new iMac (with a huge screen). While talking to the folks at the Apple Store, she learned about that new "virtual" stuff, and along with the iMac, she took home disks for the software that would install a virtual XP. After it had been working for a couple of weeks, fully networked via VPN with her office network, she donated her old Windows box to me, and I reformatted it as a linux machine that's our firewall/gateway/etc.
So, while she has a Mac and a Windows machine, they're the same machine, her iMac. A couple of months ago, she decided that another laptop would be really useful, so she got a Mac Powerbook - and installed a virtual XP on it. A month ago, we were on vacation a couple thousand miles away, and she impressed the folks at work by connecting to the office network from her Mac/XP via VPN, and helped them out with some problems they were having. Actually, it didn't impress everyone, because most of the employees are Mac users at home, and several of them had already followed her lead when they got their new Macs.
There are a couple of interesting possibilities implied by this. One is that, if you like Macs but "need Windows for work", there's no need to pay for any hardware for your Windows machine. You might want to get an extra GB or two of memory, since Windows is a bit of a hog. And you'll have to learn how to get one of the Mac's several virtualization schemes to work. You will have to pay (somebody ;-) for a release of Windows. But you can run it on your Mac., and you're free of the hassle of dealing with the Microsoft-based hardware market. She has also found that the Apple Store people and online Mac forums can answer questions much better than, say, Dell Customer Support can. In a few years this might have an, uh, "interesting" effect on the PC market.
Another thing to think about is the problem of crappy security on Windows. It's hard to get a straight story on this, but there are hints that the "jail" (or "sandbox" if you prefer) that Windows runs in under OS X is significantly more secure than Windows on a bare machine. We'd like to learn more about this, because as I mentioned, my wife does computing work for medical organizations. Here in the US, people are waking up to the serious problems with the (overly slow) computerization and networkization of medical data. Some fairly stringent security requirements are being written into law for medical data. And the medical industry almost everywhere runs on MS Windows, the most insecure system on the market. It doesn't take a genius to see the problem here.
Virtualization has the potential of at least limiting the damage from the latest exploits, since Windows is run under the control of another system that has better security. We know from the history of IBM's VM system that this can be effective, assuming that the low-level system is accessible to knowledgeable developers (which isn't always true in the small-computer market). But imposing security on an insecure system that has "no user serviceable parts inside" isn't easy, so we can't really say how effective this will be.
Her management never allowed upgrading to Vista, in part because they learned about the network-update (discussed here on /. several times) that can't be disabled for some portions of the system software. They und
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the more likely to get fed up with the constant tweaking in Linux and move to a Mac.
There fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No you don't.
Here's more of this "linux sound nonsense" that creates more churn than
anything else as people listen to the idiots. ALSA did very nicely with
common desktop apps. The fact that musician wannabes might have had some
problems is not and has never really been generally relevant.
DVD playback: You will have to install this yourself if you install Windows
from scratch. It's odd that someone that claims to
Freeware has a lot to do with it (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A good portion of Windows "freeware" I've found seems to be complete crap. In addition the noise to signal ratio is rather large. There are very few closed or open source Windows applications I think are great (Putty, Lanchy & FF come to mind).
In comparison there are quite a few closed source Mac Apps I use that look like they could have been made by Apple themselves. Maybe it's Apple building the 'UI Guidelines' into XCode's interface builder that makes it easy, or the fact that most Mac developers are
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, what I took from that article is that the people most likely to gripe about Macs probably don't own one, whereas the Mac users griping about Windows are mostly speaking from personal experience.
Re:Here's why (Score:4, Interesting)
What I took from it was the people with one single PC find that one single PC can do everything they need it to do so they do not have to buy another computer. I wonder why people with a Mac typically have more than one computer and why is that computer likely a PC? They obviously need or desire the PC functionality for some reason. Don't mod down because you disagree, post a reply instead.
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I own PCs as well because I already had them before I switched to Mac. When they die or become too slow to be useful, they will not be replaced. Honestly I haven't booted my "main" PC in about 3 months, and that was just to grab some files. So, I "own" PCs, but I don't "use" them anymore. My ancient Sun E4500 sees more use than any of my PCs these days, and at this point that thing is just a power-hungry toy.
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Insightful)
A vanilla Macbook is appropriately priced for what you get. You have to buy Sony or go online to get an equivalent laptop.. if anything the problem is that Apple doesn't make CHEAP computers like $300 netbooks so that cuts out the poor/cheap folks looking only at price. Even the maligned Mac Mini is a pretty good machine for MOST sub $700 machine buyers. The majority of PC users don't open their computers over the life of the machine. The majority don't even add ram or video cards. They pay $600 for Last Year's parts in an empty plastic box that makes them feel good. A Mini has nearly all the same features as a stock Dell, plus bluetooth, two video ports and firewire... all items adding $75 more each to that "budget" PC. Again, the problem is that Apple doesn't sell a "stripped out" model to hit a lower price point like Dell does... then you find out that the Windows PC was TOO stripped out and won't use all the features of your new OS (hint: THAT is why Vista bombed.. Microsoft caving to cheap OEMs)
I'd look at these numbers differently. Most people own a PC because the workplace DEMANDS it. 12% of people that own a Mac in addition to a PC went out of their way to seek it out because they didn't like Windows.... that's a huge and growing dissatisfaction rating.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple doesn't make CHEAP computers like $300 netbooks so that cuts out the poor/cheap folks looking only at price.
Don't you think some people buy a sub $300 netbook or PC because it might meet their specific needs? I have an HP Mini that I got for free but they sell for under $250. It does what I need it and expect it to do. What am I missing out on? What am I doing on it that it is failing to perform because it is "cheap"?
I happen to look at the price of EVERYTHING I buy including a bag a frozen vegeta
Re:Here's why (Score:4, Interesting)
Even the maligned Mac Mini is a pretty good machine for MOST sub $700 machine buyers.
Ridiculous. For less than $800, I just built a Core i5 machine with 4GB of RAM, 1.2TB of hard disk, and a Radeon HD4850 video card (which can drive 2 monitors).
With some cost cutting (less RAM, fewer hard drives, cheaper video card), I could add a bluetooth dongle and match the Mac Mini on all regards...except nothing I could do would make the Core i5 as crappy as the processor in the Mac Mini.
The only thing the Mac Mini has going for it is the form factor, but if that small size isn't important, it's worth less than nothing, since the easy upgrades on even a mini-tower case are a huge advantage.
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Interesting)
Is that the only reason? I'd be staggered if the only reason PC owners don't buy Mac is because they can't afford them. How cheap do Macs need to be?
If that's true then most PCs must be of the "low end" type, Celeron rather than Core 2 Duo - right? Is that true?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I won't buy a Mac because I can't build my own system. Why bother buying some store bought computer when you can get the same thing for much less by building it yourself? In my case I saved more than 50% with my recent system build. Not even an option with a Mac.
Re:Here's why (Score:4, Informative)
If that's true then most PCs must be of the "low end" type, Celeron rather than Core 2 Duo - right? Is that true?
Absolutely true, which is why the CPU performance wars have most faded away except for hardcore gamers. Computer chips have been fast enough to do literally everything the vast majority of users want to do now for the last 5 years or more. RAM requirements have gone up in that time (on a newer OS anything under 2gb and it feels slow to me, though I have 4gb on my main machine), but I'd wager than 90% of users can't tell the difference for their tasks between any 1Ghz+ chip and the fastest quad-core on the market.
The chip makers long ago figured out that the "budget" cpu market was much higher volume (though much lower margin).
I'd bet that if Apple put out an honest to goodness budget system: small tower case, cheapo Celeron processor, 3.5" hard drive (lapop drives cost more), a regular old tray loading DVD drive, and that's it. No bluetooth, firewire, other other nonsense that the vast majority of users never use, then they'd sell them like hotcakes. They just don't want to because margins are low on such systems, and they know very well that even among their loyalists that's all most of them need, and people already paying gouged prices would flock to that system, cannibalizing their ridiculous markups.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Story tagged "No news day". Phhht.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We probably would also find that more Mac users have high-end sonic toothbrushes and Windows users have the regular kind.
Mac users are more likely to have butt plugs and jars of K-Y in the top drawers of their nightstands, too, but I'm sure that's just coincidental.
And they love show tunes and Streisand records. That's well-established.
Re: (Score:2)
what for? it's the same exact hardware. same exact intel laptop CPU's except for the Mac Pro. biggest difference is Mac's use nvidia chipsets instead of Intel due to the fact that nvidia has better integrated graphics. all the other parts are exactly the same and Mac's have used identical PC components like RAM and hard drives for decades
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
what for? it's the same exact hardware. same exact intel laptop CPU's except for the Mac Pro. biggest difference is Mac's use nvidia chipsets instead of Intel due to the fact that nvidia has better integrated graphics. all the other parts are exactly the same and Mac's have used identical PC components like RAM and hard drives for decades
You forgot things little things like machined aluminum case, dual channel wireless cards. Better quality parts add up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a bite more, give them some credit....
Just because the CPU speed in GHz, RAM size in GB, and HDD size and type are a match does NOT mean the machines are even CLOSE to equal.
Compare for example the 15" macbook pro, with the nVidia 9400GPU (base, not even the enhanced 9600M GT), to a Dell Studio 15, or to their new "flagship" machine.
The Mac has a faster system bus, included bluetooth by default, includes an enhanced multi-anteanna wireless N radio, better graphics than any Dell in even a similar price
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it has been shown to be cheaper to build your own Mac. [lifehacker.com]
I'm only addressing your Hardware comparison. In reality, there are more things that go into the value of a "computer solution" than just the hardware components: software availability/quality for your own needs, support, design/appeal, etc.
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Interesting)
The same? No. There is a markup.
However when Apple releases a new model with a new CPU/GPU/TechonologyX the markup isn't bad at all.
The problem is, the Apple stays around that price for a long time while Dell has reduced its prices and moved onto a slightly faster CPU in the same time frame. Minor speed bump here, better GPU there, price depreciation on their older stuff, etc.
Given enough time the Apple price is then viewed as ridiculous as Apple releases their products at a snail's pace compared to other companies,
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I'm reasonably certain it's been shown a number of times that if you build a PC with the exact same hardware as a Mac, you'll end up with a PC that costs about the same."
No, not even close. I build my own rigs and I've never spent as much money on my hardware as it would have cost me to buy a Mac.
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Insightful)
And the simple fact is that now Apple has switched to Intel you can buy the SAME hardware that is in a Macbook or Macbook Pro for $700- $900 or more cheaper from a Dell or HP.
No, quite frankly, the simple fact is you can't.
Whenever I see this argument, I have to wonder - how have you not noticed that Dell and HP (and most others) make both cheap laptops and expensive laptops? The cheap laptops are big, thick, and heavy. The expensive laptops are lighter and thinner. Yet they're all running Windows and have similar processor speeds and RAM amounts. If your argument had any merit, Dell's $2000 laptops should be considered "the SAME hardware" as Dell's $700 laptops. So tell me - how do they get away with this?
Here's the answer: With a laptop you pay more if you want lighter weight, thinner profile and/or better construction. The real difference between Apple and Dell (or HP or whoever) is Apple doesn't offer an equivalent to the low end, thick, heavy laptops that Dell or HP offer.
Re:Here's why (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just curious how the Mac brand would be affected if Apple added a low-end computer to their lineup. Apple currently seems to target the groups that want proof that they they are "cooler" or "more hip" than everyone else, although they surely wouldn't use those phrases. Would low end Macs completely eliminate the "cool" factor of the Apple brand, thus eliminating much of the fickle pretentious college student market, or would they be able to rely on their superior usability to keep their current markets and add new ones?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I REALLY wanted a Mac Book Pro 17", but I couldn't justify the price tag at over $2k. I was able to purchase a fully-loaded Dell XPS 15" with a 3 year warranty for around $1,500 because Dell was running a nice $400-off special
So, without the the $400-off special, a 15" Dell cost only around $100 less than a 17" Mac? You don't think the extra 2" of screen real estate on a notebook is worth at least $100?
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Insightful)
"...along with the belief that apple has that much better reliability..."
Yeah, that's why Apple consistently has the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the industry.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The idea that Mac users are buying a feature set is simply nonsense. They are buying the image:
The "look and feel" of a Mac.
The elitist culture.
Shiny white box.
Smugness.
You'll find Mac users care about Aesthetics then care about Unix or application authoring (which as the iphone attests to, is not easy).
Apple's refurbs seem to be pretty good (Score:3, Interesting)
How is purchasing someone *elses* previously broken Apple at a "20-30% discount" a good deal? I'll buy certain things referbed (routers/switches, cable modems, some audio equipment, etc), but a computer? No thank you.
I've bought a few refurbished Apple products, including Macbooks, and apart from the packaging they're indistinguishable from new - including in terms of reliability.
I have someone in my office who just returned a brand-new Toshiba laptop because "the wrist rest rubs on my wrists wrong". There's nothing wrong with it, and it will be resold by the manufacturer as refurbished. Not everything refurbished is "previously broken", and my experience has been that after the second pass through
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Informative)
I spec'ed out the xoticpc as closely as I could to the MBP 17" stock model at $2499. It came to $1218.
However, it has a 1400x900 display (vs 1920x1200), no wireless-n option, no GeForce 9400M/9600M GT graphics, no information about weight and, possibly most importantly, no information about battery life.
While it does come in significantly less expensive, I don't think that you can argue that they are equivalent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(NO PC OEM makes a perfect match)
I think we've found the basic problem with all this speculative comparison right here.
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite.
Dell offers a "tiny desktop" that is less than the Mac equivalent while having better specs.
Furthermore, this "tiny desktop" can be upgraded with much more interesting options that simply aren't available from the Apple equivalent.
The problem with the "specs games" that Apple fanboys like to play is the fact that a PC doesn't restrict you to one spec. One PC brand wont even do that.
So I can replace my 09 mini with a $200 ION or get a much more expensive Dell that will blow the doors off the Mac.
I can also get a semi-custom system for the same price as a mini that has most of what you would buy a Mac Pro for.
Macs are more expensive because Apple Corp is confident that the faithful will bend over.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Cupertino Cheerleading squad must be out in full force today.
Every time you replace a mini with an ION, a fanboy cries.
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Insightful)
The iMac uses "desktop" parts - desktop cpu, ram, hd, optical drive, screen, psu etc etc.
I think only the base iMac uses what could be called "laptop" parts - the GPU. The higher power iMacs use desktop GPUs (modest models though they may be compared to bleeding edge, 9.4kW 8-slot, LN2 cooled cards in PCs).
No, the reason a Mac costs more is that it is pitched at a different market - Apple don't sell a budget, it's part of the brand. So most of the consumer level gear is similarly priced to a budget PC+extras to match the specs - but this doesn't just mean "same RAM size, same CPU, same HD space", but includes things like "machined aluminium case" instead of "plastic case" and "firewire and camera as standard" compared to "sometimes has firewire [varies so wildly by model] and camera optional".
As with any consumer gadget, you have to decide on a personal level whether buying a Mac is worth the price of it - as many people on slashdot will tell you, for them they are overpriced and they can do better with a whitebox store and an afternoon building something to slap Ubuntu on.
It's no different to the guy who buys a slightly more expensive car than the next guy because he likes it better. Sure you have your guy who buys a car to lord it over people with cheaper cars, but most people who buy the more expensive one just happened to like it and felt the cost was worth it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here is what I got for $650 at Best Buy:
Asus U80A:
2.1 Ghz C2D
14.1" 16:9 LED 1366x768 screen
4 GB DDR2 800
320 GB Hard Drive
Integrated Intel 4500MHD Graphics
802.11n Wireless, Gigabit Wired
HDMI/VGA Out
4 lbs, 7 hour battery (6 hours normal usage with wifi +
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you buy a 13" or even 14" laptop, you're paying for the reduced thickness, size, and weight, longer battery life, and higher quality parts.
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Macs cost more because it's not the same market as Dell or [insert OEM here]. It's the same reason they don't feverishly update the processors or specs. They don't sell PCs. They sell a platform and they sell complete devices. Period. They also have a much nicer profit margin per unit than Dell.
I'm not here to defend or attack that. The financials speak for themselves. There are hundreds of morons on this site who think that Apple would just "take over" if it took the advice of said morons and did things like offer budget machines or a customizable desktop that it would be king, etc.
Mind you, I would LOVE a Mac desktop that was a real desktop and NOT an iMac and not a Mac Pro. I don't hate Apple for not releasing it though because I'm certainly not their bread and butter. (Neither are gamers and neither are people who, for the most part, really care about Hz, Bytes or tech specs.) My dad doesn't care what processor is in his MacBook Pro. My mom doesn't care about how much RAM is in her Mac Mini. All they care about is that it does what they want at a pace that's reasonable for them. I like it because, as I'm the "family IT guy" I almost never have to touch these machines.
Just because Apple doesn't meet your needs, doesn't mean their execs are stupid. Getting annoyed at Apple for what they charge and what the sell is like getting pissed off when BMW doesn't my a 4x4 pickup work truck. It's not their market. They don't care about getting into it.
If Apple doesn't meet your needs then don't buy their stuff. I have GOT to stop reading any article that's Apple related on Slashdot. It just turns in to mountains of faulty comparisons and complaints and crap on both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
...or just buy a PC.
Re: (Score:2)
...should start wondering WHY you can't afford it...
Because I have better things to spend my money on. I can put together a system that satisfies all of my needs at dell.com or using computer chunks found at pricewatch.com for a small fraction of the price.
...start planning HOW you can afford it...
No. Let's go back to WHY.
True, but trivially so (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you're spending $10 for a pocket calculator, and $1,000 for a Mac, why, you've spent a hundred times as much for the Mac! Imagine that! Dude, the point here is that Macs and ultra-low-end PCs are different products. Some are right for some people, and others are right for others. If your budget and needs are such that the cheapest possible machine from Tiger Direct is the right choice, then, as you say, more power to you. People who need/want/can afford something better are not going to bother with the cheapo machine no matter how cheap it is.
As has been pointed out (over and over), Mac pricing is quite competitive when you compare (ahem) apples to apples. Which is why Mac market share in the mid-range and high end continues to grow. The concept of competitive pricing at the ultra-low-end is N/A... because Apple has decided not to go there. Which in turn is fine for Apple shareholders, who are making money hand over fist.
Apple has (wisely, in my view) decided that they don't want to and/or can't beat the Dells of the world in making the cheapest computers. And that's ok, because making a higher quality/higher priced product is also a perfectly fine way to make a profit... it's working for Apple.
Yeah, and not only does Mac ownership lead to homelessness, but also asteroid strikes and cannibalism! I mean, come on. If I bought a computer this week and became homeless next week, I doubt the first thought on my mind would be "Alas! If only I had bought a cheap PC!". If people are that nervous about being downsized, they probably shouldn't be buying PCs either. Probably your remark was meant to be funny, but it comes across as overwrought.
Re:Here's why (Score:4, Funny)
Do you want to *support* four customers who have each put a million dollars in your pocket, or do you want to support four million people who have each put a dollar in your pocket?
This is not an issue for Apple, as Macs don't require any support...or so their ads claim.
Re:Here's why (Score:4, Interesting)
There's WAY too many assumptions in your conclusions. Just because the upper-middle class is 15% of the population and Mac ownership is 12% of computers doesn't mean that the two numbers are linked at all. Indeed my guess would be that computer ownership PERIOD (a statistic that wasn't stated) is slightly shifted towards the "upper class" side of the divide already. All in all though, all such guesses would need statistics to back them up rather than just trying to intuitively connect the dots on unrelated pieces of data.
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Funny)
Mind = blown.
Re: (Score:3)
BTW
How does one submit a comment and then mod replies to oblivion?/quote
I'm going to let you in on a secret: *I* am not the one doing the modding in such a case, but inevitably it will happen.