
The price difference between Macs and PCs widens - spydez
http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2008/08/the_price_difference_between_macs_and_pcs_wid.html
======
KirinDave
Yes, they're much more expensive. But I think that saying it's the hardware is
to miss the point. People don't really think as much about the mac hardare as
much as the mac software.

And let's be honest here, smart and educated software engineers go out of
their way to buy macs when they definitely have the skills to install and run
linux. They could definitely buy a cheaper Windows PC. Unless you want to be
utterly derisive and dismissive, you can't simply say, "It's a fashion item."

People are buying macs because they want Mac OS X. Maybe instead of arguing
about how "overpriced the hardware is" or "how people love candy coating"
people in charge of competing products/projects should look into the reasons
why hen you go to a tech conference you see a sea of glowing Apple logos.
People there _are not stupid_ , and if you just dismiss their choice as such
you're going to miss out on key information.

~~~
mynameishere
_People are buying macs because they want Mac OS X_

There are about 15 people so far who have said the same thing. Maybe it's
true, but it seems to be getting a little desperate. I'd wager that many Mac
purchasers did not have a long experience with OSX before buying one, nor
could they describe in any serious way the differences between various OSes
("It just works". Memo: Windows "Just works" also). They have, however, been
exposed to the bountious fruits of Apple's marketing department, and could
tell you quite clearly the differences between "I'm a mac" and "I'm a pc".

99.99 percent of the time, using a computer, you are not using the OS but the
applications. Firefox, an IDE, a music player, an IM client, etc. These don't
vary too much.

~~~
KirinDave
> There are about 15 people so far who have said the same thing. Maybe it's
> true, but it seems to be getting a little desperate. I'd wager that many Mac
> purchasers did not have a long experience with OSX before buying one, nor
> could they describe in any serious way the differences between various OSes
> ("It just works". Memo: Windows "Just works" also). They have, however, been
> exposed to the bountious fruits of Apple's marketing department, and could
> tell you quite clearly the differences between "I'm a mac" and "I'm a pc".

Because the hacker crowd at JavaOne: known for making uninformed and
unresearched computer purchases based off marketing. Could you at least _try_
not to be derisive? Why don't you just say, "Go play with your shiny toy,
kiddo?"

> 99.99 percent of the time, using a computer, you are not using the OS but
> the applications. Firefox, an IDE, a music player, an IM client, etc. These
> don't vary too much.

Yeah, and even then I like the choices on OS X better. I prefer Adium to
Trillium, Safari to Firefox (the Safari web inspector is like firebugz, but
fast), iTunes is pretty much the standard player.

And then of course, most of my day is spent in a text editor (of which I have
a wide variety of excellent choices, from Linux standbys like emacs and vi to
modern contenders like TextMate) and a terminal.

Why is it that these things are so hard to believe. Is it that hard to
imagine?

------
yan
I find that most numbers treated as specs became less relevant, say 2-3 years
ago. Today, I want a computer that will be a pleasure to use and agree with
what I think constitutes a well-designed laptop.

Today, where even the cheapest boxes have enough horsepower to do everything I
do and more, how good I _feel_ while using the machine became more important
to me.

Those cheap PC laptops are generally more gaudy designed, feature cheaper
materials and make me feel like I'm being treated like a child. Just like you
don't pick the person you date as a simple list of pros and cons, you don't
pick a laptop via purely a tally of features.

~~~
josefresco
If you want a computer that makes you "feel good" and think PC's are 'treating
you like a child' (which is somehow possible with enclosure design), then you
should probably stick with your shiny overpriced MAC and leave the bargains
(and cheap horsepower) to us PC/Linux guys.

~~~
ardit33
I agree, even if you hate windows, a Linux box is much more cheaper than
anything mac has to offer for the same price range.

Admit it guys, mac has done a decent job in polishing the user interface,and
overrall experience, but it has done even a better job in marketing.

A good chunk of your money is buying a brand name, and contrubuting to Apple's
higher margins. While the PC world is just much more cut-throat.

~~~
axod
Before I bought a Mac, a year and a bit ago, I used Linux on a variety of
laptops. Most brands (Sony,IBM,Toshiba,Dell etc). I spent a sizable chunk of
time fighting with hardware, drivers, whatever sweeping changes the linux devs
decided to implement that broke everything...

Since owning a mac, I have the power of linux, but _it_ _just_ _works_. It's
known fixed hardware. Of course it's going to work properly.

I remember spending a day fixing the crap the linux devs piled on me when they
decided to replace /dev with the udev system or something. Then there was some
update to libc which broke _everything_ on my system. Those days aren't fun
days. I remember spending ages trying to get wifi adapters to work properly
under linux. For some, this may be enjoyable, productive work. Definitely if
you're into hardware, or trying to learn linux, but I can't imagine the
advantage of having linux on the desktop over OSX.

Obviously I have Ubuntu within parallels on my MacBook just incase I want to
have an exact server environment or something...

~~~
khill
I've been using linux exclusively for about 10 years and I can sympathize with
your experiences.

However, in the last three years I've installed linux on two laptops for work
- a Dell Inspiron at my previous job and a Lenovo T60 at my current job. In
both cases, installation was flawless, hardware was autodetected correctly,
and everything "Just Worked". That includes OpenGL, audio, and wireless. For
reference, I'm using Ubuntu.

In the last couple of years, linux installations have become much, much better
in this respect. I'm sure that people running bleeding edge hardware or using
certain components still struggle to make it work with linux. However, the
need to compile drivers and fix issues caused by updates is no longer a
guarantee when runnig linux.

~~~
lally_singh
Frankly I buy macs b/c they're vendor-supported unix boxes.

Outside of my personal gripes with Mach-O, it's a pretty good unix.

~~~
cypress-hill
who the hell needs the "vendor"?

i can get better unbiased advice out of online forums. even after going to
freebsd i continued to use ubuntuforums, because the advice tended to be
great. the arch wiki also rules.

i would rather use a forum or irc then call some dipshit on the "vendor"
support line. all i want from a hardware vendor is a sane warranty. otherwise
they can keep their worthless phone monkeys

~~~
axod
The reason is that Apple _guarantee_ that OS X, will work with their hardware.
If it doesn't, they better fix it quick, or risk the wrath of everyone.

With Linux, you might have some unsupported hardware, and that's that. Your
choice is either to write drivers yourself, wait until someone else does, or
buy different hardware.

------
iigs
The article takes it on faith that the current margins Apple has can't last.
Maybe I missed the part of the article where they back that up, but overall it
seems like Apple's done a bang-up job selling (the perception of) lack of
computing misery for a premium. If people want to pay extra to have the
experience debugged for them out of the box, good for them, and great for
Apple.

That quoted blurb from Wilcox about the Apple announcement of dropping product
margins ignored the other parts of that announcement, when they also said they
were planning on releasing a new product. Maybe the Macbook is staying
upmarket and the new product is going to be a low cost / high volume machine
that would eat into the cheaper machine segment.

It would actually be quite novel (for the PC business) if Apple was intending
to invest in their brands and move them up and out instead of down and out.
The Mac Pro (formerly known as a Power Macintosh), as a nearly $3k, 8 core
Xeon desktop, has been positioned as an ultra-premium product that is suitable
for only the highest level users, the MacBook Pro (formerly known as a
PowerBook) is holding the cost line and too expensive for anybody but
professional users or monied geeks. The MacBook is currently the laptop a non-
geek would buy, but Apple has not addressed the lowest mobile market segment,
which probably should be considered the sum of the cut-rate laptop market and
the eeepc-type market.

This is a pretty common strategy in the automobile industry. The current Honda
Civic is larger than the first generation Honda Accord. The Honda Fit slots
into place where the Civic used to be. Honda has spent decades moving brands
upward, keeping them relevant to their customer base and fixing segment gap
with new vehicles that are the right size and marketed toward the appropriate
people.

It's nice to see a tech company market their products more like major
investments (Honda Pro) than like disposable consumer goods (Gillete Mach 8
Vostro 2100xblqi).

tl;dr: Apple cares about their brand -- don't expect to see a $500 MacBook,
Apple probably will create a new product to combat the threat in the article.

------
mace
<disclaimer>I am not a Mac fanboy.</disclaimer>

The argument in the article is flawed for two reasons:

1\. Windows Vista needs more hardware to accomplish the same thing as Mac OS
X. For example, I can get a along fine with 2 gigs of memory on a MacBook
while it would be excruciating to run Vista with anything less than 4 gigs.

2\. Generally what you are paying for when you buy a Mac is the experience.
The fact that a _growing_ number of consumers are still willing to buy Macs
given the price difference reinforces this. Macs have always been a great
demonstration of the synergy between hardware and software.

The article would have more merit if the author discussed the cost, in time
and money, of performing a task (ex. create a document) on a PC or Mac.

~~~
Oompa
I don't agree with the first statement. My mom's laptop has 1 GB of RAM is
performs just fine, even when I had to use it. Granted, she doesn't do much
but play a few very low demanding games (Zuma), browse the internet, and chat
on Skype.

------
jimbokun
I wonder how the screens compare.

I know when I bought my MacBook Pro, it had a higher pixel density than most
PC laptops with similar screens, and that got lost in a lot of comparisons.
Slimness and weight are sometimes also overlooked. PC notebooks equally slim
or light as the Mac equivalent are often more expensive than the Mac model.

Does that $699 PC have equal or better pixel density to the equivalent Mac
model? Is it as skinny?

(I honestly don't know. It's been about 3 years since I last looked.)

~~~
halo
I bought a Dell M1330. It is:

* Lighter than the Macbook (but there's not much in it)

* Same screen resolution (1280x800)

* Slot-loading disc drive, but with a DVD Writer

* Nvidia 8400M compared to Intel X1300 graphics

* Had 1gb more memory

* Had 40gb bigger hard disk drive

It does, however, lack 802.11n, and the Macbook is marginally prettier. The
kicker is that the M1330 was £130+ cheaper than the Macbook equivalent even
after factoring in the educational discount.

There really is no way of spinning it - Apple's hardware is, and always has
been, comparatively expensive, and in exchange you get Mac OS X. Apple has
never competed on price. If one day I can afford to spend £700+ on a laptop
I'd certainly consider buying a Mac but until that point I'm happy with my
mid-spec PCs.

~~~
nickb
But it doesn't run MacOS X which means you can't run all the Mac apps.

~~~
halo
If you read, I did actually say that.

FWIW, I intend to install some flavour of Linux (likely Ubuntu) when I get
around to it. All the applications I use tend to be multiplatform these days
so I'm OS neutral - there's honestly no application on any platform that I'm
reliant on and I like it this way.

~~~
ojbyrne
I'm reliant on being able to test in as many browsers as possible, and
unfortunately, this is where I run into the not quite dead monopoly, because I
still have to test stuff in IE. And yes, I can run it on my mac, but I still
have to buy a copy of, sadly, Vista. I dislike intensely having to pay that
monopoly rent.

~~~
halo
If it helps, Microsoft provide free Virtual PC images of IE6, IE7 and IE8 for
compatibility testing. Only downside is they time expire after a few months
when they provide a new version and you'll need to convert the virtual machine
to another format to run it on Mac or Linux.

Download from
[http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=21E...](http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF&displaylang=en)
and info on converting them can be found at
<http://blog.mozmonkey.com/2008/vpc-ie6-ie7-ie8-on-mac-os-x/> (it suggests you
can use Zipeg to decompress the files meaning a Windows PC isn't required at
all).

~~~
ojbyrne
And a few hours later, I can verify that it works quite nicely too. Again,
thanks very much.

------
lally_singh
Note that this follows a standard fallacy: comparing circuitry alone. You're
not buying a motherboard, RAM, and disk, you're buying a whole machine.

For example, the Inspiron 518 that they mentioned was a cheap plastic tower,
and they compare it to the integrated iMac. The integration is going to add
cost, no matter who builds it.

Apples to apples folks, apples to apples.

When I do comparisons, here's what I usually find:

1\. When you find the same build quality (e.g. a macbook pro versus upper-end
thinkpads or dells (I don't remember their naems)), the prices get pretty
close

2\. At an update, the macs are slightly cheaper. But the PC vendors quickly
adapt. Then the macs are more expensive (usually ~$100).

3\. To do fair comparisons, you have to also match in the software/accessories
included. Lots of stuff free on either platform has to either be given credit
or be matched.

4\. You usually don't want everything included. But, for the sake of
intellectual honesty, you have to make the comparisons fair.

5\. Complaining that Apple offers poor selection or customization options are
perfectly fair.

~~~
netcan
According to the article's links (& I think this might be fairly accurate), we
are on the 'mac is high' end of that swing. Ant this time it's higher more
then a $100 difference.

------
rbanffy
A Ferrari can be four times as expensive as a Corvette. News at 11.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. Average selling price is a terrible
comparison tool - it only works for very similar products that cater to the
same public. While I am not a Mac user (I am, but my main computer is a PC
running Linux and the Mac is used mostly at home), I have the deepest respect
for the product and I understand fully it's not the same as a more mundane
Dell PC.

------
Mistone
I'm more than happy to see info like this come out and put apple in its place
as an expensive computer.

I was shocked at the low prices and great hardware I've been seeing on PCs
compared to Macs. If this forces apple to be less stingy with hardware specs
on macs then its a good thing. Its great that apple is going so well but i
care far, far, far less about their bottom line than mine and other consumers.

------
wheels
Mac is the first computer maker that has succeeded in making computers a
fashion item. They get to charge extra for being the in name-brand.

~~~
gaius
Obviously you were never a schoolboy in England in the 1980s. Sinclair, Acorn,
Commodore, these brands were more hotly contested by the nerds than football
teams or pop bands ever were by the cool kids...

~~~
nuclear_eclipse
I believe he meant that Mac is the first company to make computers and devices
fashionable to _everyone who isn't a nerd_. There's a big difference. It's now
"cool" and "hip" for any set of mainstream consumers to own a Mac/iPod/iPhone,
while it's never really been "cool" to own any sort of Windows machine, except
in tiny little crowds of geeks and nerds.

------
startingup
Let me be a contrarian here. I have both a Mac and a Windows PC right here on
my desk. I use the Windows XP machine far more often (and not because of any
apps I cannot get on a Mac).

Before you flame me as a Windows nut, keep in mind that my first computer was
a Mac, and I started on Windows after 2 years of Mac.

I am fairly certain I am not alone, but most Windows users are the silent
types.

------
drmark
I bought my mac because I wanted OSX, I write software. I'm shocked at how
many of my friends that bought a PC with Vista say it's utterly horrible. I'm
happy I chose to switch given that common sentiment.

------
LKM
It's always the same. Apple introduces new Mac, it's priced competitively.
Apple waits a year until it releases a new version and doesn't cut price while
other manufacturers release new versions, so the Mac becomes comparatively
more expensive as time goes by. Then, Apple releases a new Mac, and the cycle
starts anew. Repeat annually. There's really no need to write these "Apple is
cheaper" "Apple is more expensive" articles twice each year.

------
niqolas
Face it – arguing over computers is futile.

Certain characteristics simply hold more value to some individuals over
others, which is why some people choose to share their lives with blondes and
others with brunettes or redheads. Similarly, some people choose to have Macs;
while others choose Windows or Linux.

Suggestions that WomanA is "better" than WomanB are incredibly subjective e.g.
a 5/10 to you might be a 10/10 to someone else. Although such suggestions can
promote passionate discourse (as in this thread), inevitably the arguments
that ensue end in deadlock - where you realise that no matter how much you
argue, you and your critics will never see eye to eye.

Quoting hardware specifications is like saying "she's an X out of 10” and
running Windows, Linux or OSX is like preferring blondes, brunettes or
redheads.

Hackers, it’s time to agree to disagree - because we all like to think we’re
spending our lives with babes.

------
jessewmc
The notebooks really are price-competitive, especially right after a refresh.
People compare numbers saying "oh I can get this from dell with the same
processor and memory and harddrive for half the price!" but neglect several
things:

-Almost all those inexpensive PCs are significantly heavier than the macbook.

-The screens are not as good as the macs, at all. Even at the same resolution the macs have better backlighting and better color & contrast.

-The macs have better battery life.

Show me a PC that weighs 5 lbs or less, gets 5 hrs of battery life and has a
screen as nice as the macbook for the same or less money. They don't exist.

You can get a Sony with all these qualities except the price.

You can get a Dell with all these qualities except the battery life and nice
screen. (Or you can get a nice screen in a machine that weighs 6+lbs and still
has terrible battery life).

You can get a Lenovo with all these qualities but the screens are awful.

And so on.

------
ojbyrne
One of the things that makes these comparisons annoying is the multiple
versions of Vista (is Home Premium really comparable to OSX? I don't actually
know) I think they do that just so they can have a positive showing on these
checklist comparisons, but it ends up hurting the consumer, who has to make
uninformed choices and ends up being dependent on slimy salespeople. In
addition, developers also have to deal with multiple versions, which must be a
support nightmare.

It's a classic example of marketing directives (market segmentation and
looking good in these price/feature comparisons) hurting the overall product.

------
jrockway
It's easy to find price differences when you compare the wrong specs. In their
example, they compare a 19" LCD with no viewing angle, slow updates, etc. with
a 20" one of better quality. Yeah, that's going to cost more. You can't
compare the 20 to 19 and assume they are the same; there are lots of different
20" panels and lots of different 19" panels.

Anyway, I still think my Thinkpad is much nicer looking than any Apple laptop.
(Oh, and it's more expensive than a Dell. It must be some sort of conspiracy
between Apple and Lenovo, yeah, that's it!)

~~~
william42
I agree about the Thinkpad being better than any Apple laptop--both in looks
and the fact that unlike Macs the Thinkpad has a nipple.

------
csl
Funny thing, I just discussed this with a friend. We are both mac users. I
think they are overpriced if you compare hardware only, but he maintained that
if you compare the hw specs on the best MacBook pro with an HP laptop, you
only save like 40 bucks (at least in this part of the world).

Anyone got numbers?

------
plinkplonk
fwiw here in India the Macs have a 33% surcharge for some reason ( The dealers
say "customs duty", though PC prices track international prices pretty well -
something strange is going on). This makes the macs _way_ more expensive than
an equivalent PC.

------
menloparkbum
I flagged the article and downvoted everyone who has made a comment because
Mac vs. PC flamewar at #1 on Hacker News is sad.

~~~
jcl
I agree that a flamewar would be sad, but I don't think this conversation has
devolved to one yet. Many of the comments cite facts, give both pros and cons
of Mac/PC, and are related to the claims in the article.

~~~
Herring
There isn't much of a discussion imo. The people who like it still like it,
the people who don't won't. As for me, I've been meaning to try out Time
Machine & ZFS so I just started up my OSx86 torrent.

~~~
comatose_kid
No ZFS in Leopard.

~~~
Herring
Well I hear it can read/write ZFS & I'm getting solaris too.

~~~
Zev
A bland OS X install can't write to a ZFS partition yet. You could try
prereleases of ZFS for Mac from <http://zfs.macosforge.org> if you want write
support. However, it doesn't let you boot to a partition with ZFS or index the
partition with Spotlight. There's a few other limitations as well - look
around the trac wiki and you should find the list pretty easily.

------
TrevorJ
That makes me sad :-(

------
qqq
While I don't deny he has a point, average selling prices are not a very fair
metric. Mac buyers more often care about computers, want a higher end one, and
allocate a larger budget to their computer.

~~~
henning
Correct.

How much is it worth to you to have a machine that is beautiful to look at and
which has as few extraneous cables as possible? For many people, the answer is
"very little" and those are the people cheap Dell grey boxes are for.

On the other hand, if you want, say, a sub-$1000 laptop (just something for
email and net browsing on the go), Apple can't help you at all, and in that
regard price comparisons are kind of irrelevant: you can pick up a Dell laptop
for $600 that probably wouldn't be enjoyable for heavy everyday work but is
fine for the casual use most people intend on when they purchase a machine.

~~~
Retric
For 820$ you can get a Dell Inspiron 1525 with: Intel Core 2 Duo @2.16GHz, 4GB
ram, 15.4 inch display (1680x1050), and a 320GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM).
(<http://www.notebookreview.com/dellCoupon.asp>)

What more do you need for heavy everyday work?

~~~
henning
You can't add in a decent video card (the integrated X3100 is garbage), for
one thing.

~~~
scw
As much as I prefer discrete graphics, the X3100 is actually quite good. Good
enough to be the only video option for the Macbook Air, Macbook, Thinkpad X300
and Thinkpad 61s all well received laptops.

------
weegee
Yet another Apple-bashing article. Really, I thought HN was above this crap,
this kind of submission is better on Reddit or Digg...

Cmon folks, get real. Most of the people who buy Macs want OSX, they aren't
even considering a Windows machine. And this article had deliberate mis-prints
on the Apple specs, for example the iMac has a Core 2 Duo processor, not the
older Core Duo.

When I bought my MacBook Core 2 Duo laptop in December, 2006, I went to
Dell.com and the exact same machine spec'd out to a few hundred more for the
Dell vs. what I got with my Mac.

Apple does indeed have an entirely new laptop line planned and rumors say they
will be introduced in September. And they also say the Apple laptops will have
entirely new Intel processors in them.

I can run Windows and OSX on my MacBook, very useful really. But I only run
Windows to play games, I get my real work done on the Mac. :-)

~~~
cpach
_"I thought HN was above this crap"_

Who reads TFA? ;-)

I'm here for the comments.

