Originally Posted by UltimateKylie
You forget to mention that those two tuners are cablecard tuners which are a complete rippoff because Cable Labs (or whatever the name) makes them be that way. Those things would sell at about $200 a piece if not more. Again, Apple doesn't compete in the home theatre area directly (Though it sorta does with the AppleTV).
Uh...yes, I agree. This is one reason why Apple hasn't bothered to deal with turning either the Mini or aTV into a DVR. The other is, of course, iTunes.
If you look at the areas it does compete directly, such as notebooks and you look at sizes 13 to 18" (Since Sony doesn't have a 17" but does have 16" and 18" 16:9 displays) you will see as I pointed out that the prices are cheaper and you can get graphic/processors just as good as what Apple offers but at a lower price point. Alot of them come base with Intel Graphics but can be upgraded for $100-200 to nVidia or ATI. The one in this advert which is 16.4" comes default with ATI 3650 which benchmarks within a few points of the nVidia 9650 in the Macbook Pro.
You do realize that neither Sony nor Apple wishes to make head to head comparisons particularly easy right?
One such area that makes the comparison more complicated is that Sony is using 1920x1080 panels and Apple is using 1920x1200 panels.
Does it really make that much a difference? Kinda sorta...my 24" Dell monitor and my 17" MBP display have the same pixels and same usable work space. The 1080 panel is a bit shorter.
Worth a $350 dollars between the 18" VAIO and the 17" MBP? Nah, but that with OSX is.
The desktop are more about the same price. But my point has ALWAYS been about notebooks (which is a bigger market) and there EVERY model is cheaper if you count out the 11" and 13.1" with 1600x900 display.
If you count out Sony's high end offerings of course they are cheaper. Ignoring the Z and TT models is ignoring a large part of Sony's actual profit margins.
Sure they are more consumer orientated. But taking the most expensive Macbook Pro which is 17" and compare the 16.4 FW and you will see its much cheaper:
Sure. Of course, the AW is probably more comparable but lets not pick that one.
Apple Macbook 13" vs Sony Vaio SR
Lets actually start with the SR closest to the lowest end MB:
SR with 2.0Ghz C2D, GMA4500, 160GB HDD, 2GB DDR2 RAM, Vista Home - $1099
MB with 2.0Ghz C2D, 9400M, 120GB HDD, 2GB DDR2 RAM, OSX - $999
About the same. But hey, lets not consider the 13" white MB.
Now lets look at the 2.4 Ghz MB vs Z.
Z with 2.4 Ghz C2D, 9300M, 250GB HDD, 2GB DDR3 RAM, Vista Home - $1699
MB with 2.4 Ghz C2D, 9400M, 250GB HDD, 2GB DDR3 RAM, OSX - $1599
But hey, lets not compare the MB to the Z with the same DDR3 chipset because...then your argument would be far less compelling.
Yes, Sony makes less expensive laptops. But again...comparing the same laptop (when you can) between Apple and Sony and they come out about the same.
When you pick laptops with older generation tech against ones with newer generation tech and say "Hey it's cheaper" you're right. But not so honest. Whatever you may think of the advantages of the DDR3 memory Sony has elected to use it for their high end 13" laptop. As has Apple. And like Apple, their lower end 13" machines continue to use the older DDR2 memory.