Apple expensive? I don't think so...

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Hello!

Quote:

... and here's the reason why.



There are three departments in computer hardware: for home use, office use and on the go. Apple offers the iMac and Mac Mini; Mac Pro; and MacBook and MacBook Pro respectively for the three departments. In this little article, I will justify the price of the Apple 17-inch iMac in comparison to a self assembled PC with similar specs and try to make you, a prospective buyer, see the competitiveness of Apple?s pricing. Read on to see how things are not always as transparent as they might seem!



I have written my first ever article on technology and wouldn't mind if a few people had a look at it. Please click on this sentence to read the article and leave a comment if possible! Thank you!

I think this is a debatable topic and I would like to know how many people disagree with me and their reason for doing so.



UPDATE: I have since updated my blog to include another post to support my Apple is not expensive theory, if you would care to have a look here:

Apple expensive? I don't think so... (part deux). Comments are open to everyone, if you are so inclined.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 38
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    (withdrawn)
  • Reply 2 of 38
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    I think it's fairly accurate but as you've discovered, you'll never convince hardcore PC users otherwise:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by varun


    The links didn't get posted properly in my previous comment, but the point i'm trying to makes is that the PC you configured cost more than the Mac because you chose laptop components rather than desktop one's.



    Plus you chose retail components which can be upto 50% more expensive than OEM one's.



    They come up with reasons like comparing desktop components to laptop ones. Well duh, it wouldn't be fair otherwise because Apple are using laptop components. Also, if you build your own PC, you have to buy the parts retail anyway.



    I think your conclusion is a fair one in that although it is possible to build a PC for less than Apple's pre-built models, they are still very competitively priced and certainly not overly expensive.



    One of them listed components which come to $972 and said your prices are way off when yours comes to $1050. I wouldn't call $75 way off because not everyone manages to get all the components at a good price. Also, the price difference between the Mac is $27. I'd be happy to pay that to save having to assemble my own.



    Home built PCs still have a place because that's the only way you will get certain components inside your computer but people need to get out of the way of thinking that Apple = expensive.
  • Reply 3 of 38
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    preaching to the choir..
  • Reply 4 of 38
    aryayusharyayush Posts: 191member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin


    I think it's fairly accurate but as you've discovered, you'll never convince hardcore PC users otherwise:







    They come up with reasons like comparing desktop components to laptop ones. Well duh, it wouldn't be fair otherwise because Apple are using laptop components. Also, if you build your own PC, you have to buy the parts retail anyway.



    I think your conclusion is a fair one in that although it is possible to build a PC for less than Apple's pre-built models, they are still very competitively priced and certainly not overly expensive.



    One of them listed components which come to $972 and said your prices are way off when yours comes to $1050. I wouldn't call $75 way off because not everyone manages to get all the components at a good price. Also, the price difference between the Mac is $27. I'd be happy to pay that to save having to assemble my own.



    Home built PCs still have a place because that's the only way you will get certain components inside your computer but people need to get out of the way of thinking that Apple = expensive.



    Ah... finally there is someone who understands what I was trying to prove. It is not so much about which hardware part costs how much, it's basically about busting the myth that Apple's products are priced far higher than self assembled PCs or pre-assembled PCs from other companies.
  • Reply 5 of 38
    Why do I get the distinct impression you're trying to sell a product...? To people who already have Macs no less... Go preach this to an PC forum.
  • Reply 6 of 38
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    I think what would convince people more is if Apple offered more choice, which is one big reason why people don't like them.



    I just went to the Dell site to see how a laptop would compare in price to the Macbook. As expected, they offer the Core Duo processor and mostly the same spec and it was coming in more expensive than Apple at £822 compared to £749.



    Then I reduced the warranty to match Apple's one year and it went down to £646. So I had some money to burn. I was then surprised to see that I could upgrade the GPU from a GMA 950 to a 128MB Radeon X1300 or a 256MB Radeon X1400.



    I put in the X1400 and the final price comes to £764. That's only £15 more than the Macbook and with a DVD burner and dedicated GPU, it makes the Apple deal look quite bad. The X1400 is around half the speed of the X1600 in benchmarks and it's the kind of thing Mac users have been expecting from Apple, not integrated GMAs.



    If I had to choose between budget gaming performance, I'd go with Dell every time. There's no way I'd go all the way up to £1400 for the MBP when £15 extra would do. I can even add a 1680x1050 screen to the Dell for £94, which is the same resolution as a 20" iMac. Only the highest end MBP lets you get that for £1900.



    Here's the spec to weigh up whether Apple can compete:



    Dell:

    1.83GHz T2400 Core Duo 667

    XP SP2

    1 year warranty

    15" 1680x1050 widescreen display

    512MB Ram

    80GB 5400 rpm

    8x DVD +/- RW

    256MB Radeon X1400

    802.11g wireless

    bluetooth 2



    Total £887



    Macbook:

    1.83GHz Core Duo

    OS X

    1 year warranty

    13" 1280x800 widescreen

    512MB Ram

    80GB 5400 rpm

    4x superdrive

    Intel GMA 950

    802.11g wireless

    bletooth 2



    Total £939



    So in this case, not only is the Dell cheaper but it has much better graphics and a much higher resolution display. This is where Apple really needs to do some work. If Apple stopped using GMA and went with low end dedicated cards for the same price, this problem would disappear. This is why the iMac looks good because it has dedicated graphics and a good price.



    If Dell can use X1300 and X1400, I don't see why Apple can't.
  • Reply 7 of 38
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    It depends what you're looking in a computer. If you're looking for an integrated system and don't mind notebook parts or the lack of certain features, Macs are very competitive. If you have a display you like and/or the lack of a card reader or full size optical drive bothers you a Mac (iMac specifically) can seem pretty pricey in comparison. The thing that seems to be lost on both the PC crowd and you guys alike is that there are two sides to every coin and everything is relative. Not everyone is looking for the same thing in a computer.
  • Reply 8 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin


    If Dell can use X1300 and X1400, I don't see why Apple can't.



    Apple cuts costs by having fewer options on computers. Also, i could be wrong, but I think Dell sells more computers than Apple, but probably doesn't spend as much in marketing or R/D. Apple sells at the price it wants to and takes the margin it wants to, in this case balancing higher expenses like marketing and research/development with lower expenses from a simpler assembly line.



    Also, top of the line graphics cards are only really needed for advanced video work, which is a small piece of the pie, and video games, which is thoroughly dominated by the PC market, and will always be. Every year new games require new graphics cards, and the PC's upgradeablility will always be the deciding factor to hardcore gamers.
  • Reply 9 of 38
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    One poster did get something that you ignored. You are taking Apple's price for a video camera, and that really skews the comparison. It also assumes that a user wants a web cam. I haven't used the separate iSight, but I really don't think the built-in one is very good. As an aside, given the cost and size of the separate iSight they could have had the decency to offer a little bit of optical zoom.



    The bundling is the rub - Apple pre-loads a lot of features but you can't assume that everyone will use them all, and as such, it doesn't make sense to assume that the value to the user is the sum of the value of the parts bought separately.



    That said, it's a very nice system provided that it fits your needs.
  • Reply 10 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin


    I think what would convince people more is if Apple offered more choice, which is one big reason why people don't like them.



    I just went to the Dell site to see how a laptop would compare in price to the Macbook. As expected, they offer the Core Duo processor and mostly the same spec and it was coming in more expensive than Apple at £822 compared to £749.



    Then I reduced the warranty to match Apple's one year and it went down to £646. So I had some money to burn. I was then surprised to see that I could upgrade the GPU from a GMA 950 to a 128MB Radeon X1300 or a 256MB Radeon X1400.



    I put in the X1400 and the final price comes to £764. That's only £15 more than the Macbook and with a DVD burner and dedicated GPU, it makes the Apple deal look quite bad. The X1400 is around half the speed of the X1600 in benchmarks and it's the kind of thing Mac users have been expecting from Apple, not integrated GMAs.



    If I had to choose between budget gaming performance, I'd go with Dell every time. There's no way I'd go all the way up to £1400 for the MBP when £15 extra would do. I can even add a 1680x1050 screen to the Dell for £94, which is the same resolution as a 20" iMac. Only the highest end MBP lets you get that for £1900.



    Here's the spec to weigh up whether Apple can compete:



    Dell:

    1.83GHz T2400 Core Duo 667

    XP SP2

    1 year warranty

    15" 1680x1050 widescreen display

    512MB Ram

    80GB 5400 rpm

    8x DVD +/- RW

    256MB Radeon X1400

    802.11g wireless

    bluetooth 2



    Total £887



    Macbook:

    1.83GHz Core Duo

    OS X

    1 year warranty

    13" 1280x800 widescreen

    512MB Ram

    80GB 5400 rpm

    4x superdrive

    Intel GMA 950

    802.11g wireless

    bletooth 2



    Total £939



    So in this case, not only is the Dell cheaper but it has much better graphics and a much higher resolution display. This is where Apple really needs to do some work. If Apple stopped using GMA and went with low end dedicated cards for the same price, this problem would disappear. This is why the iMac looks good because it has dedicated graphics and a good price.



    If Dell can use X1300 and X1400, I don't see why Apple can't.



    they should as the gma 950 uses 80 megs of ram 512-80 = to little ram.
  • Reply 11 of 38
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin


    I think what would convince people more is if Apple offered more choice, which is one big reason why people don't like them.



    I just went to the Dell site to see how a laptop would compare in price to the Macbook. As expected, they offer the Core Duo processor and mostly the same spec and it was coming in more expensive than Apple at £822 compared to £749.



    Then I reduced the warranty to match Apple's one year and it went down to £646. So I had some money to burn. I was then surprised to see that I could upgrade the GPU from a GMA 950 to a 128MB Radeon X1300 or a 256MB Radeon X1400.



    I put in the X1400 and the final price comes to £764. That's only £15 more than the Macbook and with a DVD burner and dedicated GPU, it makes the Apple deal look quite bad. The X1400 is around half the speed of the X1600 in benchmarks and it's the kind of thing Mac users have been expecting from Apple, not integrated GMAs.



    If I had to choose between budget gaming performance, I'd go with Dell every time. There's no way I'd go all the way up to £1400 for the MBP when £15 extra would do. I can even add a 1680x1050 screen to the Dell for £94, which is the same resolution as a 20" iMac. Only the highest end MBP lets you get that for £1900.



    Here's the spec to weigh up whether Apple can compete:



    Dell:

    1.83GHz T2400 Core Duo 667

    XP SP2

    1 year warranty

    15" 1680x1050 widescreen display

    512MB Ram

    80GB 5400 rpm

    8x DVD +/- RW

    256MB Radeon X1400

    802.11g wireless

    bluetooth 2



    Total £887



    Macbook:

    1.83GHz Core Duo

    OS X

    1 year warranty

    13" 1280x800 widescreen

    512MB Ram

    80GB 5400 rpm

    4x superdrive

    Intel GMA 950

    802.11g wireless

    bletooth 2



    Total £939



    So in this case, not only is the Dell cheaper but it has much better graphics and a much higher resolution display. This is where Apple really needs to do some work. If Apple stopped using GMA and went with low end dedicated cards for the same price, this problem would disappear. This is why the iMac looks good because it has dedicated graphics and a good price.



    If Dell can use X1300 and X1400, I don't see why Apple can't.



    Configure a 17" laptop at Dell and compare to Apple's 17" MBP. It's ugly.

    BTW I agree with you.
  • Reply 12 of 38
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac


    Configure a 17" laptop at Dell and compare to Apple's 17" MBP. It's ugly.

    BTW I agree with you.



    It doesn't look as nice, but at least it offers a 17" C2D for half the money, a little less money if you don't need dedicated graphics.
  • Reply 13 of 38
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM


    It doesn't look as nice, but at least it offers a 17" C2D for half the money, a little less money if you don't need dedicated graphics.



    It also offers enough size for an optional 7900GS. Apple offers ultimate style and mobility in a 17". Dell and others offer choice and power for those who don't need all the flash. People around here act if Apple's is the only way it can be done.
  • Reply 14 of 38
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig


    People around here act if Apple's is the only way it can be done.



    Virtually nobody "around here" "acts" like that.
  • Reply 15 of 38
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig


    People around here act if Apple's is the only way it can be done.





    There's the rub though. If you want to run a legit copy of OS X, then Apple's hardware is the only way that it can be done. With only one consumer notebook, there really isn't any choice.
  • Reply 16 of 38
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM


    There's the rub though. If you want to run a legit copy of OS X, then Apple's hardware is the only way that it can be done. With only one consumer notebook, there really isn't any choice.



    Which is why we're so small of a community. No way to go elsewhere and no "value brand" if you can't find what you're looking for while still keeping the OS.
  • Reply 17 of 38
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Nobody is forced to use Mac OS X. Nobody.
  • Reply 18 of 38
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker


    Nobody is forced to use Mac OS X. Nobody.



    Nobody said that anyone was forced to use Mac OS X. Nobody. At least not in this thread.
  • Reply 19 of 38
    aflaaakaflaaak Posts: 210member
    OK, Apple charges more for their hardware, or you get more for your money from Dell, bla, bla, BLA! Why? Dell makes and sells a CAZILLION computers. Their business model is built around giving you good choices at a good price. Apple, on the other hand, has used a different approach which is partly to develope a product that works well and is cool and has a certain cachet. This creates the diehard following and foaming at the mouth for the "What's Next?"I read about on these pages. The reasons, IMHO, Apple gives you less hardware, than say Dell, are that...



    1. I don't think they make anywhere near the number of computers Dell does.

    Simple economy of scale. To make a profit you either sell lots of units for low

    cost/margin, or sell fewer at a higer cost/margin. Apple has that developed cachet to

    pull off the latter. MS based PCs will always outsell Macs due to business/ Government.



    2. They put a little more into R&D and the physical look of the hardware. Laminating a

    layer of clear plastic (that then scratches like crazy) on top of their now signature white

    plastic to give it that visual depth, aint cheap.



    3. OS developement. Not only do they roll out a new OS faster that Microsoft, they are the

    ones doing it. Dell doesn't have to mess with that expense, they just buy whatevever

    crap MS mass produces (again, economy of scale) and loads it on the harddrive.



    4. Crap-ware. Dell loads the harddrives of their new computers with all kinds of junk

    software trials. This makes a Dell cheaper because the makers of these programs

    pays Dell to load them on every new machine, amounting to a subsidy that keeps the

    price down.



    5. A little bit of eliteism. Apple has the aura of a luxury item and people that own one

    appreciate feeling like they own something special. People expect to pay more

    for that, and if they weren't more expensive, subconciously it wouldn't seem so.



    6. Well, Apple can get away with it and has. They know their stuff works better than

    Windows (for the most part) and feels that if you make a better product, you should be

    able to charge more for it.



    7. The arguement many people use, but I don't think makes that much difference, is

    that with a Mac, you don't have to pay for Antivirus/Anti Spyware programs and

    hassles.



    Hey, would I like to buy/build a cheap PC and load the Mac OS on it? Maybe, but that ain't gonna be happening soon. What I'd really like to see is a more moderately priced Tower.



    So, everybody that thinks Apple is overpriced, go buy that freaking Dell so you gan play games. Just remember, you won't get a Mac OS. But, if you get a Mac, you can have both.

    BTW, I'm not a Mac user and have never owned one. I currently use a 5 year old Dell Dimension 4100 (my very first computer), but I plan on buying a new Mac around MWSF.
  • Reply 20 of 38
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Geeks comparing component prices is not a market.



    People shopping in an Apple store do not care about components, video cards, or whether a CPU/optical drive/whatever is a "laptop component" or a "desktop component", unless the sales rep uses the "video upgrade" as an upsell point - even then the buyer doesn't know any more than it's supposedly "better graphics".



    Apple knows this and isn't wasting their time trying to appease the geeks who compare every component - the geeks wouldn't buy the Apple product no matter what Apple produced.



    After thinking about it for 10 years or so, I have concluded that the reason Apple doesn't ever release an "xMac" midsize tower is that nobody would buy it - in their market surveys, I am guessing that they find a lot of clamor for an xMac, but very few people who say they would actually buy it when compared to the iMac and the Mac mini.
Sign In or Register to comment.