Apple expensive? I don't think so...
Hello!
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.
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!
... 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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
People around here act if Apple's is the only way it can be done.
Virtually nobody "around here" "acts" like that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.