Toms Hardware finally kills the "Overpriced Mac" Myth
Has anyone seen this article on Toms Hardware? Pretty good journalism IMO 
I have been thinking the same for years. If he would also start to compare macs to sony vaios they would actually be underpriced!
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ista,1985.html
I have been thinking the same for years. If he would also start to compare macs to sony vaios they would actually be underpriced!
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ista,1985.html
Comments
The bottom line is the operating system. I personally can’t wait to see the next major release of Windows — that’s more exciting to me than the next release of Mac OS X.
So, he's a PC user then. That could only explain how he gets excited by things so far away.
See how their very first comparison is 5lbs laptop vs 10lbs laptop?
And according to them, OS X "is not proprietary"?
More seriously, the content is heavily flawed. He's comparing a 15.4" laptop to a 17"? Why? It makes no sense. He also seemed to give up with his comparisons very quickly and his reasonings are dubious. It would have been nice to see a much more thorough investigation.
Here's what he should have done:
For each piece of Mac hardware, found one PC equivalent that's as close as possible hardware wise, and another that compromises on form-factor but still delivers equal or better computing performance.
For example, with the 13" MacBook, he should have compared that to some other 13" PC, but also to the more mainstream 15" consumer portable. For the Mac Mini, he should have compared to another SFF of similar dimensions (there's a new Dell which is pretty similar), but also to a mini-tower.
I'm confident that this would demonstrate that when you compare exactly like-for-like, Apple do not over-charge relative to the rest of the market. It would also show that the wider PC market gives the consumer more choice so if they don't care for the niche form-factors and superior OS, they can save a lot of money.
I'd say this article has categorically not "finally [killed] the 'Overpriced Mac' Myth"
My bad - thats actually true. The article is pretty flawed...Which is a shame because you could easily prove the point if you would. So here is what the article *should* have compared:
Dells pro laptop VS Apple's Pro laptop:
Dell Precision M4300 15,4"
$ 2157
PROCESSOR Intel® Core ™ 2 Duo T8300 (2.40GHz)
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate Service Pack 1, With media
VIDEO CARD NVIDIA Quadro FX 360M, 512MB Turbo Cache memory (256 dedicated)
LCD PANEL 15.4 inch Wide Screen WSXGA+ TrueLife LCD Panel
MEMORY 2.0GB, DDR2-667MHz SDRAM, 2 DIMMS
HARD DRIVE 200GB Hard Drive, 9.5MM, 7200RPM (Free Fall Sensor)
OPTICAL DRIVE 8X DVD+/-RW w/Roxio Creator™/Cyberlink PDVD™
BLUETOOTH WIRELESS Dell Wireless® 360 Bluetooth Module for Windows XP
WIRELESS CARD Intel® 4965 802.11a/g/n Dual-Band Mini Card
Apple MacBook Pro 15,4"
$ 1999
2GB memory
2.4-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
200GB hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 256 MB
I would say those two are comparable. But clearly the Mac wins. It is cheaper, ALOT thinner, lighter, prettier, comes with alot of useful software, hardware features etc. Im actually not sure which graphics card is fastest, but i think they are in the same league. Dells harddrive is slightly faster. Of course you could say that dells "precision" line is overpriced allready, so lets compare to the consumer model Dell XPS:
Dell XPS 1530 15,4"
$ 1799 (this price is including the current savings of $500)
PROCESSOR Core™ 2 Duo Processor T9300 (2.5GHz/800Mhz FSB, 6MB Cache)
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate Edition SP1
LCD PANEL AND WEBCAM High Resolution, glossy widescreen 15.4 inch LED LCD (1440x900) & 2.0 M
MEMORY 4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz (2 Dimms)
HARD DRIVE Size: 250GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
OPTICAL DRIVE Slot Load DVD+/-RW (DVD/CD read/write)
VIDEO CARD 256MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600M GT
WI-FI WIRELESS CARD Intel Next-Gen Wireless-N Mini-card
MOBILE BROADBAND Verizon Wireless built-in cellular mobile broadband (EVDO Rev A)
BLUETOOTH WIRELESS Dell Wireless 355 Bluetooth Internal (2.0+Enhanced Data Rate)
Ok, here the consumer Dell laptop beats the apple on a few points. 100mhz faster processor, slightly bigger harddrive, and 2 gb more ram. So the dell gives you a little better specs, but a much thicker, heavier machine without all the hardware features of the mac (keyboard, fire wire, multi touch pad etc) And this is AFTER a current $500 saving!
So Dell and apple are actually pretty close in terms of price/performance. But bear in mind we are comparing one of the budget pc makers with a high profile pc maker. I have not made the comparrison yet but i think the Sony Vaio would loose in most cases against apple in price/performance.
ha,
My bad - thats actually true. The article is pretty flawed...Which is a shame because you could easily prove the point if you would. So here is what the article *should* have compared:
Dells pro laptop VS Apple's Pro laptop:
Dell Precision M4300 15,4"
$ 2157
PROCESSOR Intel® Core ? 2 Duo T8300 (2.40GHz)
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate Service Pack 1, With media
VIDEO CARD NVIDIA Quadro FX 360M, 512MB Turbo Cache memory (256 dedicated)
LCD PANEL 15.4 inch Wide Screen WSXGA+ TrueLife LCD Panel
MEMORY 2.0GB, DDR2-667MHz SDRAM, 2 DIMMS
HARD DRIVE 200GB Hard Drive, 9.5MM, 7200RPM (Free Fall Sensor)
OPTICAL DRIVE 8X DVD+/-RW w/Roxio Creator?/Cyberlink PDVD?
BLUETOOTH WIRELESS Dell Wireless® 360 Bluetooth Module for Windows XP
WIRELESS CARD Intel® 4965 802.11a/g/n Dual-Band Mini Card
Apple MacBook Pro 15,4"
$ 1999
2GB memory
2.4-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
200GB hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 256 MB
I would say those two are comparable. But clearly the Mac wins. It is cheaper, ALOT thinner, lighter, prettier, comes with alot of useful software, hardware features etc. Im actually not sure which graphics card is fastest, but i think they are in the same league. Dells harddrive is slightly faster. Of course you could say that dells "precision" line is overpriced allready, so lets compare to the consumer model Dell XPS:
Dell XPS 1530 15,4"
$ 1799 (this price is including the current savings of $500)
PROCESSOR Core? 2 Duo Processor T9300 (2.5GHz/800Mhz FSB, 6MB Cache)
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate Edition SP1
LCD PANEL AND WEBCAM High Resolution, glossy widescreen 15.4 inch LED LCD (1440x900) & 2.0 M
MEMORY 4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz (2 Dimms)
HARD DRIVE Size: 250GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
OPTICAL DRIVE Slot Load DVD+/-RW (DVD/CD read/write)
VIDEO CARD 256MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600M GT
WI-FI WIRELESS CARD Intel Next-Gen Wireless-N Mini-card
MOBILE BROADBAND Verizon Wireless built-in cellular mobile broadband (EVDO Rev A)
BLUETOOTH WIRELESS Dell Wireless 355 Bluetooth Internal (2.0+Enhanced Data Rate)
Ok, here the consumer Dell laptop beats the apple on a few points. 100mhz faster processor, slightly bigger harddrive, and 2 gb more ram. So the dell gives you a little better specs, but a much thicker, heavier machine without all the hardware features of the mac (keyboard, fire wire, multi touch pad etc) And this is AFTER a current $500 saving!
So Dell and apple are actually pretty close in terms of price/performance. But bear in mind we are comparing one of the budget pc makers with a high profile pc maker. I have not made the comparrison yet but i think the Sony Vaio would loose in most cases against apple in price/performance.
On the first Dell, you're comparing a workstation-class laptop to the MBP, Quadro != Geforce. One is for CAD, the other is for games. Nvidia Quadros and ATI FireGL cards can be very, very expensive to gaming video cards.
On the second Dell, you're getting twice as much RAM, bigger HD, cellular broadband, and a slightly faster CPU (with a more L2 cache). You could also add PS and Premiere Elements for about another $100. Yes, I know iLife, yadda, yadda, but I just see them as stepping stones to better, more expensive apps.
And then there is the fact that you can build a cheaper PC than Apple or most other OEMs, even if you use workstation parts (LGA 771 and whatnot). There's a great big hole in Apple's lineup, where they could add a system that uses ATX LGA 775 parts. For less than $300, you can buy a quad-core Intel CPU anymore.
On the first Dell, you're comparing a workstation-class laptop to the MBP, Quadro != Geforce. One is for CAD, the other is for games. Nvidia Quadros and ATI FireGL cards can be very, very expensive to gaming video cards.
On the second Dell, you're getting twice as much RAM, bigger HD, cellular broadband, and a slightly faster CPU (with a more L2 cache). You could also add PS and Premiere Elements for about another $100. Yes, I know iLife, yadda, yadda, but I just see them as stepping stones to better, more expensive apps.
And then there is the fact that you can build a cheaper PC than Apple or most other OEMs, even if you use workstation parts (LGA 771 and whatnot). There's a great big hole in Apple's lineup, where they could add a system that uses ATX LGA 775 parts. For less than $300, you can buy a quad-core Intel CPU anymore.
True but fact is that for gaming the 8600 GT in the MPB is about twice as powerfull as the Quadro in the dell. Basically right now is also the worst time to compare the two since All the Dells have 4-500$ savings and the Macs are soon to get replaced with better specs. When The new macs come out lets compare.
True but fact is that for gaming the 8600 GT in the MPB is about twice as powerfull as the Quadro in the dell. Basically right now is also the worst time to compare the two since All the Dells have 4-500$ savings and the Macs are soon to get replaced with better specs. When The new macs come out lets compare.
"I know what result I want so I'll skew my test to ensure that's the result I get".
Hardly the best approach. A thorough investigation of Apple's pricing would also highlight how Apple's price competitiveness varies over time. On the whole, when Apple launches/refreshes a range, the pricing is very competitive, but they then fail to update prices in line with the market, so over time they become less and less of a good deal.
To be honest, I'm surprised that this policy apparently hasn't bitten them in the arse. Last quarter's Mac sales were at a record high despite most of the range getting quite stale.
For each piece of Mac hardware, found one PC equivalent that's as close as possible hardware wise, and another that compromises on form-factor but still delivers equal or better computing performance.
...
I'm confident that this would demonstrate that when you compare exactly like-for-like, Apple do not over-charge relative to the rest of the market. It would also show that the wider PC market gives the consumer more choice so if they don't care for the niche form-factors and superior OS, they can save a lot of money.
It would demonstrate those things to a degree, but still be skewed *heavily* in favor of Apple. The value of a computer depends on the need that drives its purchase. In the comparisons you propose, the Apple computer is the yardstick, so the underlying assumption is that it offers precisely what is needed. (Almost never the case.) Is it any wonder that it fares well in the comparison when the assumptions are built like that?
A neutral comparison would start with use cases, and find closest matches to the use case from both Apple and other PC manufacturers. The truth is that Apple is charging a lot more, and that charge doesn't show so much in individual computers, but it shows in the gaps in its lineup that force people to go up to the far more expensive model. They will win some use cases, fare decently in others, and fail horribly in some.
As an example of how the "normal" comparison model used here at AI fails, let's apply it in the other direction. If the method is fair, it should be no problem, right? Take my PC for example - a silent midtower with fast graphics. Oops.. Apple's best match is an upgraded Mac Pro. My computer cost less than the cheapest iMac, making the Apple "equivalent" about 2.5x more expensive.
It would demonstrate those things to a degree, but still be skewed *heavily* in favor of Apple. The value of a computer depends on the need that drives its purchase. In the comparisons you propose, the Apple computer is the yardstick, so the underlying assumption is that it offers precisely what is needed. (Almost never the case.) Is it any wonder that it fares well in the comparison when the assumptions are built like that?
True but fact is that for gaming the 8600 GT in the MPB is about twice as powerfull as the Quadro in the dell. Basically right now is also the worst time to compare the two since All the Dells have 4-500$ savings and the Macs are soon to get replaced with better specs. When The new macs come out lets compare.
CAD video cards never make good gaming cards, while gaming cards suffer at 3D rendering in comparison, ie the Dell is built for CAD/3D/video, but then again, I don't see a lot of CAD apps on OSX. It would be better to compare the Dell M1530 to the MBP.
I even added more stuff to the Dell, to bring it closer to Apple. And note there is over $600 of savings, but there real savings, not to mention I didn't check to see if their were any Dell coupons available. Also note, the Dell includes a 3yr warranty at that price. APP would add another $200-300 on the Mac.
Besides the 8600M GT is getting long in the tooth, I almost expect Apple and other OEMS to update soon, as it's hard to justify that GPU in a $2000 lappy, (Yes, I know about the looks/thinness factor.)
CAD video cards never make good gaming cards, while gaming cards suffer at 3D rendering in comparison, ie the Dell is built for CAD/3D/video, but then again, I don't see a lot of CAD apps on OSX. It would be better to compare the Dell M1530 to the MBP.
I even added more stuff to the Dell, to bring it closer to Apple. And note there is over $600 of savings, but there real savings, not to mention I didn't check to see if their were any Dell coupons available. Also note, the Dell includes a 3yr warranty at that price. APP would add another $200-300 on the Mac.
Besides the 8600M GT is getting long in the tooth, I almost expect Apple and other OEMS to update soon, as it's hard to justify that GPU in a $2000 lappy, (Yes, I know about the looks/thinness factor.)
Your right. I also made the comparisson with the Dell M1530. Basically i think it proves the point that the mac is not overpriced, when a similary spec'ed Dell cost *around* the same price.
Macbook Pros are very competitive, The imacs are very competitive. The Mac Pro line on the other hand could use a mid-tower, but thats more a lacking product, not an overpriced one. (try putting together an 8-core Dell and you will get around the same price as the mac pro's)
Your right. I also made the comparisson with the Dell M1530. Basically i think it proves the point that the mac is not overpriced, when a similary spec'ed Dell cost *around* the same price.
Macbook Pros are very competitive, The imacs are very competitive. The Mac Pro line on the other hand could use a mid-tower, but thats more a lacking product, not an overpriced one. (try putting together an 8-core Dell and you will get around the same price as the mac pro's)
I find Apple's pricing is between fair to so-so. You're paying for the form factor, the logo, and to run OSX (legally). The only real exception is the Mini of all things, similar PCs, size-wise, cost more, which always strikes me as odd.
With the Dell I spec'd out, it comes with a TV tuner, 4 GB of RAM, cellular broadband, Adobe PS and Premiere Elements, a faster CPU, wireless USB, Lojack for laptops, MS Works, and a 3 year warranty, for under $2000. Not to mention the Dell has a card reader, which is really handy when you're on vacation somewhere, and want to dump pictures, saves carrying around a separate reader.
Even this Dell is an awesome price:
Dell Home is introducing the Dell M1530 XPS Laptop for $1549 after $699 instant discount w/ free S/H.
Dell XPS M1530 Laptop specs:
Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T9300 (2.5GHz/800Mhz FSB, 6MB Cache), Vista Premium, Glossy, widescreen 15.4" LCD (1440x900), 2.0 MP Camera, 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT, 4GB SDRAM, 320GB SATA Hard Drive (7200RPM), Slot Load DVD+/-RW (DVD/CD read/write), 802.11g Mini Card, Dell Wireless 355 Bluetooth Internal (2.0+Enhanced Data Rate), 85 WHr 9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery, Integrated Sound Blaster Audigy HD Software Edition, Finger Print Reader, McAfee SecurityCenter with anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall, 36-months, Specialized XPS Support, 3 Yr Ltd Warranty, 3 Yr At-Home Service
Add $552 in upgrades and apply Coupon Code 0$?X8RJ0$G3XLB at check-out for 25% off $1499+ (expires 8/13 6:55 AM)
http://www.cheapstingybargains.com/4...free-shipping/
I bolded certain specs for emphasis. Put Ubuntu on it, and dual boot with Vista, call it a day.
To get a similar MBP, with 4 GB, 250 GB HD, and a 3 year warranty from Apple, it will run about $2600. I could add Final Cut Express and iWork 08 for another $180. Shit, Apple even charges for the remote now, and that came with my $600 basic no-frills C2D Mini.
I find Apple's pricing is between fair to so-so. You're paying for the form factor, the logo, and to run OSX (legally). The only real exception is the Mini of all things, similar PCs, size-wise, cost more, which always strikes me as odd.
With the Dell I spec'd out, it comes with a TV tuner, 4 GB of RAM, cellular broadband, Adobe PS and Premiere Elements, a faster CPU, wireless USB, Lojack for laptops, MS Works, and a 3 year warranty, for under $2000. Not to mention the Dell has a card reader, which is really handy when you're on vacation somewhere, and want to dump pictures, saves carrying around a separate reader.
You've somewhat glossed over the fact that the Apple:
- is 15% smaller (135.36 cubic inches Vs. 159.92 cubic inches)
- is 6.5% lighter (2.45 kg Vs. 2.62 kg)
- has a 7% higher battery capacity (60 Whr Vs. 56 Whr)
The Dell would be the "generic" comparison demonstrating what a sacrifice in size and weight can buy you; and in this case it's a lot.For me though, the weight, size, tasteful design of the MacBook and OS X are easily worth it. That and, as I said earlier, Apple's machines are much more competitive when they've just been updated, and I'm awaiting the update.
Does anyone actually make a 15.4" laptop that's as fully featured as the MacBook Pro and both as small and as light?
You've somewhat glossed over the fact that the Apple:
- is 15% smaller (135.36 cubic inches Vs. 159.92 cubic inches)
- is 6.5% lighter (2.45 kg Vs. 2.62 kg)
- has a 7% higher battery capacity (60 Whr Vs. 56 Whr)
The Dell would be the "generic" comparison demonstrating what a sacrifice in size and weight can buy you; and in this case it's a lot.For me though, the weight, size, tasteful design of the MacBook and OS X are easily worth it. That and, as I said earlier, Apple's machines are much more competitive when they've just been updated, and I'm awaiting the update.
Does anyone actually make a 15.4" laptop that's as fully featured as the MacBook Pro and both as small and as light?
I don't think another company sells a laptop as that is lap-warming hot as the MBP, no.
I like the MBP a lot, but it's still long in the tooth, but a better value than the MBA I think, as that has the same footprint as the MB, but thinner, but costs almost as much as the MBP.
OSX vs. Windows vs. Linux. Meh, they're all kind of the same to me, outside of certain applications, even though I'm moving slowing away from Windows on some things.
I use my Mac for Aperture - it chugs a bit on my Mini, but again, I don't like AIOs, and there is a roughly $2000 US gap between it and a Mac Pro. But I would love a standard mid-tower, that takes normal desktop RAM/HD/CPU/video from Apple, but that will probably never happen, and that's where I don't see myself buying another Mac if that's the case.
The Mini is a great first Mac, but Apple just doesn't offer what I need/want in something I can afford, and I'm looking more to Linux and Vista x64 when buying new.
I didn't miss it. That is still a Mac-centric comparison and will therefore favor the Mac.
I didn't miss it. That is still a Mac-centric comparison and will therefore favor the Mac.
Wait, you're saying you should just compare to the "second" PC that I suggest, and leave it at that? That's simply not realistic. It's not about "favouring" the Mac.
You appear unwilling to accept that when you look at exactly like-for-like, you discover that Apple do not over-charge at all (with the exception of the base MacBook, and their entire line when it's overdue an update, like right now).
However, I don't have my head in the sand. The "problem" is that Apple offer a very narrow selection of machines; if you don't care for those form-factors you can get the same power for much less - that's what I acknowledged and that's what the purpose of the "second" PC in my comparison is for.
This is all about the notion that "Macs are overpriced". That is quite simply not true, whether you want to accept that or not. The reality is that "Apple have a limited range of computers aimed at the top end of the market". If you want a laptop for $599, there's no Apple computer for you. But that doesn't make the $1299 MacBook "overpriced" - it makes it a much higher-end laptop than anything you are considering.
Wait, you're saying you should just compare to the "second" PC that I suggest, and leave it at that? That's simply not realistic. It's not about "favouring" the Mac.
You appear unwilling to accept that when you look at exactly like-for-like, you discover that Apple do not over-charge at all (with the exception of the base MacBook, and their entire line when it's overdue an update, like right now).
However, I don't have my head in the sand. The "problem" is that Apple offer a very narrow selection of machines; if you don't care for those form-factors you can get the same power for much less - that's what I acknowledged and that's what the purpose of the "second" PC in my comparison is for.
This is all about the notion that "Macs are overpriced". That is quite simply not true, whether you want to accept that or not. The reality is that "Apple have a limited range of computers aimed at the top end of the market". If you want a laptop for $599, there's no Apple computer for you. But that doesn't make the $1299 MacBook "overpriced" - it makes it a much higher-end laptop than anything you are considering.
Very true!
Wait, you're saying you should just compare to the "second" PC that I suggest, and leave it at that? That's simply not realistic.
Of course not. I already wrote what I think would be a neutral comparison. Start with use cases, and match them with a PC and a Mac. Don't start with a computer and match another computer to it, because that method is heavily biased towards whichever computer you start with.
It's not about "favouring" the Mac.
You appear unwilling to accept that when you look at exactly like-for-like, you discover that Apple do not over-charge at all (with the exception of the base MacBook, and their entire line when it's overdue an update, like right now).
However, I don't have my head in the sand. The "problem" is that Apple offer a very narrow selection of machines; if you don't care for those form-factors you can get the same power for much less - that's what I acknowledged and that's what the purpose of the "second" PC in my comparison is for.
1) This concerns both of your comparisons. You want to examine hardware independent of platform lock-in and dependency. Let's assume the Macbook is the perfect machine for you today, so you get one. Later, supposing you use OS X, you are locked in by your investments in apps, skills and workflow. It turns out you need a quadcore desktop, and with Apple you are going to pay through the nose to get one. Did that Macbook turn out to be cheap at the end? No, because this one piece of hardware does not exist in a vacuum.
2) Your first comparison self evidently favors the Mac.
3) Your second comparison's yardstick is "Mac minus form factor". This is still based directly on the Mac specs and is not neutral. Of course Macs other than Mac Pro will generally lose these comparisons since "minus form factor" is a strong handicap for them. The problem with this comparison is what it does *not* do. It does not put Macs in any really damning comparison they face in real-world buying decisions, like neutral treatment would.
This is all about the notion that "Macs are overpriced". That is quite simply not true, whether you want to accept that or not. The reality is that "Apple have a limited range of computers aimed at the top end of the market". If you want a laptop for $599, there's no Apple computer for you. But that doesn't make the $1299 MacBook "overpriced" - it makes it a much higher-end laptop than anything you are considering.
You constantly frame this as if Mac hardware is totally superior and PC's can only beat them on price. That is not the case.
Even if (theoretically) any individual piece of Mac hardware was not priced over identical PC hardware, that doesn't stop Mac hardware as a whole from being priced over PC hardware by omission.
But we do get a much better deal (lower margin) with fresh products than we do with, say, a 9 month old product waiting for a refresh.