apple computers and their cost...

[atacinus]

i just read some old archived post about why macs should cost more than PCs...it was a lot of the standard BS i read all the time - Macs are more fully loaded when it comes to software - you get what you pay for - design - the OS is better.......all that stuff has nothing to do with the price i don't think. i sell PCs for a living :-( ... do you have any idea how much money we, let alone the manufactuer, make off a standard PC sale [tower, monitor, printer]....about 12 dollars. That didn't use to be the case, we used to sell the computers at around 1,000 bucks and make a nice markup. Anyone wonder why cables cost 40 bucks? Apple on the other hand, makes computers, and for the most part does not have retail options outside of itself, thus it makes sense that in order to stay in business there would be a bigger markup. I just think this makes more sense to tell a potential switcher than to be a 'snob' and say something to the extent of 'well if you pay less and get that eCrap, you're a loser with crapy software and i pity you'. eghh...my two cents.

[Grimace]

depends on the PC manufacturer. Some are pretty good, and have good hardware. I have a personal issue with Dell, which just puts together the cheapest components they can find in a huge casing.

Again, it all depends on what the consumer wants to do with the computer.

[rdowns]

i just read some old archived post about why macs should cost more than PCs...it was a lot of the standard BS i read all the time - Macs are more fully loaded when it comes to software - you get what you pay for - design - the OS is better.......all that stuff has nothing to do with the price i don't think. i sell PCs for a living :-( ... do you have any idea how much money we, let alone the manufactuer, make off a standard PC sale [tower, monitor, printer]....about 12 dollars. That didn't use to be the case, we used to sell the computers at around 1,000 bucks and make a nice markup. Anyone wonder why cables cost 40 bucks? Apple on the other hand, makes computers, and for the most part does not have retail options outside of itself, thus it makes sense that in order to stay in business there would be a bigger markup. I just think this makes more sense to tell a potential switcher than to be a 'snob' and say something to the extent of 'well if you pay less and get that eCrap, you're a loser with crapy software and i pity you'. eghh...my two cents.

So the OS, bundled software and better design have nothing to do with cost. Might be one of the most uninformed statements ever made here.

[Krizoitz]

So the OS, bundled software and better design have nothing to do with cost. Might be one of the most uninformed statements ever made here.

Yeah that R&D cost has to come from somewhere...

[bousozoku]

If I pick components by hand, I get an expensive PC and it will last, but most of the PCs out there don't. I'll say it again, my blue and white G3 is 5 years old now and still going strong without one service visit. Show me a PC from that time that still works, let alone works well.

Funny how the PC manufacturers don't have to code at all. They have someone adapt an industry standard BIOS to fit their motherboard and they put Windows on the hard drive. That really doesn't cost them anything in R & D expense. However, if they were writing their own software, it would cost them quite a lot, especially every time they revise the systems. Besides, it's really tough to buy the same old tower and design innovative plastic to hide it. Oh wait! They don't--they put the same old stuff on the outside. Well, you're right about one thing there--you didn't think.

Yes, Apple has a bigger markup and they offer good discounts to developers and students because of it. Only one PC company is doing well (Dell) and that's because they 1) squeeze the life out of all their components and 2) do whatever Intel and Microsoft want to get the best discounts. If it weren't for Dell and others, I wouldn't know how good my Mac really is.

[LethalWolfe]

So it's your stance that design R&D and software development do not factor into the cost of Macs? How do you think Apple pays for the R&D and development then? Also look at the cost Apple's apps (FCP, iLife, DVD SP, etc.,). These apps are priced very, very low for what they are. Sense Apple controls the software and the hardware they can lower the price of the software to help attrach buyers but there will be a bit of a premium<sp?> on the hardware.

I'm sure Apple does have a slightly larger mark-up than lets say, Dell, because 1. Apple has to cover R&C costs that Dell doesn't and 2. Apple works at a much smaller volume than Dell does.


Lethal

[Apple //e]

If I pick components by hand, I get an expensive PC and it will last, but most of the PCs out there don't. I'll say it again, my blue and white G3 is 5 years old now and still going strong without one service visit. Show me a PC from that time that still works, let alone works well.


my dad still uses my old compaq presario with p2 266. ironically, it works better now with win 2k than it did with the original win95. its seen a harddrive upgrade, wireless card, and ram upgrade.

works great for word processing and internet

i think its about 6 or 7 years old and it works well, never had a service visit

[Arkillion]

Really though, apple puts so much work into their computers. New g5's you can hardly even see any wires in them, what other manufactuers take the time to do that for you? Windscreens, don't see that anywhere else. My iPod packaging was probably the funnest thing I have ever opened in my entire life. Apple puts time and care into their products to make them stand out above the rest, and they pay empolyees to do this for them. They have to make up for it somewhere.

[ewinemiller]

If I pick components by hand, I get an expensive PC and it will last, but most of the PCs out there don't. I'll say it again, my blue and white G3 is 5 years old now and still going strong without one service visit. Show me a PC from that time that still works, let alone works well.

Hmm, let's see, my father-in-law has my old dual 266 PII still in use since 1997 (coming up on 7 years in September), nary a problem. For the longest time the only update was a $40 video card a couple of years ago to replace the voodoo rush it had when it was built so it could play the latest Links. We just updated it's 4x CD drive to a DVD burner and firewire card so Mom could do back ups and play with her digital video camera.

I added a linksys wireless networking card to my Mom's Pentium 1 133mhz laptop from 1995 (8 or 9 years), no other changes, and it's still in use for wireless web browsing, document editing, etc. She still uses it for everything expect TurboTax this year which wouldn't install because it only had 32meg of memory. BTW, for those that try to tell you windows needs an reinstall every six months, this hasn't been reinstalled since it was upgraded to win98.

I think the whole Macs last longer than PCs is a myth or misconception among many Mac users, for the basics, you really haven't needed an update since the mid nineties and most of the components these days between the two systems are the same. Yes, the real tech heads or FPS junkies might be replacing their PCs more often, but they do it because it's so cheap and you can always find a home for an old machine. I haven't lost a PC since the 386 days when I overclocked and burned out a 386-25. Everything since the Pentium 1 level was either sold or donated to family and is still in use with someone I know. The 486-100 was passed on to a third party and may or may not be still in use, I lost track.

Actually I haven't even seen the gamer junkies doing much upgrading lately (guess that's why the PC industry is having so many problems), most of my gamer friends are still running on ~2 year old P4s with GeForce 4 era cards. Until the Doom 3 engine games come along and really push the demands for a faster system, I don't see those guys changing machines either.

[TDT]

Hmm, let's see, my father-in-law has my old dual 266 PII still in use since 1997 (coming up on 7 years in September), nary a problem. For the longest time the only update was a $40 video card a couple of years ago to replace the voodoo rush it had when it was built so it could play the latest Links. We just updated it's 4x CD drive to a DVD burner and firewire card so Mom could do back ups and play with her digital video camera.

I added a linksys wireless networking card to my Mom's Pentium 1 133mhz laptop from 1995 (8 or 9 years), no other changes, and it's still in use for wireless web browsing, document editing, etc. She still uses it for everything expect TurboTax this year which wouldn't install because it only had 32meg of memory. BTW, for those that try to tell you windows needs an reinstall every six months, this hasn't been reinstalled since it was upgraded to win98.

I think the whole Macs last longer than PCs is a myth or misconception among many Mac users, for the basics, you really haven't needed an update since the mid nineties and most of the components these days between the two systems are the same. Yes, the real tech heads or FPS junkies might be replacing their PCs more often, but they do it because it's so cheap and you can always find a home for an old machine. I haven't lost a PC since the 386 days when I overclocked and burned out a 386-25. Everything since the Pentium 1 level was either sold or donated to family and is still in use with someone I know. The 486-100 was passed on to a third party and may or may not be still in use, I lost track.

Actually I haven't even seen the gamer junkies doing much upgrading lately (guess that's why the PC industry is having so many problems), most of my gamer friends are still running on ~2 year old P4s with GeForce 4 era cards. Until the Doom 3 engine games come along and really push the demands for a faster system, I don't see those guys changing machines either.

Processors, by far, are not the only component in a system. Through my experience, the old Pentium chips work very well - and even to this day, but that isn't the case with some of the older AMD K chips, and some of the newerish pentiums (600+ mhz). Also, again I should stress, that there are more components than just this chip. Most computer companies, including Dell and compaq, do not concentrate on the cooling as much in newer systems. They keep the CPU under 'reasonable' temperatures, but by no means very cool. most current cpus run probably near a temperature between ~50-60C. This isn't good, but is within operating temperatures.

Because most companies any more concentrate on making their PCs cheap and quiet, they forgot to put in a lot of more quality materials. With a CPU running at a high temperature, for a few years, it will simply blow. It won't last that long, which is why it's important to cool your CPU as much as possible.

The cheap components even extend further. I had my first PC made by a company who decided to put really cheap materials into it. What I got was a motherboard that was discontinued within a year or two, leaving me without BIOS updates that I really needed for that machine. The machine is still in use, but isn't all that good for much else than a small server.

I also got a laptop, for fairly cheap, from compaq. It cost me about 1000 for the laptop, included a battery and everything that I needed. Within 2 months, I started running into problems with the laptop. The first problem is the battery totally died, and having it inserted would cause the machine to beep (as if the CPU has blown). This machine also had a lack of cooling, and got really hot after only a short time of use. Remember, this is all happening within a short time.

I'm not going to downgrade ~x86 based systems, as I'm using one right now - but I think to say that a company such as Dell, gateway, or compaq is good is a little bit of a stretch. bousozoku made one really good point on this. If you hand pick the components and go for quality, it will cost you more than if you bought it from a company - but on the other hand it will last far more than a computer from a major company.

Remember ewinemiller, just because a computer can last years doesn't mean it will be a worthwhile machine in a few years. My laptop is no longer worthwhile, I plan to use it as maybe a backup device after my powerbook gets here. My server, which is my 233, is still in use - but after I heavily overhauled it after the screwed up job the company did originally. It still works, but is still really limited because of the bad job this company, like most companies, do on computers.

You get what you pay for, if you're willing to spend a little more on a quality company for a quality computer - it will last you much longer, and will be of much more use, in the years to come. if you buy cheap, from a cheap company for components that are most likely not going to last, then you bought a doorstop.

[bousozoku]

Well, there are at least two PCs older that still work. I guess they wouldn't be much good at Photoshop or other graphics applications as mine handles frequently but at least they're still working. :)

As for the myth that Macs last longer, I don't see a myth at all. I see three Macs working but I don't have any place to power the fourth. For that matter, I still have one of my Atari 8-bit computers going to play games from the early 1980s. :p

[aswitcher]

I guess one way to judge computer equipment is to consider how much warranty the Company will give you on machines, and what it covers. Apple's max three year warranty is a bit disappointing for me, given they could probably add a year or two extra to make a good point that the machine will have a decent lifetime...

What do people think? Is this a good measure or are Apple to small to risk longer warranty costs?

[TDT]

Well, there are at least two PCs older that still work. I guess they wouldn't be much good at Photoshop or other graphics applications as mine handles frequently but at least they're still working. :)

As for the myth that Macs last longer, I don't see a myth at all. I see three Macs working but I don't have any place to power the fourth. For that matter, I still have one of my Atari 8-bit computers going to play games from the early 1980s. :p

I have one of those ataris....dang you, now I feel like breaking it out of the box and hooking it up....*sigh*

I also have two older machines, already posted. They work, but neither of them can run windows well, so both have Linux currently running. One is still running RH 7.3 (I'm lazy to get a more recent distribution on it) and the other is running debian testing. I really hate my laptop, though. I've been using linux for about 5 years now, and there are some things going on that laptop that are really stumping me. I will eventually fix it, but why bother when I already ordered my PB (coming Monday) :)

Glad another person has an Atari, I feel like hooking mine up and playing some frogger....hehe.

[Apple //e]

Well, there are at least two PCs older that still work. I guess they wouldn't be much good at Photoshop or other graphics applications as mine handles frequently but at least they're still working. :)

As for the myth that Macs last longer, I don't see a myth at all. I see three Macs working but I don't have any place to power the fourth. For that matter, I still have one of my Atari 8-bit computers going to play games from the early 1980s. :p

i used to do photoshop, 3d autocad, and 3d studio on that ol pentium 2 when it had 48, then 96mb ram.

i remember a one particular render taking 16hrs :-(

when i got a p3 1000, it took 20 minutes (much more ram)

i didnt even bother checking my new machine.

ironically a faster machine allows me to do more complex scenes resulting in equally slow render speeds

but getting back on topic, i dont see why the old machine still cant do it. it might have some min requirement problems with the newest version of photoshop and 3d studio.

as for the "myth" i think people just hold on to macs longer than pcs. i dont know anybody that falls in love with their windows box. there is not much sentimental value in windows machines

[atacinus]

you.re taking what i.m saying the wrong way...I don.t mean that R&D and the design and the OS don.t factor into the cost...i just don.t believe that to be the main reason macs cost more....and i was just trying to say why there will never be a 300 mac. eghh...you people jump too easily.

[LethalWolfe]

you.re taking what i.m saying the wrong way...I don.t mean that R&D and the design and the OS don.t factor into the cost...i just don.t believe that to be the main reason macs cost more....and i was just trying to say why there will never be a 300 mac. eghh...you people jump too easily.

If that's not what you mean then don't say it. In the first few lines of your original post you mention the design, the software bundle, the OS and then say, "...all that stuff has nothing to do with the price i don't think."

I don't think there is one "main reason" as to why Macs cost more, but I do think there are a bunch of reasons that add up. Sales volume, hardware R&D, software development, etc.,. And, like I said in my first post, there is cost added into the hardware to help offset the low prices on their software.

I don't think anyone will disagree w/you when you say there will never be a $300 Mac. If that was your point you did a poor job of getting it across in your original post.


Lethal

[ewinemiller]

Processors, by far, are not the only component in a system. Through my experience, the old Pentium chips work very well - and even to this day, but that isn't the case with some of the older AMD K chips, and some of the newerish pentiums (600+ mhz). Also, again I should stress, that there are more components than just this chip. Most computer companies, including Dell and compaq, do not concentrate on the cooling as much in newer systems. They keep the CPU under 'reasonable' temperatures, but by no means very cool. most current cpus run probably near a temperature between ~50-60C. This isn't good, but is within operating temperatures.

Maybe you missed the implication in my post, it wasn't just the processor that was passed along. Those machines are also using the rest of their other original components too, motherboard, harddrive, optical drive, video.

Many folks are down on Dells, but I haven't had one those die on me either. I just mentioned the oldest machines, but in that mix were stacks of dell 200 and 166 PI laptops, a bunch of dell 233 PIIs laptops, some dell 366 PII laptops, racks of dell dual 500 PIIIs, a dell dual 800 PIII, all still in use. Granted, some of the older ones aren't doing much beyond web surfing, email, and kid's writing reports for school, but everything from the 366s up are still being used for development and they still work fine. We used to be a Dell shop until we got bought out, now we're IBM because that who the new company uses. All those old Dells were sold off to employees when the original company shut down and all the folks that stayed on or I keep in touch with are still using theirs. Dell tends to swap back in forth for first place for quality and service with Apple in places like consumer reports and my personal experience has matched that.

Folks act like the components in Apples and PCs are somehow different, but besides the processor and motherboard it's really the same stuff. The last Mac I bought (a dual 800) had Samsung memory, a Seagate hard drive, and a nvidia video card. My last Dell (a 2.26 P4) also had Samsung memory, a nvidia video card, and a Seagate hard drive. In my personal experience I haven't found any remarked difference in reliability between the remaining components, the CPU and motherboard. The last motherboard I saw die was 286-8 that sat at eye level in front of a smoker's desk.

[redAPPLE]

one question from the quiet corner...

so the people who say "i got a lot of pcs that never died on me, or are still huffing and puffing..." are pc users in a mac forum? (i would not say mac haters :D )

imo, Apple products cost more than their pc counterparts is because, Apple tests their hardware to their software more and can "guarantee" that they work with each other. this makes macs "more reliable".

of course, pcs which are installed with the standard software would work, until they install any other program that messes up the system with .dlls.

[groovebuster]

so the people who say "i got a lot of pcs that never died on me, or are still huffing and puffing..." are pc users in a mac forum? (i would not say mac haters :D )
No... I am a Mac-Head since more than 15 years, but I have to work also with Windows PCs. I also think it is a myth that PCs don't last as long as Macs. None of the PCs I owned over the years every died on me. The oldest PC I am running at the moment is a Dell Dimension L700CX (3.5 years old). The only thing that i changed is more memory and a better video card 2 years ago. On the other hand the iMac of my wife had to be repaired because of a monitor problem, as well as my PowerBook G3 Wallstreet (which I sold to a friend meanwhile and replaced it by an iBook). I don't even want to talk about all the people in my environment who had problems with their Macs. So my personal statistics tell the story that Macs are not more reliable than PCs...

imo, Apple products cost more than their pc counterparts is because, Apple tests their hardware to their software more and can "guarantee" that they work with each other. this makes macs "more reliable".
More reliable? How exactly?

of course, pcs which are installed with the standard software would work, until they install any other program that messes up the system with .dlls.
Know what? The Dell I mentioned before runs with Windows 2000 and it still has the first install of the system. I never had to reinstall it and it still runs fast and reliable. Besides that I installed and deinstalled all kinds of Pro Software and the System didn't screw up once. Oh... and I use that computer every day, it's right beside my Mac in my Home-Office. :)

So please, we all agree that the Mac is a very nice tool to work with, but stop the story-telling that a Windows PC doesn't work properly by definition... Thanks!

groovebuster

P.S.: As a little addition here is a picture of my Home-Office, so that you can see that I am not telling BS all the time...
http://www.k2000.de/bilder/office.jpg

[ewinemiller]

so the people who say "i got a lot of pcs that never died on me, or are still huffing and puffing..." are pc users in a mac forum? (i would not say mac haters :D )

PC AND Mac user. I work on both sides everyday, so I see how both sides really work, and try to dispel the myths "enthusiasts" on both sides spread.

[kgarner]

i sell PCs for a living :-( ... do you have any idea how much money we, let alone the manufactuer, make off a standard PC sale [tower, monitor, printer]....about 12 dollars.

I work at CompUSA so I can see the cost of both Macs and PCs. Did you know the mark-up on the low end eMac is less than $20? Oh sure, the Dual 2.0GHz G5 is marked up a couple hundred bucks, but so are the high end Sony's and HP's. The mark-up on Macs is just not that much compared to PCs.

[rueyeet]

do you have any idea how much money we, let alone the manufactuer, make off a standard PC sale [tower, monitor, printer]....about 12 dollars. That didn't use to be the case, we used to sell the computers at around 1,000 bucks and make a nice markup. And you still could sell them for $1,000, if Dell hadn't driven prices down to the point that the average consumer now believes that a computer shouldn't cost that much. Apple has simply declined to play that game, so they still make the margins, and will never make a $300 Mac. Other PC companies like IBM and Sony that make higher-quality or high-design PCs aren't playing Dell's game either, and are still selling their boxes at a premium, too.

There really isn't much reason anymore that Macs "should" cost more than PCs; they both use the same components from the same Taiwanese or whatever companies. The one place that there's really any difference is in Apple's R&D costs for design, integration, and the OS/bundled software.

[LethalWolfe]

PC AND Mac user. I work on both sides everyday, so I see how both sides really work, and try to dispel the myths "enthusiasts" on both sides spread.

I'm in the same boat. When I work it is usually on a Mac (mine or someone elses) and when I'm just posting or doing e-mail it is usually on my PC.


Lethal

[Mav451]

groove, that is a real nice guitar collection you got there :)

[jaw04005]

So it's your stance that design R&D and software development do not factor into the cost of Macs? How do you think Apple pays for the R&D and development then? Also look at the cost Apple's apps (FCP, iLife, DVD SP, etc.,). These apps are priced very, very low for what they are. Sense Apple controls the software and the hardware they can lower the price of the software to help attrach buyers but there will be a bit of a premium<sp?> on the hardware.

I'm sure Apple does have a slightly larger mark-up than lets say, Dell, because 1. Apple has to cover R&C costs that Dell doesn't and 2. Apple works at a much smaller volume than Dell does.


Lethal

I agree with you on all those points, however Apple does make a nice profit on each computer it sells, somewhere around 30%.

Dell can offer lower cost PC's than practically any other company in the business because they do little if no research and development. Dell even prides themselves on that factor as part of their normal business practice.

However, other PC compainies such as HP and Sony spend considerable amounts of money on R&D. This makes it hard for other companies including Apple to compete against Dell.

[gemio17]

I heard peecee's smell bad, like doody :D

[Counterfit]

I heard peecee's smell bad, like doody :D Only the ones in monkey cages.

[groovebuster]

groove, that is a real nice guitar collection you got there :)
Thanks... this is a more complete view of it: guitar collection (http://www.k2000.de/bilder/guitars.jpg)

I am not just a collector, I was a pro and I am still playing regularly. Just last weekend I had a studio job. :) It was just that music couldn't feed a whole family and so I concentrated on my second "set of skills"... fiddling with computers in "different ways"... ;)

groovebuster

[dontmatter]

Do PC's or Mac's last longer? All the personal testimony you can make doesn't quite add up to anything, as far as a reflection of the truth-anybody who's ever taken a statistics class should know that. Either could be true, and any one person could still have experiences vastly leaning towards one conclusion or another. And, it's REALLY not going to mean anyhing here, as this crowd does not constitute a SRS.

So, anybody seen any study on it?

The one thing I will permit is that apple software is on the whole more reliable, and it had better be, given how much more closed the apple system is than the PC world. The OS, of course, is the prime example.

[Krizoitz]

Do PC's or Mac's last longer? All the personal testimony you can make doesn't quite add up to anything, as far as a reflection of the truth-anybody who's ever taken a statistics class should know that. Either could be true, and any one person could still have experiences vastly leaning towards one conclusion or another. And, it's REALLY not going to mean anyhing here, as this crowd does not constitute a SRS.

So, anybody seen any study on it?

The one thing I will permit is that apple software is on the whole more reliable, and it had better be, given how much more closed the apple system is than the PC world. The OS, of course, is the prime example.

Back about 5 years ago the Gartner group did a study about total cost of ownership that involved statistics on average length of computer rebuying. PC's had a 2-3 year average age. Mac's were 4-5. I don't know if thats still true, but at the very least it used to be.

[aswitcher]

Back about 5 years ago the Gartner group did a study about total cost of ownership that involved statistics on average length of computer rebuying. PC's had a 2-3 year average age. Mac's were 4-5. I don't know if thats still true, but at the very least it used to be.

Its a bit dated to be considered relevant these days. I suggest that its likely that both systems have a bit more time on them these days, and the gartner study was pre OSX if you say 1999, so Macs are pretty different these days.

[hulugu]

i just read some old archived post about why macs should cost more than PCs...it was a lot of the standard BS i read all the time - Macs are more fully loaded when it comes to software - you get what you pay for - design - the OS is better.......all that stuff has nothing to do with the price i don't think. i sell PCs for a living :-( ... do you have any idea how much money we, let alone the manufactuer, make off a standard PC sale [tower, monitor, printer]....about 12 dollars. That didn't use to be the case, we used to sell the computers at around 1,000 bucks and make a nice markup. Anyone wonder why cables cost 40 bucks? Apple on the other hand, makes computers, and for the most part does not have retail options outside of itself, thus it makes sense that in order to stay in business there would be a bigger markup. I just think this makes more sense to tell a potential switcher than to be a 'snob' and say something to the extent of 'well if you pay less and get that eCrap, you're a loser with crapy software and i pity you'. eghh...my two cents.

First, and no offense, but selling a computer does not indicate that you understand any of the economics that goes into developing, manufacturing, and selling a computer. This may not be the best preliminary statement for this discussion, Best Buy is a totally different story than a Mom-n-Pop store as well.
But, I digress, Apple must make a larger markup because it sells fewer computers and cannot spread the costs of manufacturing and R&D across a wider breadth of systems.
Furthemore, Dell is a terrible model to use for computer manufacturing, much less the total system development or 'whole widget' that Apple does. Dell has special deals with Microsoft and Intel, therefore it pays less for those two components than HP/Compaq, Acer, Toshiba, etc. Secondly, Dell has been known to squeeze out componant manufacturers by refusing what would be considered fair prices, they buy chips, Mobos, heat-sinks, etc. at well below what others pay and they are able to do this only because of the shear numbers that they buy.
Dell is playing a dangerous game because either a revolt in manufacturers, or a change in the market will break this special hold and then their profit margin—narrow as it is, will be toast.
Dell does buy good components, but they also buy very cheap ones as well as they are never quite clear about what goes in what. Some Inspirons are known to have very cheap and poorly made heatsinks, some are excellent. Furthemore, Dell's R&D department in almost entirely devoted to making the distribution of machines cheaper and more efficient, but very little of this energy is made to improve the lot of the technology or the consumer.
But, the software included in every Macintosh, iLife, Safari, Mail, iCal, iSync, etc. is far better than the stuff typically included in the average Dell.
Finally, there is the issue of quality, and you can argue this forever, but ultimately if any computer is a tool, the more useful it is, the longer it lasts, the more helpful the customer services are, the more the tool is worth.
A Dell (or any PC) can be a quality machine, but not the bottom-basement prices that Dell advertises, their quality machines cost approximately as much—within 200-300.00—or even more than equivalent Apple machines. Go price an Xserve versus Dell's servers, or a Powerbook versus the Inspiron (and an 8-pound 2-inch thick laptop is not equivalent to a 5-pound 1-inch thick one, that's just ridiculous.)
Plus, almost all PCs have the same achillies heel, they use Windows. And Windows sucks. Hard. Actually, Windows isn't that bad, and PC hardware can be pretty good, but I much prefer my Powerbook to the Dell I have at work. I was part of the decision to buy Dell because they gave us the best deal for our money, including a server, but we were very close to buying an Xserve.
The average consumer, the hobbyist and pro video/photo guys, and lots of others would benefit, in my opinion from buying a Mac regardless of the costs. A 'snobbish' view that Dells are such pieces of junk is wrongheaded, no matter how true it can be sometimes.

[3rdKidney]

As I see it, you're right. R&D, fine engineering, attention to detail, software development and support, os development, retail store construction and operation, iTunes music store... all play into the cost of a computer company who's main function is to sell great computers. I don't disagree with this. BUT, I also think the original poster had a very valid point. The cost of Apple's computer aren't "directly" related to the factors mentioned above. Let me explain with a real life example directly from Apple themselves.

If you've been buying macs for longer than 4-5 years you'll surely remember this. Apple moved into the G4 and dropped production on many PPC models to help streamline their marketing efforts and cut down on the confusion of choosing a mac. They basically started their "good, better, best" pricing structure they still use today.

About 3 years back they came out with a dual G4 desktop if I remember correctly. They advertised it as their "best" machine for (I think) around $2500. Their previous "best" machine became their new "better" model ($2000) and their old "better" became their new "good" ($1500). This was common for Apple to "bump" the line each time a new "best" machine came along. Of course I don't remember all the pricing and models, but here's my main point.

After advertising the dual G4 in magazines and on their web store, and taking orders, they discovered that motorola couldn't deliver the cpu chips on time. Thus they had to postpone the launch of the "best" machine. But by then people had already order the "good, better, best" machines at the new prices.

Apple decided to "bump" the line back up to where it was BEFORE it had announced the the dual machine, AND BOOST ALL THE PRICING BACK UP for the "better and good" machines like nothing had ever happened. The mac community went crazy and complained like never before. And Apple decided to honor the pricing on the machines that had been ordered, but all new orders would be at the renewed pricing.

My point is, it was PURE MARKETING that dictated the pricing. What went in the machines was the same. The parts didn't change. The R&D didn't change. The quality or software didn't change. The only thing that changed was motorola's caused them to not have a "best" machine to fill the high end price slot, so Apple stuck their old previous "best" machine back in. It was very, very, very (did I say very?) clear to everyone that the pricing of macs WAS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO WHAT WAS IN THE BOX. It's related to marketing the machine within their "good, better, best" paradigm.

So you're BOTH correct. Apple CAN charge less or more at will with little bearing on the actual "direct" cost to develop/manufacturer the machine (once a threshold is passed) AND all of their other costs of doing business do in some way "indirectly" impact on mac pricing.

My 2.51 cents.

3rdKidney

[LethalWolfe]

As I see it, you're right. R&D, fine engineering, attention to detail, software development and support, os development, retail store construction and operation, iTunes music store... all play into the cost of a computer company who's main function is to sell great computers. I don't disagree with this. BUT, I also think the original poster had a very valid point. The cost of Apple's computer aren't "directly" related to the factors mentioned above. Let me explain with a real life example directly from Apple themselves.

If you've been buying macs for longer than 4-5 years you'll surely remember this. Apple moved into the G4 and dropped production on many PPC models to help streamline their marketing efforts and cut down on the confusion of choosing a mac. They basically started their "good, better, best" pricing structure they still use today.

About 3 years back they came out with a dual G4 desktop if I remember correctly. They advertised it as their "best" machine for (I think) around $2500. Their previous "best" machine became their new "better" model ($2000) and their old "better" became their new "good" ($1500). This was common for Apple to "bump" the line each time a new "best" machine came along. Of course I don't remember all the pricing and models, but here's my main point.

After advertising the dual G4 in magazines and on their web store, and taking orders, they discovered that motorola couldn't deliver the cpu chips on time. Thus they had to postpone the launch of the "best" machine. But by then people had already order the "good, better, best" machines at the new prices.

Apple decided to "bump" the line back up to where it was BEFORE it had announced the the dual machine, AND BOOST ALL THE PRICING BACK UP for the "better and good" machines like nothing had ever happened. The mac community went crazy and complained like never before. And Apple decided to honor the pricing on the machines that had been ordered, but all new orders would be at the renewed pricing.

My point is, it was PURE MARKETING that dictated the pricing. What went in the machines was the same. The parts didn't change. The R&D didn't change. The quality or software didn't change. The only thing that changed was motorola's caused them to not have a "best" machine to fill the high end price slot, so Apple stuck their old previous "best" machine back in. It was very, very, very (did I say very?) clear to everyone that the pricing of macs WAS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO WHAT WAS IN THE BOX. It's related to marketing the machine within their "good, better, best" paradigm.

So you're BOTH correct. Apple CAN charge less or more at will with little bearing on the actual "direct" cost to develop/manufacturer the machine (once a threshold is passed) AND all of their other costs of doing business do in some way "indirectly" impact on mac pricing.

My 2.51 cents.

3rdKidney


I don't think anyone will argue with that Apple makes more profit per machine, than let say Dell, but that is because they sell significantly fewer computers than Dell. It's not because they are trying to rape their customers or anything. And in the situation you mentioned I could see Apple doing that "shuffle" in order to meet projected earnings. If Apple projects it's earnings based on selling x number of "good" machines, y number of "better" machines, and z number of "best" machines and all of a sudden they are not able to sell the "best" machines their projected earnings just blew up and they are ******** if they don't do something (such as shuffle the product lines around). Apple has a lot of costs to cover (such as R&D) so they need to sell machines at specific price points to make sure they generate enought income to cover those costs. Dell, for example, has a lot more flexibility because they just assemble parts. Speaking in very simple terms, when you buy a Dell you are basically paying for the cost of the compents of the computer. When you buy a Mac you are paying for the cost of the compents of the computer + the cost case R&D + the cost of software R&D. A top end G5 isn't $3k because it has $3k worth of hardware. It's $3k because Apple needs to sell a computer at that price point in order to cover the R&D costs of both the hardware and the software.

I really hope that made at least some sense 'cause it's 1am here and I just got home from the bars...


Lethal

[3rdKidney]

I don't think anyone will argue with that Apple makes more profit per machine, than let say Dell, but that is because they sell significantly fewer computers than Dell. It's not because they are trying to rape their customers or anything. And in the situation you mentioned I could see Apple doing that "shuffle" in order to meet projected earnings. If Apple projects it's earnings based on selling x number of "good" machines, y number of "better" machines, and z number of "best" machines and all of a sudden they are not able to sell the "best" machines their projected earnings just blew up and they are ******** if they don't do something (such as shuffle the product lines around). Apple has a lot of costs to cover (such as R&D) so they need to sell machines at specific price points to make sure they generate enought income to cover those costs. Dell, for example, has a lot more flexibility because they just assemble parts. Speaking in very simple terms, when you buy a Dell you are basically paying for the cost of the compents of the computer. When you buy a Mac you are paying for the cost of the compents of the computer + the cost case R&D + the cost of software R&D. A top end G5 isn't $3k because it has $3k worth of hardware. It's $3k because Apple needs to sell a computer at that price point in order to cover the R&D costs of both the hardware and the software.

I really hope that made at least some sense 'cause it's 1am here and I just got home from the bars...


Lethal


This is true. Me being a broke consumer and not a corporate financial analysis forget this "bottom line" thing. The truth is, we may all complain, but we all prefer to see Apple do well financially. I lived through years of every media reporter writing about how "Apple is going to die, real soon". They sang that song so much (even though Apple wasn't that bad off) that everyone believed them. Only a handful of people in Apple's camp and a smathering of consumers knew that this wasn't the case. As a matter of fact, Apple had plenty of money in the bank. Especially considering many PC manufacturers went belley up during that same period of time.

I remember back in 1998 (??) when MS forked over $1M to Apple for a "deal" they arranged. All the PC people were saying "MS is bailing out Apple. Bill Gates will save their butts." Of course this was the furthest thing from the truth. This $1M wasn't even sales tax on Apples inventory and assets. It was for a deal involving bringing MS software to the mac.

As a matter of fact, a few months after that Apple announced that they were building their own Apple Retail Stores. AND, they were FUNDING their design, construction, stocking, rental space, maintenance and operations out of their own pocket! They weren't seeking venture capitalist. They weren't taking out business loans. They were cracking open their "broke and dieing" piggy bank to self fund these $million+ EACH stores.

Point is, finally the media began to get it straight and reported based on Apple's actual value instead of simply repeating what everyone else was saying because it sold magazines and newspapers. Now we all get to feel a little bit of pride when Apple shows amazing growth and earnings. And of course they do this by keeping that bottom line (via system costs) up.

3rdKidney