This is not news. There are plenty of reports like this from years back.
However, one has to look at this from a perspective of an enterprise contracts, where a lot of the cost do come from support contracts and extensions, not from the initial purchase price.
Often times, management only see the initial bid as a benchmark, which means cheaper is better.
From an individual end-consumer standpoint, the support cost is not truly felt simply because an individual has a poor judgement on the value of things over the long-term. Most people can only associate values at point of sales. Besides, goods in consumers have shorter lifespans, thus when problems do arise, most likely it will be time for the consumer to consider buying a new replacement anyway.
So yes, Apple products have been shown to cost less in the long run, but on the consumer market, PC OEMs are not banking on longer lifecycle anyway. I mean they get revenue from new sales, not on support contracts/extended warranties (those are for the enterprise division).
[doublepost=1477026186][/doublepost]
That's hilarious considering 93% of the hardware that mac uses comes from companies that manufacture those same parts for PC's. Nothing mac has is superior over what PC has. The difference is the company that assembles the PC. If you are buying PC's from Dell/HP/Lenovo, yes, I can agree with the statement that macs will save you money over the long run. So, stop buying crappy assembly line PC's and your problem is solved. If these companies would actually employ proper IT departments they could have them build their machines and save a ton of money over mass produced mac and PC.
If you could build a corvette cheaper, faster, with a better warranty than Chevy, wouldn't you do it instead of buying a corvette from them?
Really? How many IT people would you employ to custom build hundreds/thousands of PCs? And is it really cheaper vs the labor cost?
And no, assembly line enterprise PCs are not the same as consumer PCs.
