Nearly All Apple Hardware Costs More Than the Average PC

[GiantSteve]

It's All About Business Strategy

I think many people lose sight of the forest for the trees when reading an article like this. The article is really about Steve Jobs (and Apple's leadership) executing a brilliant business strategy. They intentionally weren't looking for the largest market share, just the MOST PROFITABLE market share.

You can go back and forth about the product quality, the design factors, etc. but Jobs articulated something that more businesses should do: state who their customers ARE NOT. It takes real insight, and a lot of conviction, to do that.

 

[Piggie]

What used to annoy me what that Steve Jobs used to come out with stupid sayings, which were just marketing speak and not facts.

I don't mind talking balls, they all do it, but people believed he was being honest and stating something true as opposed to just talking up the current product range which they all do.

 

[anberlinairlift]

The g4 towers especially around 2003 were relatively cheap compared to how much apple wants for a tradional desktop today. And apple has had its fare share of disaster machines like the powermac g5's, 8600m gt macbook pros.

True, yeah I heard about the G5 machines. Made sure not to buy one of those. But even if they were relatively cheaper, the hardware was still awesome!

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Okay but you can argue Apple makes niche stuff. A lot of people do not care about stuff being Air thin. People don't just say "Man I wish this was a mm thinner" doesn't happen. ALuminum body on laptops are not expensive. Samsung did a 7 series which has a good build and is far cheaper. Its the truth.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1221611/

 

[Cjr605]

Try to buy the closest thing to an 11" Air from Dell, say: solid-state drive, Sandy Bridge chips, lighted keys, ultra-light, ultra-thin, 1366x768. You’ll end up paying $600 more, and still getting something twice as thick, made of plastic, without bundled software! It will have a better GPU, but will be lacking vs. the Air in many other specs.

Why would someone buy anything from Dell? They are awful (except for their desktop monitors). Look at one of these for a Macbook Air equivalent: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230168

They are brand new, if you were wondering. And that costs $200 less for the equivalent Air - from a good PC company.

 

[rovex]

A Ferrari costs more than a Pinto. Which would I rather have.....hmmm.

I'd rather have the Punto.

 

[kevinkt]

Here you go.

Image



Actually 25.6%



Microsoft have no say in the decisions of PC Builders. They are free to build whatever they want. And why can't you understand than plastic laptops can still look and feel premium? My $1,800 Sony Vaio is made of plastic, but feels very solid and sturdy, and has a premium look and feel to it. And not all Windows PC's are plastic.

That's what meant to say. Microsoft pcs in GENERAL! And that $1800 pc should feel premium!!!! But!! Most people would prefer aluminum against plastic and for $1800, why plastic? And why copy apple design. Granted off topic? Anyways there is nothing wrong with macs there are great solid products. Pcs are trying to go up to Mac leves in the past years which is commendable but that's the game right now.

 

[BaldiMac]

If you stick to Apple products, the Mac Mini is $1700 with a display, keyboard and mouse added in. Hardly the cheapest computer Apple makes!

But, of course, you don't have to stick to Apple products. And a display is just another accessory. You just arbitrarily knocked off the Mac mini to emphasize your point.

I assume you didn't remove the Mac mini, Mac Pro, or display-less PCs from the rest of your analysis.

The Mac Pro isn't full-featured either, its true -- it needs a display added to it, though it does include a keyboard and mouse.

I think that is just a silly statement.

You missed the part about "most inexpensive full-featured Mac".

No, I didn't.

 

[435713]

A bit of a straw man here: an Air vs. a cheap PC (or the very best equivalent Dell/Alienware can offer!) isn’t a few mm, it’s half or 1/3 as thick! It matters. And the resulting Air is not niche: it’s a runaway best seller, from the company whose computer sales are skyrocketing vs. everyone else.

I'm not talking about the Air on thickness. General laptops. I can almost guarantee if Apple made the 13' Pro model $899 it would sell far more than the Air. It's a little niche, not saying its bad at all. That thin means no dedicated GPU, Heat where numerous discussions have pointed out. Lower clocked CPU's, no drives (obviously another debate) Lack of ports etc...

As for that Samsung... it’s the usual case of a similarly-priced PC having SOME specs higher than a Mac, SOME specs lower, yet Microsoft defenders will cherry-pick only certain specs to make the Samsung seem like more for your money. It isn’t. (Software bundle and OS features? PC fans would list them... but only if the PC was the one that had them!) It may still be a great choice for some—Apple doesn’t make an equivalent exactly—but it’s not evidence of Apple overcharging.

Depends on the person, but its clearly a solid build (samsung 7) and has almost all features of the MBP and is thin for about half the price. It's black and white. I give Apple $300 usually for their software included and trackpad and customer service. Windows in a way is the achilles heel since it has to be compatible with so much hardware, its a double edged sword.

Look at the Air’s most expensive spec: all SSD, no spinning platter. The Samsung cuts that corner. Fair enough, and still a decent choice for some—but that saves Samsung money and can’t be ignored.

I myself won’t be going back to spinning HD, now that I know how blindingly fast my Air is due to being all-SSD. Speed isn’t just GHz!

(The Samsung is also comparing a new Samsung model with an outgoing Mac model; if you look at the Pro, that is. Price vs. what you get always has a stair-step pattern over time.)

Not talking only Air again though. Talking the XPS which is thick but has great reviews and if Apple made the same style PC at that price it would fly off the shelves as well. SS memory makes a world of difference I would find it hard to go back as well, havent used it yet unfortunately. Do not want an Air, and the prices are too steep as of now for the memory I want to drop it in my MBP.

PS: I find it funny that people use lines of "You can tout specs all you want... etc.." People like that know damn well they want the best specs possible on their Macs for what they pay. Delusional if you say otherwise. OSX might handle resource well, but the more the better for specs I always say, it never hurts. Cop out anyone?

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

I think there is the problem right there. Apple is not selling cheap computers. If they did people would buy them. But they don't and that's why they have 10% of the market and not 50% or more. I am not saying it's right or wrong; it's what it is.

You should compare the market share of single companies like Dell or HP with Apples market share, but i do not see that you do it.

The second thing to consider is to actually make proper comparisons.

Then make them!

 

[Invincibilizer]

So....

Not everyone needs expensive computers

Windows is a good fit for many people, many people don't want to overpay for Macs or iPads that can't even do what a $400 windows computer would do.

 

[ksgant]

One thing I've learned from owning Apple products...off and on for 30+ years...is that analysts are usually full of it.

 

[huntson]

The ipad is not a computer

 

[BaldiMac]

The ipad is not a computer

A motorcycle is not a vehicle.

 

[ksgant]

Also, to all the anti-Apple people about to come in here to show us your wit and wisdom and the Apple-Zealots preparing your defense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI

 

[pollaxe]

I bought an iPad in August 2010, if I hadn't then I wouldn't have gone on to buy a MacBook Air 13" almost exactly a year later.

I was an ardent Apple-hater for many years before I played with that iPad in the Bristol store and that incident really opened my closed little mind.

I suspect that I'm not the only one to have come into the Apple computing ecosystem via this - or at least a similar - route.

However, I'm still a little loathe to buy a desktop Apple solution; I like having USB 3, eSata and choosing graphics cards that will drive my 30" HP monitor under Windows too. Presently, I'm also a Hackintosher mainly for these reasons but I do prefer OS X as an operating system now so I can't wholly rule out going 'properly' desktop in the future.

I do wonder whether Apple, post Steve, will embrace some of the things they've previously avoided, though I'm not convinced they will. I love my MacBook Air - I'm posting from it - but it seems a little questionable when buying a brand new platform past mid 2011 that had USB 2. I know Apple's position was that Thunderbolt was going to be a better technology but USB 3 ports would have been far better and there are rumours they're thinking of adopting them.

Time will tell, I suppose.

 

[GoodWatch]

Makes sense. No wonder Apple products for the most part are better build and last much lounger than their counterparts.
You get what you pay for.

I would like to have a link to a dependable research outcome that supports that claim. Please. The fan in my 2-year old iMac is humming like crazy now. Making a whirring sound.

 

[*LTD*]

The ipad is not a computer

Gartner, Canalys, and others who are soon to follow would disagree with you.

But when enough of them say it's permissible, then it officially becomes permissible, and becomes a fixture in everyone's collective reality.

At one time the term "smartphone" meant one thing. Then almost overnight that definition changed, and looking back, there is barely any comparison.

 

[FaustsHausUK]

I'm not really sure what basing this on average selling price achieves. Apple doesn't compete at the lower end of the market. Many, many, many PC manufacturers do - skimping on components and design and marketing and all that just to meet a price point. So yes, of course PC averages are going to skew lower.

What you should be doing is working out the average selling price of computers that are specified identically to an off-the-shelf Apple offering. On those grounds, Apple competes very well. I once tried to spec up a Dell equivalent for a higher-end Mac Pro and couldn't match the price.

 

[wovel]

I read the article carefully and asked myself, "What's the point it's trying to make?" I read it again and, Lo! There is no point.

This isn't a rumor, it isn't news...it isn't even accurate or relevant.

Give me back the five minutes of my life!

Thanks for the validation, and preventing me from trying again.

Sometimes making an outline can make it easier to see you don't actually have a theme.This was more of a data dump containing random, barely related facts than a story.

 

[Renzatic]

I do wonder whether Apple, post Steve, will embrace some of the things they've previously avoided, though I'm not convinced they will.

I seriously doubt they will. See, I'm in about the same position as you. There are plenty of reasons why I'd prefer having a Mac desktop over a PC. The ntegration between the hardware and the OS, the nice Applecare warranties, expose (I love expose). But I can't justify getting one, because I can get the raw power and flexibility of a Windows PC for considerably less. As nice as expose is, I do need that power and flexibility.

But what if Apple were to suddenly release the mythical mid-end upgradable Mac? It'd probably be sporting an i7, a decent graphics card, and come in one of those snazzy Mac Pro cases. Would I buy one then? Well...I'd be severely tempted, but I'd probably still pass. Why? Because the machine itself, and the upgradable parts, will still be more expensive than their PC equivalent, and I wouldn't be gaining enough to justify the price difference.

I probably wouldn't be the only one who'd think that way. The mid-end Mac would be aimed directly at the 3D artist and gamer demographic. These are people who know what they're doing, know how to get the most out of their hardware, and would rather build their machines themselves. Apple might sell a few, but not enough to justify introducing a new class of Macs into the market. It'd be a lose-lose situation for them.

So the Mac Mini - iMac - Mac Pro line is the way it's probably gonna be, now and forever. If you want your mid-end Mac, you're gonna have to stick to Hackintoshing.

 

[thekev]

I do wonder whether Apple, post Steve, will embrace some of the things they've previously avoided, though I'm not convinced they will. I love my MacBook Air - I'm posting from it - but it seems a little questionable when buying a brand new platform past mid 2011 that had USB 2. I know Apple's position was that Thunderbolt was going to be a better technology but USB 3 ports would have been far better and there are rumours they're thinking of adopting them.

Time will tell, I suppose.

In the way the cables are built currently, they would increase the cost of things like mice and keyboards or usb thumb drives. If that changes in the future usb might start to wane but don't expect it to happen overnight. It's also limited to 2m currently. Transitioning to fibre based cables rather than copper is supposed to alleviate that maximum cable length issue, but you have to consider they're probably going to be extremely expensive for the next couple years. Right now thunderbolt makes the most sense for performance devices rather than $20 items with razor thin margins.

----------

So the Mac Mini - iMac - Mac Pro line is the way it's probably gonna be, now and forever. If you want your mid-end Mac, you're gonna have to stick to Hackintoshing.

For me it'll probably end up being the top imac with 16GB of ram next with a better display attached. The problem with the mini is that it's designed too much like a laptop. With the price of 8GB sticks you might as well jump to a 27" imac simply because of how much that inflates the price of a quad mini. On the mac pro right now nothing below the 6 core seems worth purchasing in that configuration and it's still a generation behind. Having extra hard drive bays helps but even with 2TB drives in all three slots I'd still need backups and extra room for the really old stuff.

 

[HelveticaRoman]

Nearly All Apple Hardware Costs More Than the Average PC

Nearly all Popes are Catholic.

 

[radek42]

You should compare the market share of single companies like Dell or HP with Apples market share, but i do not see that you do it.

Good point! I found couple:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1716975/will-the-ipad-blast-apples-pc-market-share-past-hp-and-dell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_share_of_leading_PC_vendors
For US market Apple is around 10% compared to 20+% for HP and Dell.
For the world market Apple is not even on the list.

Then make them!

I did. Apple is priced similarly to business-class PCs such as dell and hp.

R>

 

[Eidorian]

I agree with some of those above me. I get an email almost every day from TigerDirect.com or Newegg.com offering Windows PCs, and sometimes laptops, for as little as $299 sometimes (especially near Black Friday). This is probably a huge contributor to the disparity in these graphs.

However, the graph that should supplement those above is the rate at which those $299 Windows PCs/Laptops are replaced versus an Apple Desktop/Laptop etc.

THAT'S the comparison that matters to me.

That depends on the users. I just encountered a 7 year, 8 month old Dell Pentium-M notebook that was better off replaced still in use.

In a smokers home, I found an aging Northwood with 256 MB of RAM and XP SP 3 running just fine. I was personally amazed by that one.

Both machines are just used for web browsing and still served that well outside of sluggish hard drives. I'm considering building new low end machines with a SSD just to keep them perky. AMD's Brazos and Llano platforms shine here for the CPU + fGPU and driver support. Not to mention USB 3.0 and SATA 6 Gbps on the FCH.