I have been using macs since before the hype.
so you my friend, are confusing hype with experience.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Microsoft Ad Campaign Targets Mac Prices
- Thread starter donga
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I have been using macs since before the hype.
so you my friend, are confusing hype with experience.
Far out man, tell me more!
Just wait a second, I have to check if the lentils are cooked.
It's simple marketing. When you have an inferior product that isn't selling like it use to you high light the thriftiness of the product. Wal-Mart sells tons of cheap plastic crap that way.
Frankly, the quote at the end should have been "I'm just not smart enough to save money and buy a Mac."
Frankly, the quote at the end should have been "I'm just not smart enough to save money and buy a Mac."
I wonder if MS ever get frustrated that none of the hardware manufacturers make anything that can compete in design and desirability terms with a Mac. I sometimes think that the weakest link in the PC is the cheap nasty hardware more than the OS.
I sold one of those HPs to a customer that I had sold a $2,800 17" Macbook Pro to a few months earlier. Asked how his MBP was and he said fine until his cat knocked a drink over on it.
It was going to cost $1,400 to repair it and he had refused the accidental protection plan when I had offered it to him.
Anyhoo, he needed a nice 17" laptop for less that a thousand dollars and I showed him the DV-7 1245dx for $699. He couldn't believe he was getting twice as much memory, a 70GB larger hard drive, an Altec Lansing sound system and HDMI out for $2,100 less than his MPB. He was a very happy camper. Oh and he bought the protection plan.
It was going to cost $1,400 to repair it and he had refused the accidental protection plan when I had offered it to him. Anyhoo, he needed a nice 17" laptop for less that a thousand dollars and I showed him the DV-7 1245dx for $699. He couldn't believe he was getting twice as much memory, a 70GB larger hard drive, an Altec Lansing sound system and HDMI out for $2,100 less than his MPB. He was a very happy camper. Oh and he bought the protection plan.
Hehehehe, she wan't a mac but since she can't afford it and is not cool enough she goes for the HP brick.
I have a Windows computer and a Mac and I find the experience on both to be equal. I don't need to feel good about myself when I use a computer. I want to use it.
Macs are not always more expensive than an equivalent PC
I had always thought that Macs were more expensive than PCs. Past checking had proven this to be true. So when I was looking for a new notebook, I wanted something high-end with the following characteristics as a minimum:
So I looked at HP, Dell, and Apple, creating hardware configurations that matched this as closely as I could (same on the software side). I discovered a curious thing when it came to price at the time I was buying: the HP was $4000 US, the Dell was $4200 US, and the Apple was $3200.
The first time I did the configs and came to the bottom line, it took me a while to try and figure out what I did wrong. Surely Apple could not be $1000 less than Dell. For Dell, I had picked one of the new mobile workstations; for HP, I had picked a similar model; for Apple, it was the top of the line Macbook Pro. I thought that perhaps the beverage I was sipping at the time had more than Coke in it. So I repeated this exercise for a month, trying all kinds of difference configurations to meet the above guidelines. And I always came up with Apple being cheaper. The main price difference was that both HP and Dell gouged you for memory and for moving from 250 GB to 320 GB for your 7200 rpm disk. Get a life, will you?
Less you think Apple without sin in this area, Apple wanted $1200 US to upgrade from 4 GB to 8 GB of memory. At the time, I could have purchased a full 8 GB of memory (not just an upgrade) from Crucial for about $720 US. Their 4 GB kit was like $320 US. In essence, an "upgrade" from Crucial would have been about $400 US. Needless to say, Apple did not get my money for the added memory.
So while I find the "cheap-o" PC ads amusing, they so don't tell the whole story. The first time I saw that ad, I turned to my wife and asked her this question: "If you were in the market for a laptop, would you trust that girl's advice on what to buy and why?" She just smiled and said that she would trust my buying advice anytime over someone who is an obvious technology newbie.
I had always thought that Macs were more expensive than PCs. Past checking had proven this to be true. So when I was looking for a new notebook, I wanted something high-end with the following characteristics as a minimum:
- CPU - 2.93 GHz dual-core or better
- Memory - 4 GB minimum
- Disk - 320 GB, 7200 rpm
- Screen - 1920x1200, RGB LED, 17"
- Video - something just below gamer level, 256 MB dedicated video memory, 512 MB or more preferred
So I looked at HP, Dell, and Apple, creating hardware configurations that matched this as closely as I could (same on the software side). I discovered a curious thing when it came to price at the time I was buying: the HP was $4000 US, the Dell was $4200 US, and the Apple was $3200.
The first time I did the configs and came to the bottom line, it took me a while to try and figure out what I did wrong. Surely Apple could not be $1000 less than Dell. For Dell, I had picked one of the new mobile workstations; for HP, I had picked a similar model; for Apple, it was the top of the line Macbook Pro. I thought that perhaps the beverage I was sipping at the time had more than Coke in it. So I repeated this exercise for a month, trying all kinds of difference configurations to meet the above guidelines. And I always came up with Apple being cheaper. The main price difference was that both HP and Dell gouged you for memory and for moving from 250 GB to 320 GB for your 7200 rpm disk. Get a life, will you?
Less you think Apple without sin in this area, Apple wanted $1200 US to upgrade from 4 GB to 8 GB of memory. At the time, I could have purchased a full 8 GB of memory (not just an upgrade) from Crucial for about $720 US. Their 4 GB kit was like $320 US. In essence, an "upgrade" from Crucial would have been about $400 US. Needless to say, Apple did not get my money for the added memory.
So while I find the "cheap-o" PC ads amusing, they so don't tell the whole story. The first time I saw that ad, I turned to my wife and asked her this question: "If you were in the market for a laptop, would you trust that girl's advice on what to buy and why?" She just smiled and said that she would trust my buying advice anytime over someone who is an obvious technology newbie.
That's actually a pretty decent ad compared to the other ones they've done in the past. I think they're heading in the right direction...It'll definitely influence the average computer user, who is more than likely using a PC, to stick with a PC...but for Mac users, it definitely won't influence them to switch to PC.
Oh please, don't talk like Apple always offer the most superior hardware in their machines. Most PC laptops, if you spent around $1500 would match or beat the hardware Mac's offer you. But these things get changed because of the form factor.
Honestly - if OS X ran on any machine, how many of us would still buy Apple machines?
Don't get me wrong, the design is world beating all around - but we know we know we can get way better hardware for less.
A huge point that is not addressed
1. A Mac is able to run both OS X AND Windows (my Octo Mac Pro has Vista 32 AND 64 bit running on my 4th SATA bay). In essence, you are purchasing two machines in one, which in my mind makes Mac systems more bang for your purchase buck.
2. Windows systems require more technical support than the average Mac OS X system (generally speaking).
3. Once additional costs are factored into the bottom dollar, Windows based systems usually cost more money. Certainly comparing hardware to hardware Windows based systems require less financial investment, however once an average consumer adds software necessities as well as technical support (I believe after a certain period Microsoft either charges ridiculous amounts of money per session/or package while AppleCare Service and Support sell plans ranging from ~$169-$349 for three years) the bottom financial dollar for PC systems surpasses that of Apples. Include anti-virus software and other necessary Windows software that is not initially included and the price increases.
Bottom line, hardware to hardware Windows based systems are less expensive. Once software, service and support fees are included, Apple systems are a less expensive (and less time consuming) product.
(Given the track record with Windows based systems, one may have to reinvest financially in a new system every 1-2 years, creating more e-waste. Generally speaking, a Mac OS system may run for years with new OS's. I was able to install OS X 10.5 on an old eMac that did not meet the "hardware" requirements. Some tweaking in the installation code bypassed this requirement, and Leopard 10.5 ran EVEN FASTER than tiger on that particular eMac)
1. A Mac is able to run both OS X AND Windows (my Octo Mac Pro has Vista 32 AND 64 bit running on my 4th SATA bay). In essence, you are purchasing two machines in one, which in my mind makes Mac systems more bang for your purchase buck.
2. Windows systems require more technical support than the average Mac OS X system (generally speaking).
3. Once additional costs are factored into the bottom dollar, Windows based systems usually cost more money. Certainly comparing hardware to hardware Windows based systems require less financial investment, however once an average consumer adds software necessities as well as technical support (I believe after a certain period Microsoft either charges ridiculous amounts of money per session/or package while AppleCare Service and Support sell plans ranging from ~$169-$349 for three years) the bottom financial dollar for PC systems surpasses that of Apples. Include anti-virus software and other necessary Windows software that is not initially included and the price increases.
Bottom line, hardware to hardware Windows based systems are less expensive. Once software, service and support fees are included, Apple systems are a less expensive (and less time consuming) product.
(Given the track record with Windows based systems, one may have to reinvest financially in a new system every 1-2 years, creating more e-waste. Generally speaking, a Mac OS system may run for years with new OS's. I was able to install OS X 10.5 on an old eMac that did not meet the "hardware" requirements. Some tweaking in the installation code bypassed this requirement, and Leopard 10.5 ran EVEN FASTER than tiger on that particular eMac)
Some Apple models have crossed the boundary from "added value" to "rip-off"
Current Mac Pros are a very poor value. I was actually going to buy a Mac Pro as soon as Apple announced the Nehalem models, but I postponed my purchase as the current price/performance point does not make any sense. Apple is asking for 150% premium for the single processor model compared to similar hardware from other vendors.
First, the single processor, quad-core Mac Pro: Xeon adds no practical value for this system. It is essentially the same as any other desktop Core i7 system out there in terms of performance. Yes, you do get a better designed enclosure, and better software, but I don't understand how Apple can justify charging $2500 for this system when you can get a comparably configured system from Dell/Gateway (and now Lenovo) in the $1K range. And most of these vendors do not give you a retarded graphics card like the NVidia 120, on top of that, they usually have some kind of a promotion going on where you can get extra 3GB of memory for free (for a total of 6GB)...
When Apple introduced the first Intel Mac Pros, pricing was actually quite competitive against comparable products from vendors like Dell. This was partly because the Xeon processors and chipset that supported SMP configuration was very pricey and therefore only available in high end workstation class platforms.
I think it would be fair for Apple to claim some premium over the generic PC workstation given the much better enclosure design and excellent software, but a reasonable cap for this premium should be in the 50% range. If I can get a XPS 435 with a single 2.66GHz Core i7, 6GB, 750GB HD, ATI 4670 graphics for $1099 (sale price), a similarly configured Mac Pro should not cost more than $1599-$1699. $2499 is a ridiculous price in today's market. If Apple wanted to maintain $2499 as an entry price, they should have offered the 2.93GHz processor, 6GB memory, 1TB HD and Radeon 4670 as the base configuration.
As for the dual processor model, the entry level processor choice of the 2.26GHz Core i7 Xeons is ridiculous. This model clearly has lower performance than the dual 2.8GHz Xeon Mac Pro it is replacing in almost all applications despite the higher price tag. The new dual processor Mac Pro should have been priced at $2999 and should have included dual 2.66GHz quad-core Core i7 processors, 6GB RAM, 1TB HD and ATI 4870 graphics. It is shameful that Apple puts a 640GB HD in a $3299 system to save maybe $20 cost when you can get 1TB HDs for $90 at retail.
Intel is going to do a major price adjustment in May and July of this year and introduce faster Core i7 chips. It would be interesting to see if Apple updates the entry level single processor Mac Pro to 2.93GHz and entry level the dual processor Mac Pro to 2.66GHz at that time while maintaining the price point.
Bottomline: The Apple premium for a Mac compared to a similarly configured model from Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. is:
Current Mac Pros are a very poor value. I was actually going to buy a Mac Pro as soon as Apple announced the Nehalem models, but I postponed my purchase as the current price/performance point does not make any sense. Apple is asking for 150% premium for the single processor model compared to similar hardware from other vendors.
First, the single processor, quad-core Mac Pro: Xeon adds no practical value for this system. It is essentially the same as any other desktop Core i7 system out there in terms of performance. Yes, you do get a better designed enclosure, and better software, but I don't understand how Apple can justify charging $2500 for this system when you can get a comparably configured system from Dell/Gateway (and now Lenovo) in the $1K range. And most of these vendors do not give you a retarded graphics card like the NVidia 120, on top of that, they usually have some kind of a promotion going on where you can get extra 3GB of memory for free (for a total of 6GB)...
When Apple introduced the first Intel Mac Pros, pricing was actually quite competitive against comparable products from vendors like Dell. This was partly because the Xeon processors and chipset that supported SMP configuration was very pricey and therefore only available in high end workstation class platforms.
I think it would be fair for Apple to claim some premium over the generic PC workstation given the much better enclosure design and excellent software, but a reasonable cap for this premium should be in the 50% range. If I can get a XPS 435 with a single 2.66GHz Core i7, 6GB, 750GB HD, ATI 4670 graphics for $1099 (sale price), a similarly configured Mac Pro should not cost more than $1599-$1699. $2499 is a ridiculous price in today's market. If Apple wanted to maintain $2499 as an entry price, they should have offered the 2.93GHz processor, 6GB memory, 1TB HD and Radeon 4670 as the base configuration.
As for the dual processor model, the entry level processor choice of the 2.26GHz Core i7 Xeons is ridiculous. This model clearly has lower performance than the dual 2.8GHz Xeon Mac Pro it is replacing in almost all applications despite the higher price tag. The new dual processor Mac Pro should have been priced at $2999 and should have included dual 2.66GHz quad-core Core i7 processors, 6GB RAM, 1TB HD and ATI 4870 graphics. It is shameful that Apple puts a 640GB HD in a $3299 system to save maybe $20 cost when you can get 1TB HDs for $90 at retail.
Intel is going to do a major price adjustment in May and July of this year and introduce faster Core i7 chips. It would be interesting to see if Apple updates the entry level single processor Mac Pro to 2.93GHz and entry level the dual processor Mac Pro to 2.66GHz at that time while maintaining the price point.
Bottomline: The Apple premium for a Mac compared to a similarly configured model from Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. is:
- 50% Fair
- 100% Questionable
- 150% Rip-off!
Exactly. I know that it sounds lame to say "it's comparing apples to oranges", but it's true. The computer in the commercial is a lot cheaper than the 17" Macbook Pro, but the specs are not anywhere close.
lol, as I own both too. Also, I want to use my comp... I guess we have summed up the whole concept of consumerism! Personal Preference! I really don't care if you like PC's or Mac's. I found what is right for me - iLife 09. I will never use a PC again!
you know it often happens that certain engines are sold and built into different cars by different companies? Take the Corvette engine for instance, just google it and check out if you can have that engine, with pretty much the same performance in an a lot cheaper car, the answer is yes but is it the same experience? Is the car as safe as the original? You think you wouldn't have steering problems and such?
Corvette engine on a Vauxhall
and there are plenty of similar examples in any department that involves business. Either way, you're not buying specs, you're buying a package.
Do Microsoft even sell computers?
Just software the computers are made elese ware so they can never sync up as good almost the same as a HACKINTOSH!
Oh My Goddd!!!!
How is it that it's 2009 and people still don't realize that when it comes to computers, you pay for quality!!
Did anyone else catch the brand of computer she bought? HP. Hewlett Packard makes excellent digital desktop printers. IMO, they should stick to that. My family has had 2 HPs in the past and both of them ended up costing more in the long run for REPAIRS ALONE than the actual value of the computer.
And another thing, she's definitely not cool enough to be a mac person.
How is it that it's 2009 and people still don't realize that when it comes to computers, you pay for quality!!
Did anyone else catch the brand of computer she bought? HP. Hewlett Packard makes excellent digital desktop printers. IMO, they should stick to that. My family has had 2 HPs in the past and both of them ended up costing more in the long run for REPAIRS ALONE than the actual value of the computer.
And another thing, she's definitely not cool enough to be a mac person.
OR, and i know this confuses some people, they could KEEP DOING WHAT THEY ARE.
Apples marketshare has been growing year after year. Why do people keep saying what they NEED to do, when they are already doing what they need to do?
The 17" MBP is not meant for students. In fact, I don't think any 17" notebooks are meant for students at all either. The problem is the questionable battery life and poor resolution at this size. The two machines aren't really comparable, but like I said most people don't need the power and quality of the 17" MBP.
But the ad may or may not be effective. Price is usually the first cutoff point for most students and everything else is secondary.
But the ad may or may not be effective. Price is usually the first cutoff point for most students and everything else is secondary.
- Status