Why a Mac costs more than a PC...

[ender land]

This is actually pretty damn important. I was at Best Buy the other day playing with various laptops, and was just disgusted at how bad some of the trackpads are on these laptops.

Considering how much I am going to use my current laptop (2010 MBP 13") over the next years I have no problems justifying paying $100+ for the trackpad difference. I do not even bother bringing a mouse around with me anymore whereas I know if I had a windows laptop (like my HP work laptop) you would not catch me using the trackpad for more than perhaps 10 min before I went insane!

For me, too, it was a huge selling factor of the MBP vs any cheaper windows computer.

 

[Dr McKay]

The first time I tried using a Mac was in College on Tiger. We had a suite of Mac Pro's for video editing and photoshop. And this happened to me dozens of times a day at the most basic of tasks.


Ok, Ive been messing with the footage in the timeline of Final Cut Pro with my SD footage. Ok, I'll just render it and....

After a restart, Ill work on my animation project, Ok I'll just drag these 15 pictures, about 100kb each into Final Cut and....

Hmm....

Having never seen a Mac before, I can't say I was impressed by their supposed 'It just works' and 'Mac's don't crash' comments that were being thrown around at the time.


What do I have to deal with on Windows? The occasional 'This Program has stopped responding' about once every 2-3 weeks. 9 times out of 10, just waiting about 20 seconds, and the program will respond.

 

[chrismacguy]

The first time I tried using a Mac was in College on Tiger. We had a suite of Mac Pro's for video editing and photoshop. And this happened to me dozens of times a day at the most basic of tasks.

//snip//

Ok, Ive been messing with the footage in the timeline of Final Cut Pro with my SD footage. Ok, I'll just render it and....

After a restart, Ill work on my animation project, Ok I'll just drag these 15 pictures, about 100kb each into Final Cut and....

//snip//

Hmm....

Having never seen a Mac before, I can't say I was impressed by their supposed 'It just works' and 'Mac's don't crash' comments that were being thrown around at the time.


What do I have to deal with on Windows? The occasional 'This Program has stopped responding' about once every 2-3 weeks. 9 times out of 10, just waiting about 20 seconds, and the program will respond.

What in the name of happened to that poor Mac. Those must have had SEVERE mistreatment to get like that. I havent had a single KP on my Mac Pro, nor 1 on my MacBook Air, and I only have had 3 across the other 12 Macs I own. That shows they have severe issues, since I work in Final Cut Studio and Motion constantly, and neither of them have crashed it. However Windows crashes for me regularly...

 

[Dr McKay]

What in the name of happened to that poor Mac. Those must have had SEVERE mistreatment to get like that. I havent had a single KP on my Mac Pro, nor 1 on my MacBook Air, and I only have had 3 across the other 12 Macs I own. That shows they have severe issues, since I work in Final Cut Studio and Motion constantly, and neither of them have crashed it. However Windows crashes for me regularly...

Thats my argument of preferring to use Windows over OS X, and not blind fanboyism. And that is I have had a better experience and more luck using Windows, first impressions are the longest lasting.

 

[Capt Underpants]

Songsmith is ridiculous. For the other ones I used Mixcraft 5 for $75. Insert whatever you like, it won't get cheaper.

Yes it will.

Reaper. $40 and every bit as good as Logic. If you wanted to "hook up your guitar and add effects" you should know this.

This is a useless thread. You're defending Apple's pricing structure based on your perceived value of the software they include. Apple charges a higher price because that's their market. They've never been a budget computer maker and they never will. People will pay for it because of brand recognition, trendiness, and usability.

I don't know why you feel the need to defend Apple's pricing structure. Go plug your guitar in and make some music.

 

[RichardBeer]

Whilst build quality of Apples products is usually superior to competitors products and pricing is competitive when the machines are compared to others within the same segment of the personal computer market. There are one or two constructive criticisms I would make concerning the points of the OP.

Chiefly that outside of objective build quality, the judgement upon the peripherals and the aesthetic design rests upon a subjective experience. For example, many people prefer 'chunky' keyboards to the laptop reminiscent keyboards that Apple now produce, whilst some, (myself included) prefer the flat keys. The experience with design particularly in the case of peripherals is therefore subjective and can't fact into an objective judgement of value.

Secondly, the statement that OS X is the most 'advanced' OS in the world needs to be evidenced on the whole by an in depth comparison. The term 'advanced' in itself is rather ambiguous. If we take it to be the superiority of the OS's capabilities and design, then there are short comings that could falsify OS X's claim to be the most 'advanced' OS. For example 3D performance compared to Windows. I've also heard of brief comparisons of OS X to Solaris. But like I said previously this could do with a definitive point for point comparison. Although Apple's sweeping claim of outright superiority seems to me to still be a bit brave. I would like to factor in aspects such as innovation and user interface but again these come down largely to subjective opinion, although I'd argue that a quantitive study of opinion, Aqua vs Windows vs Gnome/KDE etc would be valid.

Other than those points, I would agree with the bulk of the OP that ultimately a mac costs more upfront but you do get the quality, the reliability and usually the power. But in the long run the prospects of repair costs of the average PC to a mac closes the price gap considerably in the favour of the mac. However I would like to make a final point concerning the prices,

Comparing hardware prices, it's common knowledge that as hardware ages and new hardware replaces it; the prices drop. However seeing as how Apple releases products with relatively predictable release cycles, but keeps the same price point for the life cycle of the particular model, the comparative hardware value of what's in the mac will gradually decrease over time as the hardware is superseded by new releases in the market. Therefore the best time to get the value for your money is to buy a mac when they have just been refreshed and not towards the end of it's life cycle.

 

[organerito]

I agree that any Mac OS might be better to its respective Windows OS except for Windows 7. If you say that SL is more advanced than W7, it is because you haven't tried it. I am not satying either that W7 is superior to SL. I am just saying it is just as good. It is a matter of opinion. There is no way you can prove it is better than W7.

 

[Flavor]

I agree that any Mac OS might be better to its respective Windows OS except for Windows 7. If you say that SL is more advanced than W7, it is because you haven't tried it. I am not satying either that W7 is superior to SL. I am just saying it is just as good. It is a matter of opinion. There is no way you can prove it is better than W7.

Windows 7 is one of the best Windows OS releases since XP. A good all around system. However the preference goes to whatever you're wanting to do with the system and what you look for in terms of usability. Personally, I enjoy a lot of the UI design in snow leopard - standardized File menus for all apps so all the settings for new apps are intuitive and easy to find. Being able to easily command-click to pull items from the menu bar makes for easy organization. Using automator to handle a lot of boring, repetitive, tasks helps keep everything in line.

Both are great. Having used Windows most of my life I'm finding a lot of good functionality in OS X that makes it ideal for day-to-day computer use. But to each their own really.

 

[BikerAlley]

I just dumped windows 7 for A 27" Imac
I do a little multitrac recording and have found nine out of ten times when the file reaches a large file size, Win 7 Crashes.
Or the program locks up, Tracks do not stay in time, etc

On my new Imac that I have only had two days I have already recorded a 17 track recording the first time I even open the program.

That alone makes it worth the money to me.

and I did not have to go download drivers to do it..
This Is right out of the box, and I'm done.

As for the price. it's all related to market share. they build 20 times more window machines the they do MAC,
To make it simple for windows users that means for every video card, mother board, hard drive, etc MAC uses windows uses 19 more.
That means higher volume = Lower Prices...
It is really is that simple!

 

[chrismacguy]

I agree that any Mac OS might be better to its respective Windows OS except for Windows 7. If you say that SL is more advanced than W7, it is because you haven't tried it. I am not satying either that W7 is superior to SL. I am just saying it is just as good. It is a matter of opinion. There is no way you can prove it is better than W7.

I have tried both, and lets take a quick comparison:

Does Windows 7 have Python, Java and a UNIX Terminal, straight out of the box, and does it take under 2 days to get Java to work? Does SL?

SL - 1, Windows - 0

Does Windows 7 still BSOD more regularly than SL KPs?

SL - 2, Windows - 0

Does Windows 7 let me use any of the software I rely on daily (Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio)? Does SL?

SL - 3, Windows - 0.

Is Windows 7 unelegant and a real real hash-job just below its UI? Is SL?

SL - 4, Windows - 0.
I use both Snow Leopard and Windows 7 on a daily basis (14 Macs, 7 PCs and counting) - from every viewpoint, be in architectural or simplicity, Snow Leopard wins, with just 2 caveats. 1) No Proper TabletPC for OS X, so my Tablet has to run Windows 7 and 2) No Visual Studio for Mac, so again, have to do a small amount of development on Windows. If it werent for those 2 things I wouldnt own a single PC. FOr my use as illustrated above: Snow Leopard beats Windows 7 hands down.

 

[MacSIU]

The reason Mac costs more than a PC is because of the brand name. They can charge more and get away with it.

Brand name?????? i dont think so, is the quality of apple products!!!!!

 

[macsmurf]

Thats my argument of preferring to use Windows over OS X, and not blind fanboyism. And that is I have had a better experience and more luck using Windows, first impressions are the longest lasting.

You had a kernel panic on your hands (OS X tries to give you a more polite error message). My guess would be faulty RAM or insufficient CPU cooling. Hardware fails, regardless of the operating system.

On the other hand, if it works for you there's absolutely no reason to switch. I wouldn't call that blind fanboyism.

 

[torbjoern]

Brand name?????? i dont think so, is the quality of apple products!!!!!

When Apple is the only brand to make computers or cell phones in accordance with our preferences, it can easily be seen as some irrational brand-name-loyalty when we keep buying those products. Or "blind fanboyism" as some people like to call it. Believe me - I was one of those Apple-haters who thought that only idiots would buy such over-priced computers.

Buying an expensive computer for the sole purpose to strut around and feel cool with a device that has a picture of a fruit on it, is only for people who have strong, freudian urges to do so - and for them it's probably worth it anyway. I do hope, however, that the very majority of Apple users buy the products because they work well. Anything else is like encouraging Apple to make lousy devices and sell them at a 50 % premium.

 

[andrewlgm]

There is not much discussion to be had here. The white unibody policarbonate macbook is better than any windows laptop in the market right now. The only laptops that I have seen that compare in quality and design with the white macbook are the Carbon line by Sony. They, however, sell for almost 5k and up, and have no Mac OS X. The Vaio Z Series is also charming, but sell for 2K and up. The 999 White polycarbonate or the 999 MacBook air are much, much, better choices for their longevity, Mac Os X, and apple support.

I left out the MacBook Pro for a reason. There is simply no laptop, by any company, not even Sony, that can compare to the style and quality of the MacBook Pro line.

 

[Beige Panda]

I haven't owned a mac before, but I will in a few weeks when the new MBPs are released.

I have had zero - and I do mean ZERO - complaints with my PC desktops. Closest thing was a video card dying a few months ago, but that's a nvidia problem. Granted, I don't just go out and buy stuff from Dell or Toshiba or whatever. I buy all the components myself and build the computer from that. I save even more money and get a more reliable machine that I know from the inside out. If anything goes wrong (and it usually doesn't) I'm more than capable of fixing it. If my computer becomes outdated, I'm more than capable of upgrading it for cheap or building a new one - also for cheap.

However, PC laptops piss me off. I've never owned a laptop but I've used other people's laptops consistently - the PC ones always had horrendously low battery life, they just felt cheap as hell, and always seem to slow to a snails pace after several months of use. Not sure why, but they do.

The macbook line, though, feels awesome to me. Solid construction, long battery life, basically fixing everything I hate about PC laptops. Still overpriced, I think, but if I'm going to buy something that's meant to be portable - a durable computer with long battery life may be worth the premium. I just wish hope Apple is willing to put a stronger GPU in the refresh this week.

I can ignore all the software the OP presented, though. I won't be using any of it. This MBP will be used for Avid, Final Cut Pro, Adobe After Effects/Photoshop, Pro Tools, etc.

All things considered, the only problem I have with macs is the user base.

 

[wovel]

i love macs but i have to say that some of the stuff you mentioned is just bull. OSX being the most advanced operating system out there? thats the biggest fanboy statement someone could say.

number one in hardware? i suppose you meant the build of it. i personally dont like the aluminum that they are using on MBP because they get dented way too easily. i do agree about the build quality of older macs though. theyre are pretty though. also, have you used thinkpads before? far more durable than any mac out there and i have to say, i love the look of them. many people dont though. in terms of the specs, you can get a pc with far grater specs for a lot less. some people need that power, so would a mac be worth it to them then?

in terms of software you are right, but you put too much value to it as they're selling the ilife package at a much lower price than you stated. also, there are so much more options for free software for the mac that you cant get on a mac. there are also lost of software that you cant get on a mac that some people need. lost of 3D software is Windows only. im sure right now yorue thinking BOOTCAMP (duh), but why run windows software with bootcamp if you can run it far better on a pc with better specs??

the OS argument is somewhat true. what makes the development process for new Microsoft OS is that it has to make changes for so much more hardware and software for compatibility. OSX doesnt have to go through as much. its really a lot more work. this is the reason for the pricing. also, OXS gets new versions more regular while Windows has a 3 year cycle. If you ever tried vista and windows 7, the improvement form their predecessor was HUGE! (although vista should have been tested out more before release)

your development argument shouldn't be there at all. there are only a handful of people that buy macs for development. also, like the OS argument, theres a lot more to be done with windows development because of compatibility. also, most developers who spend that much make so much more in software sales.

you could say that its Microsofts fault for wanting to be compatible with all hardware, but i think thats just being plain selfish. they're doing it so that more people have access these kinds of tools for information. sure, its all business, but its their system, and cheaper hardware that is allowing even very poor people access to the same kind of information we are through the internet.

lastly, the mac community is like a cult, not for all but for many. i mean, you're posting on a site called "macrumors.com" right? i dont think there is a "sony rumors" (there is one but its not focused on computers). or "dellrumors" "or "hprumors". you're posting about how macs are better than pc's right? by creating the thread, you just proved it. by taking the time to actually look for arguments and posting them, you just proved it.

well, thats me trying to give an unbiased opinion. i love macs and use one myself, but i cant say that they are always worth it it depends on who is using it. it could be worth it to some, but not worth it to others. its still kinda early for me and im still a bit sleepy so i apologize for any typos or sentences that dont make sense at all have a nice day everyone

My company has given out thinkpads for years, mine are only slightly used since I primarily use my own Mac. In 3 years I have had the hardrive cover break off of two Thinkpads because I picked them up by the front right corner while they were open...You know the same way I pickup my MBP at least 15 times a day.

Maybe Lenovo will tell me I am holding it wrong. Thinkpads are plastic POS toys..

 

[cr2]

Then it comes to the raw facts. MacBookPros have the fastest processors in there. The i5 and i7 are the fastest ones with a TDP of 35W, anything other would be to hot to fit in there. The MacBook and it‘s 2,4GHz Core2Duo is not, one may wonder why they don‘t put a i3 in there. This is due it‘s smaller form factor, it‘s not capable of accommodating a discrete graphics cards - like all the other 13“ notebooks. Intel has a license agreement with nVidia that allows them to develop chipsets for Intel CPUs. However they claim that this don‘t cover the Core-i family of CPUs, which left Apple to decide between a i3 CPU and Intel‘s integrated graphics, or carry on with the Core2Duo and use the much more powerful, for Apple exclusively developed 320m chipset. Apple went the Core2Duo way, until other possibilities are given. The same goes for the MacBookAir, there would be a 18W i7 CPU available.

Very good analysis. Can you please do a detailed analysis of the above paragraph. It will help a person like me who does not understand current chipsets.

Another thing I would add is that you don't have to break your head and waste time to support Windows. I know the trouble as I was responsible to supports 3 home PCs.

I switched to mac recently, delayed it so much because Chessbase and ICC dasher does not have a mac version. One thing, I can tell that Macs just work and and are very simple.

 

[TomCondon]

case in point

advent laptop bought 2010 had two motherboard breaks in less that 1.5 years

you get what you pay for.

 

[thesk1llerz]

The reason a MAC costs more than a WINDOWS machine is the fact that they can charge whatever they want (Because of brand name), as long as they have people to buy them.
BTW "PC" stands for "Personal Computer

 

[Fuzzy14]

Brand name?????? i dont think so, is the quality of apple products!!!!!

I don't agree. I've had more issues with my 2007 MacBook than I have my 2000 iMac or 1994 Performa. See this thread for similar voices.

But as previously mentioned, the whole life costs (my 17 year old computer still in daily use) was well worth the premium.

 

[neshkito]

Great post, I'd love to see it stickied, as this is discussed far too often.

I was wondering the same question. Now I see why the Mac was more expensive then the regular notebook. Will have a look at Amazon for some good offer for my new Mac This must be definitely sticked

 

[gslrider]

Your getting pretty much what you pay for. Even my friends who are avid PC gamers, say that to have a PC with the same specs as a MacPro, you would be spending as much or very close to it to build a PC from scratch with those specs. Yes, you would have to custom build a PC to match a quad-core Mac Pro system. Anything you buy off the rack wouldn't stack up. At the same time, even if you did build a PC to match the Mac Pro, it still wouldn't be able to run both Windows and OS X at the same time. And as history well documents it, Macs have a longer life span than PCs. I would definitely spend the extra money on a system like a Mac Pro (off the rack), for reliability, performance, and peace of mind. Never had any issues with my Macs since I started using them back in 1989.

 

[daceymathers]

...but is CHEAPER in reality.

People say, we are a Sect, with Saint Steve as our leader. We pay way to much for what we get. Apple belongs to Scientology, we‘re all brainwashed anyways and don‘t mind dying for our fix of iProducts - or would do even worse things.
However those people are ignorant anyways, but no one really felt to clear their ignorance and gave them an analyzation why.


The Hardware
The build quality is insane. Most G3s are still running regardless of their age, most of them without any chattering or outstanding noise. Modern Macs with their aluminum unibody enclosures are not comparable to the plastic bags most PC laptop makes wrap their logic board into. There is no color which can chip off, making the machine look nasty and worn out. The keyboards, both standalone and the ones integrated into MacBooks, are outstanding and a pleasure to type on. This is however depending on personal preference, some might not like the flat keys of the aluminum keyboards, but the previous generation standalone keyboards are still way better than most PC keyboards. I own both, and I like both, however I prefer the clicky-clacky sound of the acrylic keyboard when typing, but it‘s more comfortable to type with the flat keys of the aluminum keyboard. The Magic Mouse is ahead of it‘s time, there is no PC mouse with such advanced multitouch functions. The old Mighty Mouse however has it‘s disadvantages when it comes to the scroll ball, which is much nicer then the scroll wheel of PC mouses - as long as it works properly. As soon as it got cleaned however, it continues working like a charm.
The MacBooks come with a magnetic lock, so there is no mechanics to keep both halves together which can wear our or break. Laptop PCs often break the pin inside the coaxial power connector, the Mac has a system called MagSafe, you can rip it out like a monkey and won't brake it, because it's connected magnetically.
In short, they are the most sophisticated computers out there, at least in terms of details to make it easier working with them.

Then it comes to the raw facts. MacBookPros have the fastest processors in there. The i5 and i7 are the fastest ones with a TDP of 35W, anything other would be to hot to fit in there. The MacBook and it‘s 2,4GHz Core2Duo is not, one may wonder why they don‘t put a i3 in there. This is due it‘s smaller form factor, it‘s not capable of accommodating a discrete graphics cards - like all the other 13“ notebooks. Intel has a license agreement with nVidia that allows them to develop chipsets for Intel CPUs. However they claim that this don‘t cover the Core-i family of CPUs, which left Apple to decide between a i3 CPU and Intel‘s integrated graphics, or carry on with the Core2Duo and use the much more powerful, for Apple exclusively developed 320m chipset. Apple went the Core2Duo way, until other possibilities are given. The same goes for the MacBookAir, there would be a 18W i7 CPU available.

The Software
Mac OS X is the most advanced operating system out there - pretty hard to doubt that. I could explain that in a septillion ways, but people don‘t care for that anyways. So I have that for you:

iTunes - FREE
The whole world of music - under your cursor. The biggest music store out there, the best way to organize it. It‘s a tie here, because you can download that for Windows, too.

iLife - FREE with every Mac
Mac users know why they love iLife. No fooling around with folders full of photos, you can make really good looking videos, compose DVDs, and even semi-professionally record music. It‘s just there, and so easy to use that virtually everyone can use it.

iPhoto? -> Picasa2 for free
iMovie? -> Windows Live Movie Maker? Not even close. Corel Video Studio Express, $39.
iDVD? -> Nero Media Suite, $70.
iWeb? -> Microsoft Expression Web, $150. Let‘s be generous on this one, Google Page Creator, $0.
GarageBand? -> At least Mixcraft 5, $75

Adds up a total of $185 to replace iLife, which came with your Mac for free. Remember that we were very generous here, most of them can‘t really replace the equivalent from iLife. If you‘re a Linux user, you‘d have here Picasa2, dvdauthor+growisofs, nvu and Audacity for $0, but they are hilarious compared to iLife.

You want to do backups? Well, a Mac comes with Time Machine. Want to have that on Windows? Genie Timeline Professional, $60.

When it comes to software development on Windows, you‘re pretty much screwed. Visual Studio comes in 3 flavors: Professional, Premium and Ultimate. Cost? $750, $5500 and $12000. There is VS Express for free, but it isn‘t really meant as a serious development environment, it‘s rather a version to test things out.
On the Mac there‘s Xcode, for free, which does all the things that Visual Studio Ultimate does. Also you don‘t have to renew your MSDN membership yearly for thousands of dollars, there is one Mac Membership program for $100, which lets you gain access to the pre-releases of Mac OS X to develop software for it prior it‘s release, and an iPhone Developer Membership program that let‘s you put your Application on the App Store.
So costs saved for software developers: At least $750.

This makes „Coding Woz“, a software developer, who occasionally uses iLife actually get his MacBook for free plus $60 on his hand to go to the movies, compared to a Windows machine.

Leaves us with „Average Steve“, a fictiv Mac owner who‘s MacBook costs $755 at the moment. A year goes on, Microsoft delivers minor updates, major bug fixes and calls it Windows 8 to rip-off people. „Average Bill“ has to score an update for his Home Premium for $100. With Windows Ultimate however he‘s screwed again, $250. „Average Steve“ however hits the Update-Button a couple of times until 10.x.6 or so, then get‘s the update to 10.x+1 for $29.

„Average Steve“'s MacBook? $685.

Let‘s see what NewEgg offers us for that.
MSI CR620-031US Intel Core i5 430M(2.26GHz) 15.6" 4GB Memory 500GB HDD Intel HD, $684.99.

Thank you there, but with the Intel graphics, I‘ll take the MacBook, even if it's screen is smaller. The CPU toggles between 2.26-2.53GHz, so it's just a touch faster then the Macbooks, but this is more due to the new architecture.

One of the biggest costs for Windows owners is Virus and malware annual software subscriptions. Generally, you can use free malware removal tools, as well as anti-virus applications. But for anti-virus software you’re probably going to want something with a subscription. With that said, you’re probably going to pay annually about $60.00 to $70.00 to protect your Windows computer from being attacked.But mac Mac owner who uses no security software at all runs less risk of being infected by spyware or a virus than a Windows user who obsessively protects his or her PC

 

[Hastings101]

One of the biggest costs for Windows owners is Virus and malware annual software subscriptions. Generally, you can use free malware removal tools, as well as anti-virus applications. But for anti-virus software you’re probably going to want something with a subscription. With that said, you’re probably going to pay annually about $60.00 to $70.00 to protect your Windows computer from being attacked.But mac Mac owner who uses no security software at all runs less risk of being infected by spyware or a virus than a Windows user who obsessively protects his or her PC

Avast!, Microsoft Security Essentials, AVG, Panda Cloud Antivirus... just to name a few popular and effective free antivirus programs that are just as good as paid for alternatives. We're not living in the 90s where the only option for most people was to pay either McAfee or Norton for antivirus software.

Also, the whole "no viruses, yay!" thing is starting to go away. OS X will eventually get more and more malware, especially as it becomes more popular. That's just unavoidable. As with Windows, the more tech-savvy Mac users might be safe from it, but the other 90% of them probably won't be so lucky. It's great that you have to enter your password for something to harm your system, but I'm sure your average computer user will more than likely enter his password for anything that pops up. Then, guess what those users will need? Some software to fix those problems, unless Apple takes security more serious than Microsoft and begins to actively includes some sort of anti-malware in OS X.

 

[st0p.]

When Apple computers are among the most expensive, I think it's fair to say that people expect them to compete with all the other computers in their price range.

If you need a Blu-ray player, the Mac loses.
If you need the fastest graphics card, or best gaming performance, or the ability to upgrade and customize, the Mac loses.

What if your favorite color is red...or blue? What if you want a computer in your favorite color?

Guess what? There is no "perfect" computer. If you bought a Mac, chances are it's because it was right for you.

I own and use both PC and Mac, and each suits a different need. There is no one-size-fits-all, especially not in computers.