Why a Mac costs more than a PC...

[Giuly]

A nice writeup. I do agree completely with the longevity of Apple computers. They just don't die.



You do know that MS Frontpage hasn't been out since Office 2003, right? Besides, I could never get it to work the way I wanted it to.

They call it Microsoft Expression Web now, and it's $150. Or Expression Studio for $600.

there are a few sound editors around too - songbird rings a bell?

You may want to check the difference between iTunes and GarageBand - Audacity however rings a bell, but I can't hook up my guitar and add effects and amps there. Nor play Midi tracks.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

You made me curious. I want to see those better spec'd, cheaper laptops. I couldn't find any, they must be hiding from my eyes pretty good. Intel X4500MHD doesn't count, nor quad-core's with clock speeds slower than at least 2GHz. All there is are 17" i7 MBP spec'd ones for the price of the 15" i7 MBP - or like I said earlier: $200-300 cheaper.

a macbook air wannabe

The 17", 2.8ghz (quad core?) with 1gb 330m gfx card and 4gb of RAM... for $1368. And yes it has a backlit keyboard, as well as esata ports, USB ports, HDMI...

The hardware is, I would argue, better, on the Dell's, as they don't dent as easily, and are otherwise built equally as well. Thus, the only difference I can see between the two brands, besides price, are the OS, and the brand name itself.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

They call it Microsoft Expression Web now, and it's $150. Or Expression Studio for $600.


You may want to check the difference between iTunes and GarageBand - Audacity however rings a bell, but I can't hook up my guitar and add effects and amps there. Nor play Midi tracks.

Songsmith, my apologies. And there's also Cubase SE and Cakewalk Kineti if you want to spend under $100.

 

[Giuly]

a macbook air wannabe

You saw the 1.4GHz C2D vs. the 2.13GHz on the MBA, right? And the X4500MHD vs. the 9400M until they update it soon to the 320m?

The 17", 2.8ghz (quad core?) with 1gb 330m gfx card and 4gb of RAM... for $1368. And yes it has a backlit keyboard, as well as esata ports, USB ports, HDMI...

No i7 quad-core >2Ghz so slow on real-life performance nor dual-core i7 at all, 1600x900 screen not capable of playing 1080p.

Next one please, try 15" next time, you'll have more luck there.

Songsmith, my apologies. And there's also Cubase SE and Cakewalk Kineti if you want to spend under $100.

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

 

[kaheiyeh]

To some people, yes, it does make sense, but for me, it doesn't.

I don't use any of the iLife apps at all, I don't use iWork at all. In fact, the only app I use often that is bundled with my Mac is iTunes. Nor do I even bother using Time Machine or any backup program on Windows. If the hard drive dies, I just reinstall the OS on a new hard drive. All my important data is never left on the computer; it's always on a separate USB or external HDD.

My PC in my sig below was built, including all the software (OS, Office etc.) and only set me back A$1,200. The lowest spec'ed iMac sets me back at least A$1,600 and comes nowhere near my hardware specs.

The only thing that really distinguishes Macs from PCs, in my opinion, is the style. Macs look a hell lot nicer than many PCs.

But, even with all that aside, I still bought a Mac. And admittedly, the only reason I did was because I wanted to learn OS X so I could increase my employability by adding another skill to my resume. Yes, it's true.

 

[andrewsd]

Shoot people give me crap all the time for paying more but then they have more complaints about their 400$ "pc" then I have with my 8 year old iMac that still performs the same it did day one out of the box.

 

[Giuly]

My PC in my sig below was built, including all the software (OS, Office etc.) and only set me back A$1,200. The lowest spec'ed iMac sets me back at least A$1,600 and comes nowhere near my hardware specs.

Have a look at your screen. Have a look at what that cheapest 27" monitor costs. - don't get started with $300 HDTVs with a resolution of 1920x1080, these are 2560x1440.

Add that on top, substract your old screen and you have a difference of US$450 on the 27" same-spec'd i5 iMac. These things are - like a laptop - manufactured at Foxconn, don't forget that. Your i5 PC is hand-made out of parts which came out of a machine and put in a carton. So in the end this is the same $350 difference as it is with the laptop. On custom PCs however, you don't really have something like AppleCare.

And the 21.5" iMacs are overpriced, no doubt. But they are due to be updated, probably Tuesday. Let's have a look again later.

It seems more and more that it's a myth of the overpriced Apple products, based on misunderstanding of the product line, the update interval and the reading of raw specs, in which they superate the mainstream PCs. All I can see is a general +$350, which gets subtracted to +$250 on the first major update, and is ±$0 if you put the stuff on eBay when you're done with it. The line-up is not bad. However when you look at any one year old Mac on the Apple Store, whose price hasn't been corrected to the fluctuation on the market, with hardware prices dropping each day, that just gets misunderstood.

 

[SidBala]

You made me curious. I want to see those better spec'd, cheaper laptops. I couldn't find any, they must be hiding from my eyes pretty good. Intel X4500MHD doesn't count, nor quad-core's with clock speeds slower than at least 2GHz. All there is are 17" i7 MBP spec'd ones for the price of the 15" i7 MBP - or like I said earlier: $200-300 cheaper.

You are either ignorant or you are just blinded by your own prejudice.


Dell Studio XPS 16 Here
Config that with the 2.53 GHz i5, 500 GB HDD and the Full-HD Screen and the total price hits $1285

MBP 17 inch: $2300

And the dell has a better graphics card too!

That's a difference of over $1000. So your statement of the difference being $200 - $300 is proved to be BS.

A same-spec'd 17" i7 laptop is worthless without at least FullHD screen. I don't want 1600x900. With 1920x1200 they start at $2000. Or are cheaper and have 1.6GHz quad-cores and 1920x1080 screens.

Oh so YOU don't want 1600x900? Well nobody cares about you. But regardless, you are wrong.

Obviously that dell isn't only example. I don't have time to research options to entertain your argument, but I assure you, they exist.

However as I have already stated, macs are awesome computers. I agree with your argument on the lower end. But on the higher end, buying macs brand new is a very bad deal. Buying used or refurb is okay. I own a MBP 17 myself. I bought it used for $1200. That's cheaper than the dell above. But that one is brand new.

The analogy of the BMW Car is very fitting for the high-end mac. So if you have the money, obviously go buy it. But the price is in no way justifiable with the product's worth alone. You are definitely paying for the brand at this segment of the market.

 

[kaheiyeh]

Have a look at your screen. Have a look at what that cheapest 27" monitor costs. - don't get started with $300 HDTVs with a resolution of 1920x1080, these are 2560x1440.

Add that on top, substract your old screen and you have a difference of US$450 on the 27" same-spec'd i5 iMac. These things are - like a laptop - manufactured at Foxconn, don't forget that. Your i5 PC is hand-made out of parts which came out of a machine and put in a carton. So in the end this is the same $350 difference as it is with the laptop. On custom PCs however, you don't really have something like AppleCare.

And the 21.5" iMacs are overpriced, no doubt. But they are due to be updated, probably Tuesday. Let's have a look again later.

It seems more and more that it's a myth of the overpriced Apple products, based on misunderstanding of the product line, the update interval and the reading of raw specs, in which they superate the mainstream PCs. All I can see is a general +$350, which gets subtracted to +$250 on the first major update, and is ±$0 if you put the stuff on eBay when you're done with it. The line-up is not bad. However when you look at any one year old Mac on the Apple Store, whose price hasn't been corrected to the fluctuation on the market, with hardware prices dropping each day, that just gets misunderstood.

I did not compare mine to a 27". I have no need for such a huge monitor. My 21.5" 1080p is fine for me. I can barely fit my 21.5" on my table with all my other stuff on the table.

Who needs AppleCare when almost all my components come out of the box with 3 year, 5 year and even lifetime warranties. The only thing that has less is the GPU with only 1 year warranty. This is all out of the box, you don't need to pay something ridiculous like A$268 to extend your warranty for 2 years.

Plus, even if my GPU does die out of warranty, I would rather spend that A$268 and just get a GPU upgrade instead. You can get a very decent new GPU with that sum of money.

 

[seb-opp]

Interesting thread, but I think if people are going to compare PCs to Macs, they have to be similar types of computers. The OP is right in saying you can't compare a PC laptop with an Intel GPU or a lower resolution screen than any of the macbooks, because they are in different leagues.

If a switcher is considering a mac, they would compare it to a PC with the closest specs. If for the same price a similarly spec'd PC has a lower resolution screen, then the mac is clearly better on that front, so I don't think people here should be arguing that they don't WANT a certain spec, because that's not the point. The point is, which system gives you the most for that price.

Another thing to consider is that the Mac is a premium product and puts the user experience first, rather than raw specs, as the OP rightly pointed out. Obviously the OS is most important here, but in terms of hardware, things that enhance the user experience are not merely specs. Instead, on a macbook pro these things would be the backlit keyboard, unibody, and screen (including it's high quality, it's light sensor which adjusts brightness depending on ambient light, etc.). For Apple, the user experience comes before raw specs, and as so many people have noted, typical PC makers sell machines with the best components they can get, with usually shoddy cases. It would be more fair to compare Macs with other premium PC makers, as Apple don't compete in the bargain PC market, and I think some people neglect this. It would be more fair because other premium PC makers like Sony also design their computers to stand out in ways beyond their spec list.


Finally, If you're going to compare anything to the iMac, it would have to be another all-in-one PC, as these are the only similar desktops available.

 

[Giuly]

You are either ignorant or you are just blinded by your own prejudice.


Dell Studio XPS 16 Here
Config that with the 2.53 GHz i5, 500 GB HDD and the Full-HD Screen and the total price hits $1285

MBP 17 inch: $2300

And the dell has a better graphics card too!

That's a difference of over $1000. So your statement of the difference being $200 - $300 is proved to be BS.

This one is 15.6", the MBP 15" is 15.4". With the i5, it's $2000. This one comes in at $1,254.99 with the low-res screen. $745 less. You want to highlight the "Dell Studio XPS16 price includes $254 instant discount." and "Special Offer - Expires: Thursday, August 26, 2010". So it's $490 less. As I said, you're more lucky finding one 15" one, because this is the regular mass market consumer size. Want me to use the student discount prices and the back to school iPod, too? Remove the $185 for iLife, what's left? You guessed it, $305. It's a matter of calculation. And for what you use it.

Sony offers a 17" 2,53GHz i5 Vaio with 500TB harddrive, 4GB of RAM, FullHD LED screen, HD5650 w/1GB shared RAM - for about $1000. But when it comes to i7 - nothing. Oh, what about battery life? Max. 3.5h according to Sony. That makes the whole laptop pretty much useless, this is rather a MacMini with a $300 17" screen.

There's another one model, exact MacbookPro Clone with i7 quad core processor for $1700. Battery life? Max. 4.5h with a uprated battery. That's half of what a MacBook does. It doesn't even play a whole DVD, it's drained after 1h according to Sony. To watch a 3 hour movie on the road, you'll need 2 spare batteries $250 each. Try to watch 1080p - drained in 20 Minutes or so.

 

[Hellhammer]

I did not compare mine to a 27".

Then you can't compare a PC with 27" iMac

Who needs AppleCare when almost all my components come out of the box with 3 year, 5 year and even lifetime warranties. The only thing that has less is the GPU with only 1 year warranty. This is all out of the box, you don't need to pay something ridiculous like A$268 to extend your warranty for 2 years.

Plus, even if my GPU does die out of warranty, I would rather spend that A$268 and just get a GPU upgrade instead. You can get a very decent new GPU with that sum of money.

You have to send those parts in and they will make sure they are defective. Then they will ship you repaired or new part. That can easily take a month or so and yes, I do have experience of this. Also, not everyone can trouble shoot what is broken, AppleCare is fine for average Joe who don't want to spend his time of hassling with the computer

iMac is a lot different from custom PC, compare it to another AIO or even OEM PC. I can buy a used Fiat and make it look like Ferrari for 10 000€ while real Ferrari is 500 000€, are they the same? No. (I know my car things suck )

 

[Winni]

Why a Mac costs more than a PC...

Honestly, who cares? Do you have a reason or a business case for choosing a Mac, is it compatible with what you want to do with it and does it fit in your budget? Then buy one. If not, don't.

End of discussion.

 

[SidBala]

This one is 15.6", the MBP 15" is 15.4". With the i5, it's $2000. This one comes in at $1,254.99 with the low-res screen. $745 less. You want to highlight the "Dell Studio XPS16 price includes $254 instant discount." and "Special Offer - Expires: Thursday, August 26, 2010". So it's $490 less. As I said, you're more lucky finding one 15" one, because this is the regular mass market consumer size. Want me to use the student discount prices and the back to school iPod, too? Remove the $185 for iLife, what's left? You guessed it, $305. It's a matter of calculation. And for what you use it.

Wrong. Let me explain:

The XPS16 with the FULL HD screen matches with the MBP 17. They have the same resolutions. I could have a massive 18 inch screen with 720p resolution. That doesn't mean a 15 inch full HD is inferior to the 18 inch 720p. Resolution is more important. Even you seem to agree:

I don't want 1600x900.

So don't change it now to suit your argument.

I will give you the $254 discount though and I will give you battery life.

Still we are looking at a price of $1540 vs $2300, significant difference.

Want me to use the student discount prices and the back to school iPod, too?

No, I want you to take your student discounts and Ipods and shove it. Not everyone is a student so this point is invalid to your argument.

You could debate Win7 vs OSX all you want. But assigning monetary value to included software and deducting them from only the Mac's side is complete non-sense.

You cook up invalid and unfair comparisons to make it look like your point is correct when it clearly is not. Why bother discussing anything with you, when you are so closed to any opinion other than your own?

End of discussion. Buy whatever you want, Mac or PC.

 

[Giuly]

Wrong. Let me explain:

The XPS16 with the FULL HD screen matches with the MBP 17. They have the same resolutions. I could have a massive 18 inch screen with 720p resolution. That doesn't mean a 15 inch full HD is inferior to the 18 inch 720p. Resolution is more important.

It's missing 1.4" to be 17".

So don't change it now to suit your argument.

I don't want a 17" 1600x900 screen, doesn't mean I don't want a 15" one.

I will give you the $254 discount though and I will give you battery life.

Still we are looking at a price of $1540 vs $2300, significant difference.

I still take it as a 15" laptop, even if it would have a retina display, so still $2000.

No, I want you to take your student discounts and Ipods and shove it. Not everyone is a student so this point is invalid to your argument.

You could debate Win7 vs OSX all you want. But assigning monetary value to included software and deducting them from only the Mac's side is complete non-sense.

You cook up invalid and unfair comparisons to make it look like your point is correct when it clearly is not. Why bother discussing anything with you, when you are so closed to any opinion other than your own?

End of discussion. Buy whatever you want, Mac or PC.

Just because you can't put a price tag on it, doesn't mean I can't either. Apple itself agrees with that, as they put a price tag of $79 on it. However Windows software with the same value of usage is at least $185. You can substract $1 for the Windows Calculator, $5 for Paint and $3 for Editor if you like, too.
You can even put a $1.99 price tag on ⌘⇧3, but I guess there is shareware that provides that functionality to Windows. (Yes, I know Print+CTRL-V in Paint, that's why it's not $4.99)
If you want to be really fair, you would have to calculate that you need the next speedbump of a CPU to properly compare them because Windows itself is slower then Mac OS X.

Either you compare facts, or you don't compare them. A 15.6" i5 with a high-res screen is still no 17" i5 machine. The difference is exactly 1.4" - or 1" in Dells marketing speak. To the 15" MBP it's 0.2". - or the same 1" according to Dell.

It's not invalid. I admit that it's unfair, because I compare Snow Leopard to Windows 7.

 

[kaheiyeh]

Then you can't compare a PC with 27" iMac



You have to send those parts in and they will make sure they are defective. Then they will ship you repaired or new part. That can easily take a month or so and yes, I do have experience of this. Also, not everyone can trouble shoot what is broken, AppleCare is fine for average Joe who don't want to spend his time of hassling with the computer

iMac is a lot different from custom PC, compare it to another AIO or even OEM PC. I can buy a used Fiat and make it look like Ferrari for 10 000€ while real Ferrari is 500 000€, are they the same? No. (I know my car things suck )

Why? What's the problem with comparing it to the 21.5" or 27"? My PC's cost beats both 21.5" or 27" (with factored in price of the monitor with same resolution).

Like I said before, "To some people, yes, it does make sense, but for me, it doesn't." (Go back a few posts and read it. First line.). I'm not your average Joe that is tech illiterate. I work in this field and I know my stuff. I troubleshoot computers for others both as a job and a hobby.

Like I said, it depends on what kind of person you are. To me, a Mac is overpriced compared to PCs. This certainly isn't the case for you and a lot of Mac users which is why Macs appeal to a lot of people who aren't gurus in IT.

 

[Hellhammer]

Why? What's the problem with comparing it to the 21.5" or 27"? My PC's cost beats both 21.5" or 27" (with factored in price of the monitor with same resolution).

Resolution is not everything. 21.5" IPS display is easily over 400$ although most people are just fine with TN. I wish they offered TN as BTO with a nice discount. You just have to include that in the calculation, otherwise it ain't fair.

Like I said, it depends on what kind of person you are. To me, a Mac is overpriced compared to PCs. This certainly isn't the case for you and a lot of Mac users which is why Macs appeal to a lot of people who aren't gurus in IT.

So are you saying that I'm a noob in IT field? I build PCs for living... Yes, Macs do cost more than PCs with comparable specs but there is one huge difference, the OS. You can't legally (in some countries EULA is not valid though) install OS X for PC but you can install Windows for Mac. I find OS X being worth the premium, you aren't paying for the hardware only.

If I could choose now, I would probably build a PC and buy MBP for the same money as I pad for my iMac but the time is different, I just hated Vista so much and had no choice. It never worked for me. Windows 7 has changed the game pretty much and hacks are getting better all the time.

This is truly an opinion question, there is no simple answer

 

[blunderboy]

It really comes down to these companies' philosophy of computing.

Apple's model of computing is rather visual and conceptual, and is more focussed on the total, holistic experience of using Mac OS X and Apple components than it is cramming the latest and greatest specifications into a plastic box. They want to create a seamless experience, integrating their Apple hardware with Mac OS X, iLife, and iWork, as well as other applications. There's a very big-picture feel to Mac OS X, as well as the rest of Apple's offerings.

PC vendors are very much "number crunchers," and for them, creating the "best computer" is about those numbers, which translates into specs. They zero in on tables of charts and features, paying attention to the components rather than the total experience of using one of their computers. The whole experience doesn't matter as much as providing impressive specifications that they can meticulously list on their packaging and websites.

It's a "right-brain versus left-brain" thing. Apple will sometimes avoid adopting the "latest and greatest" processors, graphics cards, and ports because those elements aren't yet necessary to convey the Mac experience. People who adopt a "left-brained" mindset to computing might have some disdain for Mac users who pay less attention to specification than the total experience, simply because that view of computers is alien or odd to them. "You could've bought a PC with the same specs for less! Windows 7 is way better than Vista!" they say. But still, that PC, even though it might have cost less, would not have given that person the same experience that the Mac would have. This is more difficult to quantify than "4 gigs of RAM, top-of-the-line Radeon video card, Core i7 CPU, 1TB hard drive," and that doesn't translate well to spec-minded PC/Windows fans.

 

[cherry su]

Wrong. Let me explain:

The XPS16 with the FULL HD screen matches with the MBP 17. They have the same resolutions. I could have a massive 18 inch screen with 720p resolution. That doesn't mean a 15 inch full HD is inferior to the 18 inch 720p. Resolution is more important. Even you seem to agree:



So don't change it now to suit your argument.

I will give you the $254 discount though and I will give you battery life.

Still we are looking at a price of $1540 vs $2300, significant difference.



No, I want you to take your student discounts and Ipods and shove it. Not everyone is a student so this point is invalid to your argument.

You could debate Win7 vs OSX all you want. But assigning monetary value to included software and deducting them from only the Mac's side is complete non-sense.

You cook up invalid and unfair comparisons to make it look like your point is correct when it clearly is not. Why bother discussing anything with you, when you are so closed to any opinion other than your own?

End of discussion. Buy whatever you want, Mac or PC.

Full HD is 1920x1080, which has fewer pixels than Apple's 1920x1200 on the MBP17. This is ~230k fewer pixels.

 

[kaheiyeh]

So are you saying that I'm a noob in IT field? I build PCs for living... Yes, Macs do cost more than PCs with comparable specs but there is one huge difference, the OS. You can't legally (in some countries EULA is not valid though) install OS X for PC but you can install Windows for Mac. I find OS X being worth the premium, you aren't paying for the hardware only.

If I could choose now, I would probably build a PC and buy MBP for the same money as I pad for my iMac but the time is different, I just hated Vista so much and had no choice. It never worked for me. Windows 7 has changed the game pretty much and hacks are getting better all the time.

This is truly an opinion question, there is no simple answer

I never said you were a noob at IT. Re-read what I wrote very carefully. The part "This certainly isn't the case for you"" refers to "To me, a Mac is overpriced compared to PCs." I guess I shouldn't have clumped the end of it into the same sentence. =\

And as you said, yes, it is an opinion. Every person has a different one and I will re-iterate, again, what I said initially that it depends on the individual. I've stated my opinion as an individual and I have my reasons for it.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

<snip>
Another thing to consider is that the Mac is a premium product and puts the user experience first, rather than raw specs, as the OP rightly pointed out. Obviously the OS is most important here, but in terms of hardware, things that enhance the user experience are not merely specs.........

It would be more fair to compare Macs with other premium PC makers, as Apple don't compete in the bargain PC market, and I think some people neglect this.

I think we've done a good job at not bringing $300 Toshiba's into the conversation.

And as to your first point, I agree, as does the OP, that the software is part of the reason why Apple can charge so much. However, the OP also seems to think that the hardware that Apple uses is somehow magical. And even if you can't find the exact same specs in a Dell or HP or Alienware, you can fine similar enough specs to determine that, specs alone, Apple is overpriced for what they give you.

My point is that the price premium comes from it being a premium brand, with a monopoly on OS X. I've pointed out that computers from Dell have similar usable specs with between 1/3 to 1/2 the price.

It's arguable that Windows 7 is better than OS X, but very very few people will buy a mac to run Windows on. It's because when you buy a mac, you're not buying it because of the hardware, you're buying it for OS X.

 

[dipm06]

You made me curious. I want to see those better spec'd, cheaper laptops. I couldn't find any, they must be hiding from my eyes pretty good. Intel X4500MHD doesn't count, nor quad-core's with clock speeds slower than at least 2GHz. All there is are 17" i7 MBP spec'd ones for the price of the 15" i7 MBP - or like I said earlier: $200-300 cheaper.

have you seen the hp envy 14 and 17 laptops? totally blow the comparable priced MBPs out of the water. have you seen the newer vaios? there are sub 1000$ models that have i3 processors and 4 gigs of ram.

why dont quad cores with sub 2.0ghz clock speeds count? its not all about clockspeed. also, the i7 quadcores have turbo boost to 2.8 to past 3.0 depending on the model. you are seriously a mega fanboy. not that thats a bad thing but youre biased as hell.

 

[dipm06]

there is a difference between 1920 x 1200 and 1920 x 1080 but its hardly noticeable by 99% of people im sure. if it was, im sure it would be used my more pc manufacturers.

i have used windows 7 and i have to say that it is really good. you probably wouldnt agree because 1) you havent used it or 2) youre still being your biased self. seriously, if you dont think windows 7 is good then you are just biased. i mean, you dont have to like it but you have to admit that its very good. i use both OSX and Windows at home and i woulnt have a problem having to live with only on OS.

your argument about sutdents not making millions is just not right. i mean, you dont need to pay thousands to program anyway. there are only a handfull of students that actually make a lot of money from development. and if they do make a lot of money, again, they wouldnt really hesitate paying for software. im a student and il learning to program by myself on my pc rather then any of my macs. not a problem at all.

i think some of your points are valid, but saying that none of mine are is total BS. you just proved that the first paragraph of you original post is true. this is a cult, and youre part of it.

 

[dipm06]

i think my posts are starting to get a bit rude. if so, i apologize.

 

[ramzhh]

You're right. Only, you're so wrong it's not funny. Apple charges so much because they have a monopoly on OS X, and now, the brand image. For Apple to be able to charge so much, and to not, would open them up to lawsuits from their shareholders.

Oh yeah, and you're also wrong about their hardware being better. It's not. It's just better than a $400 Toshiba. It's on par with any business class computer, that's not bargain bin.

The software is exactly why Apple can charge so much for a mac, but like I originally stated, it's more to do with a monopoly of OS X. I can get a free audio or video editing suite for any OS. The only difference is that a mac's editing suite is 1st party.

P.S. iTunes isn't a free media player anymore, it's a content distribution system that pays for itself via the iTunes music store and App store.

Have you even read the whole original post?

It's better than a $400 Toshiba. That's exactly why the hardware is better. What you can do by paying 1100 bucks for a Mac and NO MORE for software, you can do (and I'm being VERY generous here) by purchasing that $400 Toshiba and paying a sh*itload of cash for software. The Mac comes cheaper with better hardware.

Oh, by the way, iTunes, as a media player, is free, so your observation has no place here.