Why are Macs more expensive than PCs? - An Intelligent Discussion

[neilspartacus]

1. Asus doesn't list prices on their site. Also, Neweggs seems to agree with the Apple site pricing (more or less), so I don't see the validity of your argument. Furthermore, you would buy your laptop from somewhere like Neweggs if you bought a PC... but with a Mac, you're pretty much confined to Apple itself (or in this case, Neweggs too)
2. What's wrong with Asus? It's one of the biggest motherboard manufacturers in the world, its products have been proven reliable time and again, and it makes some of the chips found in Apple products, the Wii, and many others. How is Apple's notebook business different from Asus's?
3. Your point is somewhat valid. However, you're paying more for your apple laptop to begin with... so of course you'd sell for more!
4. That is true... but is that your justification for the extra cost? I think that not only your backpack will be lighter, your wallet will be too!
5. If you've done some research you would understand that Asus notebooks are known to have good build quality too!

Don't get me wrong... the weight argument is perfectly valid... and I wouldn't mind shelling out another $200-300 for a much lighter notebook... but $1100 is really pushing it!

So far, the valid justifications for paying $1100 (minus another year of warranty and 1 year accidental coverage) extra are:
- logo
- weight and size
- OS X

Now... what if I throw this in? (I originally decided to leave this out because I figured the MBP vs. Asus was good already) This is from the Canadian BestBuy boxing day flyer...

(see attached).

Before you start saying how it's a refurbished PC, I'm looking at the PC on the RIGHT HAND SIDE. It has a Quad Core processor at 2.4Ghz while the iMac has a Core 2 Duo at 2.0Ghz... The mac has a slightly bigger HD, and a better (I think? not going to bother checking, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt) gfx card.... at the cost of $500!

Clearly, weight isn't an issue here. I know the price difference isn't as big... but it's still 50%.

Yea yea, it's different specs... blah blah blah. I won't argue that... so.. back to the laptops

This is an important argument because its only the manufacturer who sells it for the exact price. The price for which you can buy products from online stores largely depends on the profit margins of that store and their policies relating to pricing! I bet you can probably get the same Asus and even the apple for a lower price on other online stores.
So whenever you want to take a benchmark you have to consider the ideal condition which obviously is a direct sale from manufacturer. The price varies from store to store if you want to consider 3rd party stores.

There is nothing wrong with Asus. Its just that they are not the right competitors for Apple. Please google for market shares of 2007 and you can see that...
1. Dell
2. HP
3. Acer
4. Apple (Apple and Acer positions were interchanged from 3 and 4, apple was 3 in 2006. It was largely due to the introduction of the low cost Epcc from Acer)
So apple is the number 3 in computer sales and number 1 in mac so when you want to compare DELL or HP make the best choice not even Acer.
Further more You yourself admit they are motherboard manufacturers. They are MB manufacturers who make PC, apple is a PC manufacturer. Its like buying coffee from starbucks and buying coffee from a super market store also serving coffee. Because Sony makes batteries for many laptop manufacturers you cannot compare Sony's computer sales with Dell or Apple, it simply does not qualify!

The comparison done by the author in the blog i spoke about was with the low end models of Apple. He compared the MacBook which comes for some 1100+ with some similar config low priced dell laptop which was just 1000+. The difference was just a hundred or max 2 and he showed with snapshots that on ebay the Mac was resold for around 800 and the dell for a merry 400. Do i make some sense here...???

You come back with figures comparing a similar configuration of DELL and HP and Apple. Then ill respond to this! I have done that already and you would'nt want to come back after you complete your comparison.

They may be of a good quality but definitely cannot be compared to the quality of Apple notebook. Its simple buddy apple uses the components manufactured by companies likes Asus but still it manages to give the package in a excellent shell. With the same component why could not Asus manufacture a 1" thickness similar configuration notebook???


This was a statement picked up from Apple 2007 Q4 results announcement (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/22results.html)
Apple shipped 2,164,000 Macintosh® computers, representing 34 percent growth over the year-ago quarter and exceeding the previous quarterly record for Mac® shipments by 400,000.
A huge chunk of that 2164000 computers are shipped to switchers from PC. I am one of them. Your argument simple does not reflect the facts and figures how much ever we try to compare PC and MAC. If PCs were cheaper and better to use why would so many switch??

 

[Oolongmen]

Carbon and diamonds, made of the same things... this kind of absurd reductionism isn't relevant to the issue of whether Macs are worth it. They obviously are to many millions of people all around the world for reasons do to with just being nice machines to use for various reasons.

Why should I try and penny-pinch on a machine that is so fundamental to my life and work by getting some crappy Asus PC?

Carbon and diamond analogy doesn't even make sense. They are different things all together. "Macs" and "PCs" are both "PC's" in the sense that they run on the same hardware with a different finish and OS. I'm sure that a lot of people would agree with me that since MacIntel, Macs and PCs are becoming more and more similar. Macs can run Windows, and PC's can run OSX (not legally, but fully functionally in some cases).

I don't know what kind of job you have, but saving $1100 isn't penny pinching to me!

Your perspective is completely biased if you say that PCs are crappy. You do not back up your statements with anything whatsoever. Go post that in a PC forum and see how they respond.

In case anyone is going to throw it back at me and say I'm biased, I am not (I try not to be anyways). I like OS X just as much as I Windows, maybe a bit more in some ways. However, I still don't see why we should be paying such a big premium on a Mac. If it were marginal ($200-300 at most, on something costing $1600), then there would exist no problem.

 

[neilspartacus]

Thing is, a mac is just like any other PC now, at the hardware level. They're not very different things.

But the difference is PC runs on Windows and Mac runs on OS X. Which in itself is worth the extra pay!
And dude i would probably accept your argument if PC now run on Windows XP. You can probably say PC with XP were good but I bet no human being on earth can truly say that Vista is better than OS X.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Your perspective is completely biased if you say that PCs are crappy. You do not back up your statements with anything whatsoever. Go post that in a PC forum and see how they respond.

Why should I go and do that? That kind of activity is for trolls with nothing better to do.

By the way, I use both PCs and Macs in my work, and don't see any comparable machines to my MBP and my work PowerMac that entail an $1100 saving.

Look, we've been here before. Don't think you're the first person to come on this forum and attempt to make some kind of supposed objective statement on how Macs are too expensive; it happens once per week on average, usually with some specious comparison between computers.

Fact is, a product is worth what people will pay for it and since the demand for Macs is increasing, it would behoove you to look at your understanding of the issue, or lack of it on the evidence of this thread, and try and get your head around why people will pay the premium for features that you do not value.

 

[neilspartacus]

Carbon and diamond analogy doesn't even make sense. They are different things all together. "Macs" and "PCs" are both "PC's" in the sense that they run on the same hardware with a different finish and OS. I'm sure that a lot of people would agree with me that since MacIntel, Macs and PCs are becoming more and more similar. Macs can run Windows, and PC's can run OSX (not legally, but fully functionally in some cases).

I don't know what kind of job you have, but saving $1100 isn't penny pinching to me!

Your perspective is completely biased if you say that PCs are crappy. You do not back up your statements with anything whatsoever. Go post that in a PC forum and see how they respond.

In case anyone is going to throw it back at me and say I'm biased, I am not (I try not to be anyways). I like OS X just as much as I Windows, maybe a bit more in some ways. However, I still don't see why we should be paying such a big premium on a Mac. If it were marginal ($200-300 at most, on something costing $1600), then there would exist no problem.

The underlying architecture is the same (its Intel) but the mac are tweaked to tick at higher clock speeds and so the same chips are better in performance when compared to hardware from PCs. Here is the link that proves me right...(I am backing up my statement with this proof)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135062-page,1-c,notebooks/article.html#
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136649-page,3-c,notebooks/article.html
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/irony/macbook-pro-is-the-fastest-windows-vista-notebook-317060.php

The title says "Irony
MacBook Pro Is the Fastest Windows Vista Notebook "

 

[annk]

...

Thanks for the first personal attack in this thread.

Nothing in my posts can be construed as a personal attack. On the contrary, I've made it clear I'm posting my honest reactions, and have made a special effort to avoid wording that could be experienced as sarcastic, precisely because I am questioning some of what you write.

 

[smurfjammer]

Carbon and diamond analogy doesn't even make sense. They are different things all together. "Macs" and "PCs" are both "PC's" in the sense that they run on the same hardware with a different finish and OS. I'm sure that a lot of people would agree with me that since MacIntel, Macs and PCs are becoming more and more similar. Macs can run Windows, and PC's can run OSX (not legally, but fully functionally in some cases).

I don't know what kind of job you have, but saving $1100 isn't penny pinching to me!

Your perspective is completely biased if you say that PCs are crappy. You do not back up your statements with anything whatsoever. Go post that in a PC forum and see how they respond.

In case anyone is going to throw it back at me and say I'm biased, I am not (I try not to be anyways). I like OS X just as much as I Windows, maybe a bit more in some ways. However, I still don't see why we should be paying such a big premium on a Mac. If it were marginal ($200-300 at most, on something costing $1600), then there would exist no problem.

Why don't you compare Sony laptops to Dell laptops - you pay more for a Sony and it still has Windows.
It not a Mac vs PC thing - every manufacture can charge what they like if they think they have a better product than their competitors and a cheap plastic case that weighs more than a metal one with a backlit keyboard is always going to be more $$$

 

[After G]

Part of your $1100 goes to Apple's profit - it enables them to continue making awesome products and I don't know about you but I'm happy to pay that part if it means I will keep on getting more items in the future like the iPhone, the iPod Touch and the Mac. You're paying the rest of that $1100 for more involved design and associated development. The MBP has lower production volume than standard PCs, and lower production volumes mean higher unit cost. Remember that a lot of branded PC laptops are rebadged from manufacturers like Asus, further increasing production volumes and decreasing unit cost on the PC side.

Development of the design is cheaper on a run of the mill PC since the form factor on Apple products costs a lot in development which is reflected in the price. A half inch less thickness in the laptop means higher cost in time and money spent working on things like cooling design and component placement. Note also the Macbook Air, which is even thinner, with less components and yet it costs nearly as much as a base MBP for the most basic model. I'm sure a cheapo version could break the $500 mark on basic specs but it would probably suffer compromise on the size and appearance.

There are things you are willing to pay more for, even though it doesn't make sense from a cost analysis of the base parts. It makes sense from an aesthetics and usability perspective though. Why buy a cheaper knock off which you will unhappy with because it's not quite exactly what you wanted?

I am glad that Apple doesn't design cheap because I'm sure that Apple could cut costs like any other PC manufacturer, but then you'd lose a lot in the final products, because that kind of mentality leads to statements like "We can make it slightly larger and cheapen it by a lot." Imagine if Apple used desktop components for a Mac Mini. It would possibly be cheaper but immediately, the Mini would have to be at least three times as tall to accomodate the desktop-sized optical drive and HD, not to mention needing a more robust cooling solution - and you still have to deal with all the custom parts for the design.

You don't seem to value design very much but there are a lot of people that do. Why do people still pay for Windows and Mac OS X when Linux is free? You can't beat free, if you think solely on a cost basis. But if you are thinking of other aspects of the OS, like gaming or usability, Windows and Mac OS X arguably beat Linux. You can look at an econobox manufacturer like Dell and get a roughly equivalent (in tech specification) PC but if you want something better than a basic design you're going to have to pay more (Dell's glass frame monitor being an example).

 

[Oolongmen]

This is an important argument because its only the manufacturer who sells it for the exact price. The price for which you can buy products from online stores largely depends on the profit margins of that store and their policies relating to pricing! I bet you can probably get the same Asus and even the apple for a lower price on other online stores.
So whenever you want to take a benchmark you have to consider the ideal condition which obviously is a direct sale from manufacturer. The price varies from store to store if you want to consider 3rd party stores.

Neweggs is one of the biggest online stores in the US with very competitive prices. If Asus sells their laptop for $1700 (and they don't, AFAIK) but Neweggs sells it for $1600, who do I buy it from?
Find me a 3rd party store (online or offline) that sells a significantly different price from Apple.

There is nothing wrong with Asus. Its just that they are not the right competitors for Apple. Please google for market shares of 2007 and you can see that...
1. Dell
2. HP
3. Acer
4. Apple (Apple and Acer positions were interchanged from 3 and 4, apple was 3 in 2006. It was largely due to the introduction of the low cost Epcc from Acer)
So apple is the number 3 in computer sales and number 1 in mac so when you want to compare DELL or HP make the best choice not even Acer.
Further more You yourself admit they are motherboard manufacturers. They are MB manufacturers who make PC, apple is a PC manufacturer. Its like buying coffee from starbucks and buying coffee from a super market store also serving coffee. Because Sony makes batteries for many laptop manufacturers you cannot compare Sony's computer sales with Dell or Apple, it simply does not qualify!

Marketshare does not reflect quality of product. According to your argument, Apple should be on top, but it isn't. Macs take up something like 5% of the global market. PC's take ~95% It doesn't mean ANYTHING!

If you read PC notebook forums (which I'm sure you don't, but I did before making my purchase), Asus is regarded as a great notebook manufacturer with very top-notch build quality. Frankly, to deny this with no research is ignorant (or just purely uninformed ).

For example, take a look at this poll.

The comparison done by the author in the blog i spoke about was with the low end models of Apple. He compared the MacBook which comes for some 1100+ with some similar config low priced dell laptop which was just 1000+. The difference was just a hundred or max 2 and he showed with snapshots that on ebay the Mac was resold for around 800 and the dell for a merry 400. Do i make some sense here...???

Okay, I'll give you that. It's also why I didn't use the MacBook as an example (I suppose I have to correctly say "SOME macs are a lot more expensive than PCs") I find the MacBook has a more reasonable "Apple Tax".

You come back with figures comparing a similar configuration of DELL and HP and Apple. Then ill respond to this! I have done that already and you would'nt want to come back after you complete your comparison.

Sigh. I can't believe I'm doing this.

Dell XPS M1540

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor T7700 (2.4GHz/800Mhz FSB, 4MB Cache) Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition
High Resolution, glossy widescreen 15.4 inch LCD(1440x900) & 2MP Camera
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz (2 Dimms)
160GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
Slot Load DVD+/-RW (DVD/CD read/write)
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600M GT
Intel Next-Gen Wireless-N Mini-card
Dell Wireless 355 Bluetooth Internal (2.0+Enhanced Data Rate)
56 WHr 6-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
High Definition Audio 2.0
2 year Parts + Labour + in home service

Price: $1519

================
Are you happy now?

No idea how heavy or big the thing is, nor do I care. I'd still stick with Asus over Dell.

They may be of a good quality but definitely cannot be compared to the quality of Apple notebook. Its simple buddy apple uses the components manufactured by companies likes Asus but still it manages to give the package in a excellent shell. With the same component why could not Asus manufacture a 1" thickness similar configuration notebook???

build quality doesn't necessarily equal aesthetics. IBM/Lenovo Thinkpads are the best in build quality, and they sure look ugly as hell. Apple has good build quality, but it is nowhere near godly.

This was a statement picked up from Apple 2007 Q4 results announcement (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/22results.html)
Apple shipped 2,164,000 Macintosh® computers, representing 34 percent growth over the year-ago quarter and exceeding the previous quarterly record for Mac® shipments by 400,000.
A huge chunk of that 2164000 computers are shipped to switchers from PC. I am one of them. Your argument simple does not reflect the facts and figures how much ever we try to compare PC and MAC. If PCs were cheaper and better to use why would so many switch??

That is a very good question that I am wondering too. After using OS X for a while I begin to see why... but I don't see why Apple should charge such a big price gap on their MBPs... besides the fact that they can. And why can they? People buy them.

 

[Jiddick ExRex]

I daresay that this discussion is slowly getting off at the untelligent station based on the OP's definition and wish for intelligent discussion.

Why? Because you're mixing up your own subjective opinions regarding a) price, b) design c) software/hardware integration etc etc.

Essentially, this is also what makes this discussion so difficult.

There are lots of reasons, all of which boil down to subjective opinions as I will show in my conclusion. Some of the reasons from the top of my head:

Design:
a) Apple makes thinner and more aesthetically pleasing products. This is their niche market and this is what they do. Just like Sony which also have quite overpriced aesthetically designed products. Aesthetics has been discussed since the dawn of ancient Greece's philosophers and is about as difficult to discuss as religion.

b) Software/hardware integration:
Apple has control over their hardware and are able to cut a lot of consumer troubleshooting time by making things that are easier to work out or simply just works.
I cannot speak for other Mac users but for me this was a selling point. I wanted a laptop that didn't need constant maintaining because although computer software and hardware is a hobby of mine, sometimes my time is actually valuable. I reckon I have saved an amount of time converted to money equivalent to a new Mac Pro 1.5 times the time I have troubleshooted the mac or simply didn't have to.

c) Less product/hardware updates than other bigger manufacturers:
Since the change to Intel, Apple has crammed their prices down. Or said in a real way, upped their hardware specs and kept their prices.
In the beginning of every new product launch (MBP, MB, MP) their prices have actually stayed competitive with other similar spec'ed products but as it so happens in the hardware industry, hardware prices climb down again quickly.

This leave other manufacturers' some choices:
- get rid of their old products by cutting product prices.
- develop new products at the old pricepoint with newer hardware (same price, better specs).
- Upgrade the old products with newer hardware at same pricepoint.

As you can see, Apple choose the latter two, not the first one. It could be due to marketing reasons, R/D costs, because they are in a niche market with a very loyal usergroup and so on and so on.

Who really cares? You do. I do at the end of a product cycle (ie right now with the MBP needing an overhaul with Penryn and such).

Conclusion:
a) Design and aesthetics:
Are you willing to pay more for aesthetics? I am since I bought their damn products. You don't seem to and shouldn't if that's not what you need.
This happens to be a subjective "untelligent" opinion of using Apple's products.

b) Software/hardware integration:
Not all users have the same easy experience with their products as I have had. You don't notice that something is working unless you come from a productline that is filth-ridden with problems, or until your own equipment starts not working.
As much as I want this to be objective it isn't. I choose Macs because I believe in the software/hardware integration and would like to pay more for it because it essentially saves me money and time.
It's not a necessity that you do.
Again, this happens to be a subjective "untelligent" opinion of using Apple's products.

c) Less product/hardware updates than other manufacturers.
This is Apple's marketing choice and theirs alone.
I try to only buy based on my needs at the time and/or based on how new the product is.
If I buy too soon, the product may be untested and I spend too much time troubleshooting to make it's worth. If I buy too late, other manufacturers' have developed better priced and spec'ed products.
Some users choose not to and buy solely based on needs, others don't.
You seem to buy according to price and better specs.
Fine.
But this also boils down to be a subjective "untelligent" opinion of using Apple's products.

The final conclusion as I see it is:
Apple makes slightly more expensive products because they can.
Only experience can tell if you as a consumer choose to go the Apple route and hopefully have no problems or very little and if those problems are enough to warrant a switch back again.
We can also use the beaten-to-death car analogy here:
If you want a car that drives 180 mph or looks like it drives 180mph when standing still but really only need a car that goes as fast as 60, do you buy the faster one, the one who looks faster or the practical car that suits your needs? What if every car has some sort of compromise between needs, speed and aesthetics. What do you do?

My point with this 180 miles long post is this:
It's subjective and very difficult to discuss as soon as you blend in your own preferences and opinions. And should we at all costs try not to?

Discuss

 

[Oolongmen]

Look, we've been here before. Don't think you're the first person to come on this forum and attempt to make some kind of supposed objective statement on how Macs are too expensive; it happens once per week on average, usually with some specious comparison between computers.

I don't think that. I've seen threads like that but in a lot of them the OP was purely biased towards Windows and didn't provide any solid evidence about their pricing. Then people get onto the Mac vs Windows debate, etc etc.

I have an interesting hypothetical question for everyone (and don't flame me for it, it's hypothetical). Forget notebooks where size/weight matters... lets get back to a desktop (if you look on one of my posts in the first page there's something with a BestBuy flyer attached, iMacs are still a bit on the expensive side, and there's limited room for customization)

If you could save a few hundred dollars on a PC, and still run OS X on it, would you still pay the premium for Apple?

@ Jiddick ExRex, thank you for the great analysis.

 

[Compile 'em all]

First, the MacBookPro vs. Asus G1S-B2.

MacBookPro (basic configuration, found on Newegg's site)

Apple MacBook Pro
Model : MA895LL
Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger
Intel Core 2 Duo T7500(2.2GHz)
2GB DDR2 RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT (128MB GDDR3)
15.4" WXGA+ (1440x900)
120GB (5400rpm)
DVD±R/RW
Gigabit LAN and WLAN
Airport Extreme (wireless N)
Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
2x USB @480Mbps
1x Firewire 400
1x Firewire 800
Apple iSight webcam
1x DVI port
5.4 lbs.
Warranty: 1 year parts/90 day labour


Cost: $1994.00
========================

Asus G1S-B2 (also found on Newegg's)

Asus G1S-B2
OS: Windows Vista Home Premium
Intel Core 2 Duo T7700 2.4G
15.4" WSXGA+ (1680x1050)
3GB DDR2
200GB (7200rpm)
DVD Super Multi (Dual Layer with Lightscribe)
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT (256MB GDDR3)
Gigabit LAN (10/100/1000)
Wireless N
1.3MP Webcam
1 x Express Card
4x USB
1x IEEE 1394
1x VGA out
1x S-Video TV out
1x HDMI out
1x External SATA port
13.9" x 11.2" x 1.5"
6.8 lbs.
Warranty: 2 years part+labour / 1 year accidental damage (spills, drop, fire, surge)

Cost: $1599.99

A piece of hardware is just a piece of metal. It is useless without an Operating System. The Operating System's task is to efficiently utilize the underlying resources (CPU cycles, RAM..etc) and hand it to over to programs that need it.

A badly-implemented Operating System can make a supercomputer feel as slow as a 286 machine. For example, running specific tasks on the exact same hardware configuration (like the one you specified) on GNU/Linux is orders of magnitudes faster than running it in Vista. Not only this, but an Operating System can provide you with tools that help you accomplish your task way way faster than an another Operating System even on slower hardware.

My now-three-years old Powerbook running Leopard is at least 2-3 times faster than a dual-core Pentium 4 PC running XP I have at work. It boots faster, open programs faster, and is stable as hell. It has proper tooling that allows me to get my job done faster.

Comparing hardware is naive because in reality you never use the hardware directly.

 

[Blue Velvet]

If you could save a few hundred dollars on a PC, and still run OS X on it, would you still pay the premium for Apple?

Why discuss something that is not going to happen...

 

[Oolongmen]

Why discuss something that is not going to happen...

It does, and people do it....

 

[satty]

If you could save a few hundred dollars on a PC, and still run OS X on it, would you still pay the premium for Apple?

I would not even look at the PC*, let alone buy one.

As some pointed out before, the integration of hard- and software is one of the main advantages. I have been with Macs for nearly 9 years now. I've spent less time in the nine years for system maintenance compared to one and a half years in the PC world. Considering some peoples' income that can buy lots of computer for the saved time/money.

___
* Not 100% correct, I briefly checked out an Asus EEEPC(?, more a large PDA if you ask me) in an electronic shop last year. I didn't like it: Screen too small, hardly any storage capacity, the battery life too short and the trackpad button didn't work properly. At that point I don't care about the price anymore.

 

[Blue Velvet]

It does, and people do it....

And they've got junky machines that can't be updated easily and need a ship-load of tweaks to work. Comparing a homebuilt machine to a factory-built one in terms of price is ridiculous... especially when you consider its resale value. What kind of support am I going to get in a professional setup for some box that someone has thrown together?

And what all you guys always fail to do is to value your own time and effort in building and maintaining some generic Windows box.

This is far from an intelligent thread, and the condescending attitude displayed in your first post betrays a lack of understanding of why people want Macs, how many times we've flogged this dead horse, and the features that people value about their Macs.

No-one here is going to be convinced, or really wants to swap their new Mac for an Asus, no matter the lengths people go to in justifying and comparing machines.

And your comparison of iMacs is also one-sided because people value all in one machines that include a monitor with low footprints... lest anyone else points out the obvious.

Whay are Macs expensive? Most of the time, they're not. And when they are, it's because they are. Nothing more to be said.

 

[Cloudane]

Why are Macs more expensive? IMO there's little *technical* reason.

Some of the pricing can actually be put down to technicalities though:
* Apple gear is either laptop based (MB, MBA, MBP, Mac Mini, iMac) or workstation based (Mac Pro). Both of those classes of hardware are more expensive than generic desktop hardware.
* It tends to pioneer new technologies, which means extra R&D costs which have to be paid for somehow.

Other than that, they're probably just as cheap as PC laptops/workstations to make. But they're set at a higher price (and profit margin) because people are willing to pay that much, so they charge that much. Very good business sense, that.

As to why people are willing to pay that much... my thoughts are:
* They hold their resell value very well, at least at the moment with their relatively low but increasing market share
* The Apple brand. Why do people pay extra for Levi's instead of equally good jeans from brand they've never heard of... they pay for the label.
* OS X. It's the only way to run it. For a lot (I'd say most) Mac users, the OS is worth the extra $1100. Even though there would be outrage if Apple sold it for that much in a retail box.
* The extra value of buying a set hardware+software solution, rather than the hardware/software compatibility battle you get with PCs.
* The (unfounded) theory that they use higher quality components.
* Visual style.

 

[KingYaba]

The OP didn't mention the Macbook Pro has not been updated since June/July of 2007.

 

[Passante]

There are several critical facts missing from your post that I'll need before we can have an "intelligent" discussion.

Firstly, what's the weight on your ASUS laptop? What's the thickness?

Secondly, the warranty on the mbp is 1 year for parts and labor. What ends after 90 days is phone support.

Ok so I sleep at night and came in late to this thread. Where did the $1100 difference come from. All I see is a $150 difference and a one time "rebate" In other words its not selling so they have to cut the price.

So the Asus is 6.8 lb 1.5 inch brick. Cost is inversely proportional to size for the same hardware.

 

[neilspartacus]

my final reply

Let me conclude this from my side!
So from your replies I understand you admit that Mac OS X is better than Windows. I think that better OS in itself (well integrated with the thin, sleek and good looking apple hardware) is worth the what ever extra cost you say Apple charges!
Even if i admit a mac is probably costlier than your Asus PC, i strongly say its worth it! Its value for money and valuable productive time you would spend on it!

And for your kind information I worked for MS as vendor for 5years so dont try to teach me or tell me about Windows and particularly about Vista!
"Just quoting your reply saying that I would not have been into a PC forum".

I was a very recent switcher for home use and I am very happy with my MacBook with leopard. I spent $1500 (with a incase sleeve) and think its perfect value for the money i spent!

 

[Oolongmen]

And they've got junky machines that can't be updated easily and need a ship-load of tweaks to work. Comparing a homebuilt machine to a factory-built one in terms of price is ridiculous... especially when you consider its resale value. What kind of support am I going to get in a professional setup for some box that someone has thrown together?

New C2D or quad-core hacks have been proven to work, and using unmodified extensions is absolutely possible. Please, do research before making such statements.

And what all you guys always fail to do is to value your own time and effort in building and maintaining some generic Windows box.

There's a satisfaction of building your own PC from the ground up, having the freedom to choose whatever components you need (or don't need), and making everything work -- something Mac users unfortunately (to some, fortunately), do not have the pleasure of.

This is far from an intelligent thread, and the condescending attitude displayed in your first post betrays a lack of understanding of why people want Macs, how many times we've flogged this dead horse, and the features that people value about their Macs.

I believe my first post was anything but condescending, and I apologize if it has offended you. I perfectly understand why people want Macs -- just not how much Apple charges for them. I'm sure that if Macs were sold at a more reasonable pricing then a LOT more people would make the switch.

No-one here is going to be convinced, or really wants to swap their new Mac for an Asus, no matter the lengths people go to in justifying and comparing machines.

I am not trying to "convince" anyone

And your comparison of iMacs is also one-sided because people value all in one machines that include a monitor with low footprints... lest anyone else points out the obvious.

Some do not. A good point is: If I get a PC and my graphics card fries, I replace it. If my PSU fries, I replace it. If my MONITOR dies, I replace it. If my iMac's monitor dies on me, I'm running back to the store with the WHOLE THING.

I know that a lot of people on this thread have given me a lot of insight on why people would pay a premium for macs, but I feel that, frankly, your biased opinions have not helped very much.

The OP didn't mention the Macbook Pro has not been updated since June/July of 2007.

Thanks for bringing that up, I obviously overlooked that. Don't you think it'd make sense for Apple to chop the prices then?

 

[AdeFowler]

Because Apple likes to make money.

I haven't read the whole thread but I think this quite succinctly sums things up, but with an added caveat:

Because Apple likes to make money, and millions of people are more than happy to pay more for a premium product.

All the time people like me buy Macs, Apple will charge whatever they deem to be a reasonable price. Forget comparisons… they're totally irrelevant.

 

[Oolongmen]

Let me conclude this from my side!
So from your replies I understand you admit that Mac OS X is better than Windows. I think that better OS in itself (well integrated with the thin, sleek and good looking apple hardware) is worth the what ever extra cost you say Apple charges!
Even if i admit a mac is probably costlier than your Asus PC, i strongly say its worth it! Its value for money and valuable productive time you would spend on it!

And for your kind information I work for MS as vendor since the last 5yrs so dont try to teach me or tell me about Windows and particularly about Vista!
"Just quoting your reply saying that I would not have been into a PC forum".

I was a very recent switcher for home use and I am very happy with my MacBook with leopard. I spent $1500 (with a incase sleeve) and think its perfect value for the money i spent!

I was specifically talking about laptops, and at that, you were misinformed about Asus's build quality.

I admit myself, Vista isn't the greatest thing (it was slow, but it didn't give me much trouble compared to a lot of people), but XP was good.

I believe that each OS has its own advantages and disadvantages (ie. windows with compatibility, cost, etc, and macs with a good core system and security, etc)... but oftentimes I see mac fanboys (none on this thread, thankfully) bashing windows and making OS X sound like some godly invention, which it isn't. It's quite saddening.

Personally (not in offense to anyone), I find Windows fanboys ignorant/uninformed, and Mac fanboys arrogant. (Referring to people who bash each other about OS's... come on, it's a personal preference)

What puzzles me is why Apple charges such a premium on all their products, and nobody holds them to it.

 

[KingYaba]

Thanks for bringing that up, I obviously overlooked that. Don't you think it'd make sense for Apple to chop the prices then?

Apple prefers to milk the customer for all its worth. Walk into a retail store and ask the customer if they are aware of an impending Macbook Pro update. The answer will tell you why Apple does not "chop" prices.

What puzzles me is why Apple charges such a premium on all their products, and nobody holds them to it.

What is there to hold? Most of us willingly pay because we like the product. If Apple's pricing disgusts you then shoot them a letter and vote with your wallet.

 

[neilspartacus]

I believe components on Mac dont fry as often as they do on PCs. You can get the proof for this from any Mac forum and compare it with the number of blowups in PC forum.
And if you dint know Apply offers onsite (come to your home) and fix it if its your desktop when you are covered under warranty!

And its funny to read you call people here biased opinions!