why is mac so expensive ?

[snberk103]

Updates are a (slight) concern, granted. But the warranty/Applecare is not worth paying more than double for. If it breaks, just restore from backup.

Not saying you're wrong.... just that that solution is not for everyone. I used to build my own PCs (back when I used OS/2 and later eComStation) so computer guts don't freak me out.

Some people like the idea of a few bucks, and spending time with the insides of their computer spread out over the kitchen table on the rare occasion. And to be fair, a hackintosh system should only be attempted by someone who has built a PC before OR as a second system used for fun and as a learning experience.

Hackintosh is not for someone new to it, and who uses their system for their living or for school. Unless they like stress. If your computer is your only system, and/or it is the system that you use for your living - having the safety net of a warranty or AppleCare could be very important.

Just saying there is a time and place for everything, and a hackintosh is not always the right solution.

 

[Jason Beck]

They is so expensive because they is cool.
I is in your fridge eating all your foodz.
Or something.

 

[FX120]

The simple fact of the matter is that Apple makes high end machines and certain components reflect that. The most obvious example would be the laptop screens Apple currently use. I think I'm right in saying all of them are LED-backlit and in all my time on PC support I've very rarely come across a screen in a Windows laptop that is as good as those in the MBP ranges. Other examples off the top of my head are the battery (I'm sure that built in Li-Po battery doesn't come cheap), the case itself (unibody aluminium is always going to be more expensive than a traditional plastic case) and the keyboard / trackpad (so far ahead of the vast majority of PC laptops it's actually a bit depressing). Then you've got the extras like the backlit keyboard, ambient light sensor, drop sensor etc etc.

Just to be nitpicky, none of the components are really "high end" in the MBP.

The screen isn't that fantastic, it's average. There are many LED notebook displays on the market now, and while some are pretty poor, there are also many that are much much better.

Lithium polymer isn't any more expensive than lithium ion batteries, there just isn't a significant advantage to using them other than the (slight) savings in space because they can be square cells instead of cylindrical.

I still am not a huge fan of aluminum for a laptop case. While the unibody process is a huge step up from the previous aluminum sheet metal they were using, I still think it scratches and dings way to easily. It makes for a very well built machine, no doubt about it, but there are comparable designs with magnesium reinforced poylmer that is just as strong and study with a more durable finish. I am not convinced it is that much of an additional cost because by weight the amount of aluminum used is fairly small, and the machine time isn't really any greater than what would be required to build a traditional "framed" computer chassis.

Backlit keyboards, ambient light sensors, ect, well all of those things are low cost components to integrate and many PC manufacturers have, while keeping their costs low.

The reason Apple's computers cost so much is because they can cost so much. Apples computers have always been exceedingly expensive. Durring the PPC days it wasn't as big of a deal because the hardware wasn't directly comparable with anything else on the market, but now that they're using the same crap that every other manufacturer is using it is easier to see the markup.

And it's not just their laptops, it's across the line with (possibly) the exception of the Mac Pro which is very dependent on the configuration.

 

[Villageguy86]

the guy above me is an idiot, any real mac fan will agree

don't worry guys we know why we use macs, and why we are willing to pay for them

**** this dude

i bet he bitches about people who drive Bmw's too. "Because they charge more, My hyundai can do that for a quarter of the price." blammin' dipstick.

 

[FX120]

the guy above me is an idiot, any real mac fan will agree

don't worry guys we know why we use macs, and why we are willing to pay for them

**** this dude

i bet he bitches about people who drive Bmw's too. "Because they charge more, My hyundai can do that for a quarter of the price." blammin' dipstick.

How polite.

 

[snberk103]

Every Group has got one or two...

But, to nit-pick back.... Once you add the magnesium, the LED, the backlit keyboard onto a non-Apple laptop... is it really any cheaper? And as a further test, do the benchmarking scores more or less line-up? My belief is that once you start comparing systems that actually comparable, the price difference is minimal. And yes, Apple can charge more because people feel the system has that much value overall.

 

[63dot]

As far as the mac vs pc cost here is the main idea:

Apple and Microsoft are two completely different business models. Apple makes money off of the hardware, MS makes money off of the software.

That makes a lot of sense and it's clearly laid out.

Apple could have been a much richer company had Apple's OS become the standard instead of Windows. Apple could have survived just on software products and it would be the two Steves who would be the richest, or among them, in the world, not Paul Allen and Bill Gates. (#17 and #1 on Forbes 400 list, and at times #2 and #1, respectively)

Rich guys like Sergey Brin, Shawn Fanning, and Jerry Yang can fall off the Forbes 400 list and jump back on again based on the whims of the unstable high tech industry, but Microsoft has made themselves indispensable, and probably the only high tech company in the world that has done so. As to having Microsoft "borrow" other companies ideas or play the business game in a predatory manner is a topic for another thread.

 

[flopticalcube]

the guy above me is an idiot, any real mac fan will agree

don't worry guys we know why we use macs, and why we are willing to pay for them

**** this dude

i bet he bitches about people who drive Bmw's too. "Because they charge more, My hyundai can do that for a quarter of the price." blammin' dipstick.

He has many valid points. No need for the name calling. The one area where he is wrong is the advantage of LiPoly vis LiIon. LiPoly batteries have a significant advantage in that they have a 1000 cycle lifetime vs the 300-500 for LiIon. This makes embedded batteries feasible and, indeed, my cheapo Asus netbook uses one.

 

[Habitus]

I have PScs3 , I don't want cs4 , still learning it . If I install snow leopard , will it affect cs3 . I have been told there are still problems . if that is so , then I shall stay with OSx leopard . What is going on ? Can you help ? Also , Pc's with more in them cost half the price of mac , why . My repair person (mac guy) told me the parts are all made in the same places . Are we paying for just the name and all the mac product line ?

Honestly, as with any product, you get what you pay for. I've had my Mac for almost three years and am yet to get a virus or even reformat!

You'll enjoy your Mac; it's worth the price.

Habitus

 

[alent1234]

There is a PC cost, which is hidden. The average life span of a desktop is about 2-3 years. The average life span of a mac is about 5-6 years. If the mac costs $1,000 and the PC costs $499, then the cost is the same since you will statistically have to buy two PCs in the time it takes the mac to crap out.

i use a 5 year old PC at work running windows 7 with no problems. my mom and inlaws have 6 year old dell laptops that also work. one of them has a bad battery, but it never leaves the house so no big deal.

for the average internet/email experience a 5 year old PC is still perfectly usable. i've even set up old 8 year old PC's for family a few months ago and they work with no problems. and they were emachines

 

[alent1234]

That makes a lot of sense and it's clearly laid out.

Apple could have been a much richer company had Apple's OS become the standard instead of Windows. Apple could have survived just on software products and it would be the two Steves who would be the richest, or among them, in the world, not Paul Allen and Bill Gates. (#17 and #1 on Forbes 400 list, and at times #2 and #1, respectively)

Rich guys like Sergey Brin, Shawn Fanning, and Jerry Yang can fall off the Forbes 400 list and jump back on again based on the whims of the unstable high tech industry, but Microsoft has made themselves indispensable, and probably the only high tech company in the world that has done so. As to having Microsoft "borrow" other companies ideas or play the business game in a predatory manner is a topic for another thread.

from what i read Apple made the mistake of locking their OS because Steve Jobs wanted to control everything. Bill Gates opened it up to developers. weird thing is that Windows has actually become a lot better as it became more open compared to 10 years ago when it was still a fairly closed system. and a lot of the original Windows NT developers came from a UNIX background.

 

[63dot]

Honestly, as with any product, you get what you pay for. I've had my Mac for almost three years and am yet to get a virus or even reformat!

You'll enjoy your Mac; it's worth the price.

Habitus

Within a market in a region, this statement is true. You do get what you pay for.

If for some reason Macs were made completely in the USA and the PC side had a lot of parts made overseas, then Macs would be far more expensive than they are now and not really a good value.

The move to have Macs assembled elsewhere and the move to Intel has really closed the price gap between Macs and PCs. It's almost silly to complain about Apple charging too much compared to how large the price rift was in previous years.

Look at the Macbook and the Mac mini. They are great machines that offer a lot of computer for very little money, and the PC side can only marginally make something cheaper. If I have to save about $120 dollars on a mini computer, then I can get the Dell. If I really have to save $200 on a laptop, then I could get a similarly set up PC laptop. But gone are the days when a Mac is three to five times the price of a PC with same specs.

My Power Mac with all upgraded parts on it would have listed for just over $6,000 dollars from Apple in 1999-2000, but a pretty identical PC would have been no more than $1500 dollars.

 

[uhohzitzcooky]

The way I see it, you can get the same hardware for PC, but you can't really get the same design.

I mainly use my 2-year old pc desktop (Quad Q6700) and honestly couldn't be happier. While having said computer, I bought a Mac Mini (pre 9400) a year and a half ago. I wasn't really satisfied with the computer - but man the form factor was great. Sold the mini for $300 and back to the desktop.

Yeah, you can get a much better computer (hardware-wise) by either going PC or building your own. But believe me, you can't really build a computer like the Mini(form-factor) for much cheaper. Same goes with the iMac. The 27" model is a STEAL, if I have to explain why -- then this thread was pointless to begin with.

Some people will argue software, that Mac's are less prone to viruses. I agree. But honestly, what computer isn't fast enough these days to not be able to run AV software in the background. Seriously. If you're smart about the internet (ie. not clicking on pop-ups, or limewiring) - it's highly unlikely to get a virus. (knock on wood)

All this coming from a guy who prefers PCs

 

[Jason Beck]

The way I see it, you can get the same hardware for PC, but you can't really get the same design.

I mainly use my 2-year old pc desktop (Quad Q6700) and honestly couldn't be happier. While having said computer, I bought a Mac Mini (pre 9400) a year and a half ago. I wasn't really satisfied with the computer - but man the form factor was great. Sold the mini for $300 and back to the desktop.

Yeah, you can get a much better computer (hardware-wise) by either going PC or building your own. But believe me, you can't really build a computer like the Mini(form-factor) for much cheaper. Same goes with the iMac. The 27" model is a STEAL, if I have to explain why -- then this thread was pointless to begin with.

Some people will argue software, that Mac's are less prone to viruses. I agree. But honestly, what computer isn't fast enough these days to not be able to run AV software in the background. Seriously. If you're smart about the internet (ie. not clicking on pop-ups, or limewiring) - it's highly unlikely to get a virus. (knock on wood)

All this coming from a guy who prefers PCs

I agree wholeheartedly. I bought my Mini and felt vindicated, and not in
the least bit ripped off. If I buy a 27" iMac this year I will likewise feel
like I am getting great value. You get excellent components and a top
of the line 27" monitor all in one, plus a great operating system.

Now say I bought a Mac Pro.. yah the argument would be a little
different there. I think Apple's best 2 products for computing solutions
at home are the Mini and the iMac right now. They should offer a
Mini "Pro" model that is a midway between a Mac Pro and a Mini. More
ram, faster processor, and faster hard drive, all stock. As well as stand
alone graphics. That would be a Mini I would love to pay around 900$
for for the base model. haha

 

[FX120]

Every Group has got one or two...

But, to nit-pick back.... Once you add the magnesium, the LED, the backlit keyboard onto a non-Apple laptop... is it really any cheaper? And as a further test, do the benchmarking scores more or less line-up? My belief is that once you start comparing systems that actually comparable, the price difference is minimal. And yes, Apple can charge more because people feel the system has that much value overall.

Yes, typically anywhere between $500 and $800 cheaper.

He has many valid points. No need for the name calling. The one area where he is wrong is the advantage of LiPoly vis LiIon. LiPoly batteries have a significant advantage in that they have a 1000 cycle lifetime vs the 300-500 for LiIon. This makes embedded batteries feasible and, indeed, my cheapo Asus netbook uses one.

It's much more complex than a simple "cycle lifetime is x" equation. There are many variables that go into determining a batteries useful life, and lithium polymer vs lithium ion isn't the biggest of them. Lithium Ion cells are perfectly capable of reaching 1000+ discharge/charge cycles, as are lithium polymer cells.

The primary advantage of lithium polymer as I stated in my previous post is that they can be conformed to fit a designed size, while lithium ion cells are always cylindrical. This can lead to higher density batteries, but also has thermal trade-offs.

 

[kitten97]

mac is expensive

there are reasons why mac is expensive,

first one are their cool and popular brand. if you have that brand your the coolest person ^^

and lastly their features and materials they used it.

 

[student_trap]

the guy above me is an idiot, any real mac fan will agree

don't worry guys we know why we use macs, and why we are willing to pay for them

**** this dude

i bet he bitches about people who drive Bmw's too. "Because they charge more, My hyundai can do that for a quarter of the price." blammin' dipstick.

I can't believe this is what MR has become. such abuse

 

[nutritious]

they're simply more expensive because Apple sees itself as a luxury brand...kind of like Armani

 

[bondiblue1966]

Expensive but....

The reason they keep their value so well is that 2-3 year old Macs aren't far away from the spec of a new mac.

I got mine from

http://www.maceco.co.uk - An intel Macbook Intel 2.0ghz black special edition for under 400 quid! Look at the price of a new 2.26ghz Macbook! Double!!

And ebay have dozens of 2ghz macbooks for 500 quid or less! So take my advice, and get yourself a 2 year old model! RAM it up and enjoy all the same advantages of a Mac user who paid double!!

 

[student_trap]

The reason they keep their value so well is that 2-3 year old Macs aren't far away from the spec of a new mac.

I got mine from

http://www.maceco.co.uk - An intel Macbook Intel 2.0ghz black special edition for under 400 quid! Look at the price of a new 2.26ghz Macbook! Double!!

And ebay have dozens of 2ghz macbooks for 500 quid or less! So take my advice, and get yourself a 2 year old model! RAM it up and enjoy all the same advantages of a Mac user who paid double!!

wow, thats fantastic, a good site to know!

 

[Winni]

Apple and Microsoft are two completely different business models. Apple makes money off of the hardware, MS makes money off of the software.

No, this is almost entirely incorrect. Apple makes money with the hardware AND the software; Microsoft makes money ONLY with the software.

Apple's business model is almost subscription based: Upgrade cycles are much faster than they are in the Windows world AND Apple is very fast at artificially rendering "old" hardware - read: a two or three year old computer - useless by dropping or not even implementing support for certain features.

For example, a Mac Pro 1,1, a workstation that has in huge letters "64-Bit" printed on its box, cannot run Snow Leopard's 64-Bit kernel. Officially, 64-Bit Windows is also not supported on that high-priced 64-Bit Workstation (although, of course, 64-Bit Windows runs just fine on it). And Boot Camp 3 refuses to install on 64-Bit Windows on such a Mac Pro 1,1 unless you workaround the artificial barrier in the installer.

But oddly enough, Microsoft and Open Source operating systems like Ubuntu run in full 64-Bit mode on that computer.

Only Apple's own operating system does not support Apple's own hardware.

And all the Apple fanboys on this website keep defending Apple and keep telling everyone the nonsense statement that it doesn't really matter that Snow Leopard only runs in 32-Bit kernel on that HIGH-END, PRO machine that was ADVERTISED and SOLD as a 64-Bit Workstation.

At the same time that I even cannot install Snow Leopard anymore on a four year old HIGH END, PRO Quad Power Mac G5, I can install Windows 7 on a computer that's at least double as old as that G5. I can also install all current major Linux distributions on the G5 that's not even fully written off from the taxes, but is already unsupported by its manufacturer.

What's wrong with that picture?

From a customer perspective, I'd say that almost everything is wrong with it. Especially when we consider the little fact that Apple only operates at the upper end of the price segment. If we were talking about 300 bucks low-end office PCs, I wouldn't care. But we're talking about premium priced systems and a company that does a lot of advertisements about how great their crap is.

 

[student_trap]

No, this is almost entirely incorrect. Apple makes money with the hardware AND the software; Microsoft makes money ONLY with the software.

Apple's business model is almost subscription based: Upgrade cycles are much faster than they are in the Windows world AND Apple is very fast at artificially rendering "old" hardware - read: a two or three year old computer - useless by dropping or not even implementing support for certain features.

For example, a Mac Pro 1,1, a workstation that has in huge letters "64-Bit" printed on its box, cannot run Snow Leopard's 64-Bit kernel. Officially, 64-Bit Windows is also not supported on that high-priced 64-Bit Workstation (although, of course, 64-Bit Windows runs just fine on it). And Boot Camp 3 refuses to install on 64-Bit Windows on such a Mac Pro 1,1 unless you workaround the artificial barrier in the installer.

But oddly enough, Microsoft and Open Source operating systems like Ubuntu run in full 64-Bit mode on that computer.

Only Apple's own operating system does not support Apple's own hardware.

And all the Apple fanboys on this website keep defending Apple and keep telling everyone the nonsense statement that it doesn't really matter that Snow Leopard only runs in 32-Bit kernel on that HIGH-END, PRO machine that was ADVERTISED and SOLD as a 64-Bit Workstation.

At the same time that I even cannot install Snow Leopard anymore on a four year old HIGH END, PRO Quad Power Mac G5, I can install Windows 7 on a computer that's at least double as old as that G5. I can also install all current major Linux distributions on the G5 that's not even fully written off from the taxes, but is already unsupported by its manufacturer.

What's wrong with that picture?

From a customer perspective, I'd say that almost everything is wrong with it. Especially when we consider the little fact that Apple only operates at the upper end of the price segment. If we were talking about 300 bucks low-end office PCs, I wouldn't care. But we're talking about premium priced systems and a company that does a lot of advertisements about how great their crap is.

you are absolutely right, and this has been concerning me recently. My mac pro is now coming up to 2 years old now and is still more than I need in terms of speed, however it is beginning to lurk in the back of my mind that apple will likely drop it sooner rather than later for newer OS's etc.

But I bought it with the intention of getting at least 5 years of useful life out of it. What you have experienced will likely come back at me too, perhaps not with the 64bit issue, but with another that is so far unforeseen.

 

[AskMeIfICare]

the guy above me is an idiot, any real mac fan will agree

don't worry guys we know why we use macs, and why we are willing to pay for them

**** this dude

i bet he bitches about people who drive Bmw's too. "Because they charge more, My hyundai can do that for a quarter of the price." blammin' dipstick.

Err..you kinda abbreviated a word in your first sentence. Certainly you meant to say "any real mac fanBOY will agree"

Of course they will agree! That's what makes you who you are! That's not a judgement since you are who you are, and if you are comfortable with that, then I totally respect you. It doesn't mean that I don't find you hilarious because I do. In fact, if I was king, I'd name you my court jester since obviously you say what you do for laughs.

Sorry to point out the obvious but this was funny

P.S. I agree with everything the guy above you said, and in my case I drive a BMW 525i and I bitch about the people who drive them since most have no idea what their car can really do. I bitch about mac and the average mac user as well for the same reasons. But I also own 7 different Mac systems. So poo on you heh heh

 

[AskMeIfICare]

That makes a lot of sense and it's clearly laid out.

Apple could have been a much richer company had Apple's OS become the standard instead of Windows. Apple could have survived just on software products and it would be the two Steves who would be the richest, or among them, in the world, not Paul Allen and Bill Gates. (#17 and #1 on Forbes 400 list, and at times #2 and #1, respectively)

Rich guys like Sergey Brin, Shawn Fanning, and Jerry Yang can fall off the Forbes 400 list and jump back on again based on the whims of the unstable high tech industry, but Microsoft has made themselves indispensable, and probably the only high tech company in the world that has done so. As to having Microsoft "borrow" other companies ideas or play the business game in a predatory manner is a topic for another thread.

Give them another quarter. They just released the latest earnings and Apples growth has been seemingly exponential lately.

 

[AskMeIfICare]

I agree wholeheartedly. I bought my Mini and felt vindicated, and not in
the least bit ripped off. If I buy a 27" iMac this year I will likewise feel
like I am getting great value. You get excellent components and a top
of the line 27" monitor all in one, plus a great operating system.

Now say I bought a Mac Pro.. yah the argument would be a little
different there. I think Apple's best 2 products for computing solutions
at home are the Mini and the iMac right now. They should offer a
Mini "Pro" model that is a midway between a Mac Pro and a Mini. More
ram, faster processor, and faster hard drive, all stock. As well as stand
alone graphics. That would be a Mini I would love to pay around 900$
for for the base model. haha

The iMac and Mac Pro use the same hard drive (7200 RPM) and the Mac Pro add on drives (at least if you buy from the Mac store) are 7200 hard drives also. For what they charge they should be 10,000 RPM or faster drives, but that's a rant for another topic.

With the introduction of the i7 you essentially have your "mini Pro" since the Xeon and i7 are essential the same processor. The only difference is that you can run Xeon in tandem but you cannot do the same with an i7. The 27" screen coupled with the i7 is a real value since most 30" screens cost at least $1000. If you need more/fast hard drive space there's always native firewire 800 and 3rd party RAID solutions.

Unless you are doing pro video editing, iMac will be "pro grade" for the foreseeable future since 99% of software is still not optimized for even the core2quads let alone processors that hyper thread and probably will not be for the next 3-5 years.