why is mac so expensive ?

[dsnort]

Your question is upside down. It isn't that Macs are expensive, it's that PC's are inexpensive.

This is because PC's are a commodity, one metaphorical beige box running Win 7 on ABC chipset isn't significantly different than any other metaphorical beige box running Win 7 on ABC chipset.

This leads to a lot of price competition, and the market for PC's gets whored out to whoever can drop their pants the lowest.

 

[disconap]

I couldn't agree more. Before people needed distros to get 10.5 to work and it was horribly unstable in most cases unless someone could manage a vanilla install. Apps installed with a distro foundation were indeed more unstable with hacks vs Macs. Now it seems almost "too easy". My own feeling is that either Steve Jobs or someone he formulates strategy with came up with this idea at the same time they decided to go the Intel route. It's a brilliant marketing strategy since while I had both Mac and PC before, now I'm nearly entirely Mac due to the savings of being to convert old PC systems to Mac (even if half are hacks, I must admit I'm having amnesia when it comes to working with Windows as does my girlfriend who is a gamer who was stubborn when it came to moving to Mac...as backwards as that sounds). It allows people to immerse themselves in OSX when they'd otherwise never even think about it...so Apple cannot lose. Who knows...maybe they'll start using the A4 to create their own chipset based around the Intel CPU. Then the hack community would really have their work cut out for them like is the case when dealing with AMD chipsets or Nvidia based chipsets and the nightmares that they create for the hack community.

Thanks for the heads up on that fix. Whew that's a relief!

No problem, glad to help!

On the A4 line, that's what I think too; Apple designed their processors on their original machines (I think, I remember reading about the //c line, the Lisa, and the early Macs and that they worked on chip schematics, but I could be TOTALLY wrong on that), but it seems inline with their overall business strategy to have control over chip production as well. It's why the switch to Intel confused me, since Apple had input on the PPC line that Motorola (and later IBM) produced for the PowerMac lines (which is why upgrades weren't available for the G5, again if I remember correctly, as the POWER line weren't compatible).

And I totally agree on OSX. Plus the fact that 10.6 only costing $30? I bet that, volume wise, they've never sold an OS in such numbers, since Apple owners AND hackers likely plonked down the small fee for the disc. I know I did, as did ever hackintosher I know, and I don't even own an intel Mac yet...

 

[flopticalcube]

On the A4 line, that's what I think too; Apple designed their processors on their original machines (I think, I remember reading about the //c line, the Lisa, and the early Macs and that they worked on chip schematics, but I could be TOTALLY wrong on that), but it seems inline with their overall business strategy to have control over chip production as well.

Apple had custom chips on the motherboards but the CPUs were stock Motorola units. HP was using the 68000 long before Apple did in the Lisa.

 

[DoFoT9]

Wirelessly posted (nokia e63: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE63-1/100.21.110; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)

after reading a lot of things about POWER7, I wonder if apple would be second guessing their switch to intel.

I wonder if apple will design their own desktop/mobile chips to go in their products in the future years to come?

 

[iWoz]

For me the main differences are as follows, in no particular order:

1. Mac's have residual values far above those of even branded PC's never unbranded, home built PC's. This tends to reflect the fact that Mac's remain useful for longer than PC's so even if you don't sell the machine to realise the residual value as cash, you can continue to use the machine or give it to a friend or family member and they can get useful life from it. I'm typing this on a 5 year old Powerbook G4 which I bought on eBay recently as an example. Great little machine!

2. Apple design the computer as a complete system from end to end. Some of the components may appear to be the same as PC components and in many cases they are but Apple make sure that all the bits work together as best they can both in terms of functionality and things like thermal management. Since they control everything about the machine they can change hardware and/or software as required to achieve the desired level of performance and stability. The component cost of Apple machines would be much higher if it were not for the fact that Apple use massive buying power, helped by the relatively small number of discrete products they ship, to keep component costs right down.

3. Apple support has an excellent reputation for customer service and since they support both the hardware and software you only have one number to call to get help when you need it. You can also visit an Apple retail store if there is one nearby and get hands on support. The resource required to provide this level of support is costly and some of that cost will undoubtedly be added to the product prices.

4. Apple products are beautiful! There, I said it... Whether you appreciate a nicely designed and presented machine or whether you couldn't care less, Apple machines have had a lot more thought and resource put in to the aesthetics than your typical "beige box" PC. Of course there are nice PC's out there too but they also attract a premium.

5. Energy consumption of something like an iMac is much lower than a similar spec PC due to the use of laptop components within a desktop enclosure. These laptop components are much more expensive in terms of wholesale price but consume much less power. With electricity costs the way they are now this can be very significant. I did some calculations and worked out that my iMac running at 93 watts saves me around £100 per year compared to the 300 watt PC it replaced. The iMac is also about 5 times faster and doesn't sound like a swamp boat with noisy fans.

I hope this helps to make you feel better about the apparent extra cost of Mac's. As has been said many times before, the total cost over the lifetime of the machine is not so different from PC's and may in some cases actually be lower depending on how much or little the above factors affect you.

Regards,
Craig.

+1

 

[greygray]

To pay for Steve's ice cream diet.

 

[STIBROKER]

I like my mac notebook....no matter what the cost is.....

 

[Ramius]

To pay for Steve's ice cream diet.

Or some high end washing machine for his only pair of jeans and a black sweater - that he´s now used for more than 15 years.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

I've always thought Macs were more expensive because they were a smaller market. But today, given Apple's success and profits, I'd say Macs are more expensive simply because people are willing to pay more. Apple doesn't have to compete on price anymore.

 

[Denarius]

I've always thought Macs were more expensive because they were a smaller market. But today, given Apple's success and profits, I'd say Macs are more expensive simply because people are willing to pay more. Apple doesn't have to compete on price anymore.

Spot on.

 

[disconap]

Apple had custom chips on the motherboards but the CPUs were stock Motorola units. HP was using the 68000 long before Apple did in the Lisa.

So is the A4 the first Apple custom designed primary processor?

 

[flopticalcube]

So is the A4 the first Apple custom designed primary processor?

I believe so. They may have had influence in the PPC design, however.

 

[RaZaK]

Umm...

Because Uncle Stevie said so j\k

 

[disconap]

I believe so. They may have had influence in the PPC design, however.

Yeah, I do seem to recall some mention of the G5 chip, when they switched from Motorola to IBM, being a joint venture...

 

[FX120]

So is the A4 the first Apple custom designed primary processor?

Not really. If I remember correctly it's just a repackaged Cortex A9 on the same die as the GPU and other necessary components.

 

[Arthagnan]

CS3 seems to be rock solid on Snow Leopard.

The main reason they charge so much is because there are enough people willing to pay what they ask.

Indeed.

+ Jobs loves money.

 

[kernkraft]

To pay for Steve's ice cream diet.

that includes ice from virgin mermaids of the Caribbean and cream from the centaurs of Atlantis. Otherwise it's pretty difficult to justify the price of these Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros. Apropo, pros. That's why, they cost a lot.

 

[opeter]

that includes ice from virgin mermaids of the Caribbean and cream from the centaurs of Atlantis. Otherwise it's pretty difficult to justify the price of these Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros. Apropo, pros. That's why, they cost a lot.

Hahaha, best post of this week! Especially with the signature

 

[ronss]

i agree , apple prices do not reflect the laptop market...the macbook pro, i really like, but i cannot justify allmost 2 grand for one,,,,gosh, for $1400, i can get a killer pc laptop, like the top of line msi....will i get a mac computer, yes, i am looking at a used g5 powermac....i can get them cheap, espically with the power pc cpu

 

[craig1410]

i agree , apple prices do not reflect the laptop market...the macbook pro, i really like, but i cannot justify allmost 2 grand for one,,,,gosh, for $1400, i can get a killer pc laptop, like the top of line msi....will i get a mac computer, yes, i am looking at a used g5 powermac....i can get them cheap, espically with the power pc cpu

Way to dig up a 20 month old thread...

If you are serious and not just trolling, my advice would be to get an Intel machine not a Power PC machine. The PPC machines were/are great (I've got 2 of them) but they have had their day and you will get a lot more usability from an Intel machine, ideally a Core2Duo based one.

As for cost, as has been explained many many times, you get what you pay for. In fact, in terms of value for money, you will often get more value from an Apple machine than a PC in terms of the cost of the component parts making up the machine. The difference is that Apple don't compromise on lesser quality components and aren't interested in making cheap laptops. Just ask the 3rd party tablet makers - they can't build a comparable tablet to the iPad at anything close to the iPad cost. This is due to Apple's huge buying power and relatively small number of models which they produce.

 

[simie]

I just thought that I would like to remind you all of brand names and advertising.

You are paying for the apple plastered on the front, lets see Gucci or Giorgio Armani make a computer then lets look at the price.

You will be paying for the name, ok the macs are built to a higher quality supposedly but you can certainly build a PC that offers more power.

Don't get me wrong Macs are great but at the end of the day we are just making rich people richer.

Whatever you bought your Mac for make sure it is always capable of doing that task well. Software and OS updates and upgrades can soon make a fast computer a slow computer.

If it aint broke the why fix it!

 

[Nameci]

it is not all about power, it is about reliability, user-experience and ease of use. And no Windows box can beat that.

Posting this from a 6 year old Powerbook. Get the drift?

 

[Nick McEnjoy]

My parents still fight viruses and crap with a 2 year old Dell. They've had it in the shop 3 times, and they're ready to toss it. Meanwhile, my wife's 6 year old Mac keeps chugging along with no problem.
...
At least now they're wiser - and will shell out for a Mac next time, which will ultimately save them a bundle down the road...

PC users should know some rules to protect their machines. I have used PC since DOS 5.0. Hardly get a virus.

 

[vitzr]

1) it is not all about power, it is about reliability, user-experience and ease of use.

2) no Windows box can beat that.

1a) I agree

2a) Wrong, nice try

I've bought equal numbers of new PowerBooks/MacBook Pro's while concurrently buying new T Series ThinkPads since the advent of each.

ThinkPad T series are the best PC Laptop, & equivalent to PowerBooks/MacBook Pros. I've had every T series made and every PowerBook / MacBook Pro since the PowerBook 170 running system 7.

The first hand experience I've had year after year, using them for mission critical work reveals they are both stellar laptops. My current comparable models are both 2011 quad core i7 SSD equipped 15" MBP & T520. From Windows XP SP1 forward till Windows 7 SP1 of today, I've never had a single virus, worm, malware, BSOD or other annoyance. The same holds true for my Macs. Furthermore I've had less than a 5% hardware failure rate from either. One MBP, and precisely one T60 have each had hard drives fail. That's no reflection on Apple or IBM since obviously they obtain the drives from vendors. Out of nothing more than coincidence they were both Hitachis. A brand of drive that is top notch. I've had one PowerBook that had memory go bad, again no fault of Apple, and a T40 that had a memory slot failure, a part that also came from a vendor.

Considering the heavy, resource intensive work I do that's quite a good record for both brands.

If I had to buy just one brand it would be a tough call. It would also depend on the intended usage. If it was just for my personal use, hands down I'm a hard core Apple Laptop Enthusiast. I enjoy OS X beyond description. Yet to be fair Windows 7 Pro is one exemplary OS.

So that's my take on it.

You'll notice I have not mentioned price even though there's quite a gap. As far as my purchase decisions I base them on my needs and wants, not price.

I have never regretted any purchase decision of the machines I've outlined.

Cheers

 

[tortura]

i didnt read all replys but

quality cost more ...

if you try to buy ibm thinkpad with the same, or near same components, you will have to pay same amount

some of the answers were really good, stability, design and just awesome OS etc

having to reinstall every 1 and half year of windows and moving all the data just sucks ... using timemachine to use your data and application is great!
cases are different tho, windows reinstalling cause of bad performance, mac reinstalling because of new hardware and selling the old hardware for nearly same price