I tried your subject line in Google
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Why+the+price+discrepancy+between+PCs+and+Macs?+&aq=f&oq=
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why the price discrepancy between PCs and Macs?
- Thread starter Eanair
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I tried your subject line in Google
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Why+the+price+discrepancy+between+PCs+and+Macs?+&aq=f&oq=
I feel like I've spent my entire adult life debating this issue.
The bottom line is this: ever since IBM lost control of the PC hardware architecture (in 1983) and the clone industry was born, PC hardware has been essentially a commodity industry. The margins have been wafer-thin for the hardware manufacturers. They compete mainly on price because they have a difficult time competing on any other basis. The hardware you buy from them reflects this.
A few PC manufacturers, such as Sony, have been more aggressive with experimenting with form factors -- and lo and behold, their hardware sells for a substantially higher than average price, and their fraction of the overall market isn't large. Of the Windows OEMs, Sony and Apple probably have the most similar approach, and the most similar pricing.
The problem you have with most comparisons between Mac and Windows PC pricing is that generally the cheapest, rock-bottom PCs are compared to Apple's products. Often even home building is compared, which makes no sense at all. Sony's pricing doesn't hold up well under this comparison either, but I've never heard anyone say they charge too much.
Apple uses its control of the entire Mac to invest in form factors and produce computer products that nobody else can. We can see this in a whole line of products going back to the G3 iMac at least -- many of which immediately spawned PC imitations.
If you're a person who buys computers simply by comparing hardware specs and price, you're probably always going to find a Windows PC cheaper than a Mac. But if that's the case, you probably don't really want a Mac anyway. Either you like the entire Mac package at the price Apple sells it, or you don't.
The bottom line is this: ever since IBM lost control of the PC hardware architecture (in 1983) and the clone industry was born, PC hardware has been essentially a commodity industry. The margins have been wafer-thin for the hardware manufacturers. They compete mainly on price because they have a difficult time competing on any other basis. The hardware you buy from them reflects this.
A few PC manufacturers, such as Sony, have been more aggressive with experimenting with form factors -- and lo and behold, their hardware sells for a substantially higher than average price, and their fraction of the overall market isn't large. Of the Windows OEMs, Sony and Apple probably have the most similar approach, and the most similar pricing.
The problem you have with most comparisons between Mac and Windows PC pricing is that generally the cheapest, rock-bottom PCs are compared to Apple's products. Often even home building is compared, which makes no sense at all. Sony's pricing doesn't hold up well under this comparison either, but I've never heard anyone say they charge too much.
Apple uses its control of the entire Mac to invest in form factors and produce computer products that nobody else can. We can see this in a whole line of products going back to the G3 iMac at least -- many of which immediately spawned PC imitations.
If you're a person who buys computers simply by comparing hardware specs and price, you're probably always going to find a Windows PC cheaper than a Mac. But if that's the case, you probably don't really want a Mac anyway. Either you like the entire Mac package at the price Apple sells it, or you don't.
Design
Usability
Silence
Service
Low maintenance
For example:
Apple's 24" iMac: There's more to High End than Performance
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article693-page1.html
New iMacs offer more value than competition - report
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...offer_more_value_than_competition_report.html
Usability
Silence
Service
Low maintenance
For example:
Apple's 24" iMac: There's more to High End than Performance
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article693-page1.html
New iMacs offer more value than competition - report
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...offer_more_value_than_competition_report.html
Those websites (I've read the first several hits) are discussing Mac versus PC and what the cost differences ARE, as well as how to choose your computer, but not much discussion as to WHY there is a cost difference.
I'm reading and they say that you can frame you argument so either Mac or PC comes out on top, or how you need to compare similar PCs and Macs (and the argument about what is a comparable PC to a Mac and vice versa), or you can obtain an equal computer for X price, or a computer is your personal decision and don't let a 10% price difference sway your decision, but not if there was a reason why the prices are different between the two.
EDIT: I'm not trying to justify machine A is better than B because of costs C and D, but rather if there is a reason for the difference between C and D. From what I'm gathering from those sites, while they do an excellent job of trying to outline the differences between Macs and PCs and what each has the other doesn't, I was more specifically looking for if there was a specific reason (if any) that the difference exists, and if so, why? Cost of making the cases? Cost of developing an OS? Etc.
Please, apply some common sense:
If its an i7, its DDR3 as the motherboards only accept DDR3
This is a desktop obviously, so the HDD has a 95% chance to be a 7200RPM model.
Your obviously nitpicking as your trying to defend something........
IJ Reilly, seems that's a fair explanation about PC competition and Mac competition. Sony does seem the most Mac-like of PCs...
EDIT: I obviously don't know definitely why...which is why I was asking, and I do apologize for stirring the pot like such.
EDIT: I obviously don't know definitely why...which is why I was asking, and I do apologize for stirring the pot like such.
As I said in an earlier post, you're not going to find that kind of answer. If it were that simple, the ongoing arguments would cease. You cannot find an indisputable list of costs or factors that explains why one computer has a different price than another, whether it's Apple, Sony, Toshiba... anyone.
Yes, I understand that now.
I was just trying to explain that I asked here because I didn't find anything on the web that addressed some kind of hard numerical-based answer. I thought maybe someone here might know of something like it, and I'm okay if there is none.
I certainly haven't meant to stir up so much trouble... Yikes.
I thought both the 20 and 24 inch iMacs had LCD panels?
From the Apple site:
...
There are degrees of LCDs, you know.
TN, S-PVA, S-IPS, H-IPS.
And maybe more between TN and S-PVA. I'm not sure.
Um... I hate to be an alarmist, but someone spilled alphabet soup all over your post!
Another large factor is that the price isn't as big as a deal for some as it is for others. For me, I work hard and have a generous amount of money, as does my wife and parents. I can splurge and impulse buy electronics a bit, but it's not even that, for a quality product, paying more is fine to me. With all the use I get out of it, that money is a drop of water in an ocean, and money is meant to be used anyway.
The build quality is stunning, and like someone said with Sony, obviously it costs a fair bit to produce.
Apple certainly could go lower on the prices, though. They are charging a fair bit, I'd certainly welcome lower prices, but I'm in love with OS X, the design quality, customer support, beauty, etc. I ain't going nowhere.
The build quality is stunning, and like someone said with Sony, obviously it costs a fair bit to produce.
Apple certainly could go lower on the prices, though. They are charging a fair bit, I'd certainly welcome lower prices, but I'm in love with OS X, the design quality, customer support, beauty, etc. I ain't going nowhere.
Basic economics, really...
Well, I guess its just basic economics and how monopolistic firms work. Apple has no competitiors (in terms of its hardware-i think a previous post said that, software... we won't count Psystar I guess?), and so those who wish to buy Macs will do so, simply because they prefer it, and Apple can charge to maximize their profits (seems odd, some would think that ALL firms do that, but not always)
All the differences in quality, ease of use, customer service, etc. are part of the preferences that consumers make when choosing a product, and constitute the demand that results. everyone else who's complaining about prices, they're obviously not in the market for one, and will not buy a mac at the current price (not that they're hypocrites, just they're not ready to spend that money yet) - side note: i think the new minis are a tad too expensive here in Canada, so I might wait, or not buy one at all, its not really whether PC is better or Apple is better... its what YOU think is better and end up buying.
I guess you shouldn't worry too much about that your friends are trying to "convert you" hahaha~ your preferences are influenced by everything around you, so if they can succeed, all well and good, but if not, you can enjoy your mac (and maybe buy another one in several years' time =D)
Well, I guess its just basic economics and how monopolistic firms work. Apple has no competitiors (in terms of its hardware-i think a previous post said that, software... we won't count Psystar I guess?), and so those who wish to buy Macs will do so, simply because they prefer it, and Apple can charge to maximize their profits (seems odd, some would think that ALL firms do that, but not always)
All the differences in quality, ease of use, customer service, etc. are part of the preferences that consumers make when choosing a product, and constitute the demand that results. everyone else who's complaining about prices, they're obviously not in the market for one, and will not buy a mac at the current price (not that they're hypocrites, just they're not ready to spend that money yet) - side note: i think the new minis are a tad too expensive here in Canada, so I might wait, or not buy one at all, its not really whether PC is better or Apple is better... its what YOU think is better and end up buying.
I guess you shouldn't worry too much about that your friends are trying to "convert you" hahaha~ your preferences are influenced by everything around you, so if they can succeed, all well and good, but if not, you can enjoy your mac (and maybe buy another one in several years' time =D)
Yes I know, and and no, Apple is not one by any textbook. If Apple is a monopoly, then so is Coca-Cola, Toyota, Canon, Bose, Sears, Betty Crocker -- in fact, anyone who manufactures and sells a patented, copyrighted or trademarked product. Meaning, virtually every company on the face of planet Earth.
With comments like this, as well as everyone complaining about Apple's prices and update policies, it's glaringly apparent that many in this forum are in desperate need of some basic instruction on how business works.
Well, it's done.
I have a new iMac, it's on my desk right now...
Personally I like Macs, I have my personal reasons why I believe they're better value than PCs, I enjoy working with them for said reasons, and that's all that matters.
It's rather large on my small desk though...
I have a new iMac, it's on my desk right now...
Personally I like Macs, I have my personal reasons why I believe they're better value than PCs, I enjoy working with them for said reasons, and that's all that matters.
It's rather large on my small desk though...
+1
To emphasize the point, I consider myself to be in a very small minority of Mac users - people who want a headless Mac, but want more than the Mini offers, but I certainly don't need all the power of the Mac Pro.
Coming from the PC world, where expandability was taken completely for granted, I *had* to have that option. I also do a lot of color correction using Photoshop (mostly for myself, but I have had the odd paying job), so having a glossy screen (iMac) was also out of the question.
I don't like the idea of all in one computers - (I have nothing personal against the iMac itself - I think the build quality is excellent) if something happens to the monitor, you're left without a machine for a few days at least.
So of course, the only option Apple gives me is to buy their top of the line machine.
It met (and far exceeded) my requirements....and expectations.
You want benefits? How about...(applicable to any Mac, not just the Pro)
*SILENT* computing (except when CDs are spinning up)
Very low risk of virus/spyware threats
OS X is more stable, secure, and uses less resources than Vista (the extra RAM can go towards running more programs instead of having Vista's graphic overhead.)
Generally made of higher quality materials - Yes, I'd rather have a system made out of aluminum than cheap plastic. Price out a Lian Li aluminum case for a PC sometime - you get what you pay for in high quality construction.
Higher resale value
I could go on and on, but these are just a few reasons why it was worth it to ME to plunk down $2300 (at least I had a discount available) for an early 2008 Mac Pro when they came out in January last year.
And thanks to what I consider to be the best computing experience out there, I won't be switching back to PCs anytime in the foreseeable future