Why the price discrepancy between PCs and Macs?

[gnasher729]

Do you even know what monopoly means? Apple is like a textbook monopoly.

Nonsense. Apple doesn't even sell textbooks.

In the operating system market, Apple has somewhere less than 10% market share in the USA. In the computer market about the same. A bit more in the laptop market, especially high end laptops, less in the desktop market, more in the high end workstation market. In no area does Apple have anything near to a monopoly.

The only area where you could halfway reasonably claim that Apple might have a monopoly is in the portable music player market.

 

[stainlessliquid]

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.

That doesnt make any sense. How are any of those related to a computer platform?

Apple isn't a monopoly. They don't have exclusive control over the computer industry. Just because a company is the only source for their particular product or service, doesn't make them a monopoly. People can go to other companies to buy computers, UNIX-based operating systems, MP3 players, music.... everything Apple makes can be bought from competitors.

Computer industry? Really? If you could break things to such broad categories then it would be impossible to be a monopoly. Maybe Microsoft should have used this as their defense: "How can we be a monopoly when we dont have exclusive control over computer software?"

Youre confusing monopoly with antitrust laws, which are not the same. There are a lot of monopolies, Apple being one of them, they just dont all violate antitrust laws (or they do but nobody cares).

 

[Spartan1250]

Don't forget that by buying an iMac, you're also getting a really good monitor, better software, extra software, speakers, a decent webcam, a microphone, all of the wireless peripherals, and K&M.

 

[mcpryon2]

Congrats on the purchase, the iMac is a great machine.

 

[pomum]

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.

Those are all oligopolies ; which kinda spreads everything out... but I was trying to say that Apple is showing behaviour that is like a monopoly, and will charge prices for those. If people don't like the prices, they'll vote with their wallets. And Apple will act accordingly (doesn't have to be a price change, could be any reaction). People sometimes get worked up over the PC/Mac question~

 

[pomum]

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...

by the way, congrats on your new iMac! =) I'm thinking of getting a mini/iMac for my living room as an entertainment centre, but I only got my mbp in august, so its a bit of a splurge ><"

Right on about your personal reasons! xD I like Macs too, but it doesn't stop me from using my PC desktop that I already have (even if it is Vista). Its just a tool for convenience (I don't have to write my papers by hand, go out to watch movies, run around town checking prices, etc.), so long as it works, and its pleasing to the eye, why not?

 

[IJ Reilly]

That doesnt make any sense. How are any of those related to a computer platform?

Of course they aren't related. The point being, if Apple is a monopoly, then so is every other company selling a copyrighted, patented or trademarked product.

Those are all oligopolies ; which kinda spreads everything out... but I was trying to say that Apple is showing behaviour that is like a monopoly, and will charge prices for those. If people don't like the prices, they'll vote with their wallets. And Apple will act accordingly (doesn't have to be a price change, could be any reaction). People sometimes get worked up over the PC/Mac question~

Apple must compete within the larger market for personal computers. They are neither a monopoly nor an oligopoly. The only market they control is the market for their own products, in exactly the same way any other company controls the market for their own products. In fact this is the very error that Psystar made in their countersuit against Apple. They made the ludicrous argument that Macintosh computers are a market in which they are entitled to compete. That's like saying Coca-Cola is a market in which any soft drink manufacturer who wishes to is entitled to complete.

 

[GGJstudios]

Youre confusing monopoly with antitrust laws, which are not the same. There are a lot of monopolies, Apple being one of them, they just dont all violate antitrust laws (or they do but nobody cares).

I'm not confusing anything. In what way does Apple supposedly have a monopoly?

 

[63dot]

My best guess is that you are paying for better overall support for the one year, better industrial design, and better/safer packaging. If you take those three into consideration, I don't think the discrepancy is that big.

Some years back, the discrepancy was much bigger and maybe Apple Inc was gouging us. After the iMac and iBook in 1998 and 1999, prices started to get closer to the PC. Mac laptops in the mid-90s were way off base and overpriced for those of you who remember. Mac desktops were also clearly overpriced. If anything, Apple's support, design, and packaging have improved since that time long ago.

 

[63dot]

Calling Apple "monopolistic" is an abuse of any accepted or known definition of the term.

I can think of a high tech company that does fit the description, and "they" are far more known for being overpriced than Apple, Sony, or anybody else and at one point had a 31% percent margin which alarmed the Feds to what looked like monopolistic pricing behavior.

 

[Tesselator]

Case in point, my partner upgraded his own PC recently for £930 (approximately $1309.90) including tax with the following specs:

Intel Quad Core i7 I7-920
6 GB DDR RAM
500 GB HD
NVIDIA GTX 260

Now, compared to me prepared to shell out $1,199.00 (excluding tax) for the upgraded 20 inch iMac with these specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo
2 GB DDR RAM
320 GB HD
NVIDIA 9400M

So, what exactly is it that we Mac users are paying “extra” for?

Right now? The engineering and tooling budget Apple needs to figure out hot to make an iMac with the PC spec you just listed.

After they do, you can pay $1309.90 for either one.

 

[steve2112]

I'm not confusing anything. In what way does Apple supposedly have a monopoly?

The argument is usually that Apple has a monopoly on legally obtaining and running OSX. Since you have to buy Apple hardware to run Apple software (OSX), it is a monopoly. The concept is certainly...debatable.

 

[Chrispy]

I use macs for their reliability and software. I use Final Cut because I much prefer its interface and Log and Transfer functions over anything else I have used in the past. Vegas was a close second but Final Cut just feels natural to me.

If it were not for that, I would use PC. I have a Core i7 I used for gaming for months that I'm now selling because I have lost the time to game as much. People use the systems that have the tools with which they feel most comfortable. For me, that is FC.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I can think of a high tech company that does fit the description, and "they" are far more known for being overpriced than Apple, Sony, or anybody else and at one point had a 31% percent margin which alarmed the Feds to what looked like monopolistic pricing behavior.

Hmm, let me guess... were they subject to prosecution by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice?

The argument is usually that Apple has a monopoly on legally obtaining and running OSX. Since you have to buy Apple hardware to run Apple software (OSX), it is a monopoly. The concept is certainly...debatable.

That's essentially the illegal tying argument. It doesn't wash if only because tying isn't illegal unless the company is doing the tying in order to complete unfairly within a properly defined market. The problem is this case can only be made against Apple if defined market is the market for Apple's own product. This logic is (to put it mildly) lunacy. It's a completely circular argument.

 

[Kronie]

Is it the OS? The status symbol? (I’ve heard many argue that a Mac is a status symbol) Hardware? Software? Reliability? Customer service not based in India?

Yes, not really, yes, yes, yes, yes. Oh and build too.

 

[GGJstudios]

The argument is usually that Apple has a monopoly on legally obtaining and running OSX. Since you have to buy Apple hardware to run Apple software (OSX), it is a monopoly. The concept is certainly...debatable.

The fact that any company has proprietary rights to a product and is the only source for buying that product does NOT make it a monopoly. If that were true, every company that offers products under its own brand name would be a monopoly, including "mom and pop" businesses. OSX is one of many competitive operating systems available to the consumer. The consumer has a choice. They aren't limited to one choice and one company.

Anyone who uses that argument clearly does not understand the definition of a monopoly.

 

[63dot]

Hmm, let me guess... were they subject to prosecution by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice?

It kind of forced their CEO into a different role not long after, and a personality makeover. I could see him thinking, "I guess I will save the world instead of go to prison, you know, he he, look like a nice guy instead."

How ironic it would be if the world became a dramatically better place to live due to his do-gooder foundation as what obviously appeared to begin as a public image makeover.

I could see his headstone one day. "Harvard dropout, prodigious copycat, feared multi-billionaire, savior of the world."

 

[IJ Reilly]

I could see his headstone one day. "Harvard dropout, prodigious copycat, feared multi-billionaire, savior of the world."

He's doing an Andrew Carnegie -- another hated and feared monopolist who cornered an industry and made an immense fortune by trampling over anyone who got in his way, then gave most of his money away before he died.

 

[basura!]

Often even home building is compared, which makes no sense at all.

Yet this is the argument you most often hear: 'I could build my own PC with similar or better specs for $$$ less.'
It's like going to a restaurant and complaining that you could cook the same meal at home for far less money. Dumb.

 

[Patriks7]

Many posts I read about the subject were littered with "I'm a Mac fanboi, that's why!" and "But they're so pretty!" Not exactly what I was looking for though.

A little heads up; There are two types of Mac users. The annoying fanboys on forums saying how Apple is the best etc without any support and stuff like that, and the people that are posting in this topic that actually seriously use a Mac
Onto the topic, if you compare the price and everything of what you get in a Mac, you realize that it's actually not overpriced. Sure, I can get a PC laptop for 600, compared to the 1,200 of a MacBook. But aesthetically, the PC will be nowhere close as well as build quality wise. Processors will probably be the same as well as HDD. I personally haven't seen any cheap laptops with DDR3 RAM, so I'm guessing the MacBook would have that better. There's also a 96.30812% rolleyes chance that the 600 laptop is using Intel graphics, which blow donkeys even for basic things. Now we get to the most important part of Macs. The software. For me, OS X is the only reason I have a Mac right now. I could have gotten a better specced laptop at a fairly similar build quality of my MacBook pro for the same price (forget what brand it was right now) but it doesn't have OS X, and that is a deal breaker right away. I am willing to bet that if you ask someone why they use a Mac, most of them will say it's for the operating system and software.

 

[smartalic34]

A little heads up; There are two types of Mac users. The annoying fanboys on forums saying how Apple is the best etc without any support and stuff like that, and the people that are posting in this topic that actually seriously use a Mac
Onto the topic, if you compare the price and everything of what you get in a Mac, you realize that it's actually not overpriced. Sure, I can get a PC laptop for 600, compared to the 1,200 of a MacBook. But aesthetically, the PC will be nowhere close as well as build quality wise. Processors will probably be the same as well as HDD. I personally haven't seen any cheap laptops with DDR3 RAM, so I'm guessing the MacBook would have that better. There's also a 96.30812% rolleyes chance that the 600 laptop is using Intel graphics, which blow donkeys even for basic things. Now we get to the most important part of Macs. The software. For me, OS X is the only reason I have a Mac right now. I could have gotten a better specced laptop at a fairly similar build quality of my MacBook pro for the same price (forget what brand it was right now) but it doesn't have OS X, and that is a deal breaker right away. I am willing to bet that if you ask someone why they use a Mac, most of them will say it's for the operating system and software.

amen to that. amen.

 

[basura!]

But PC's have what computers need! They have electrolytes!!

 

[IJ Reilly]

A little heads up; There are two types of Mac users. The annoying fanboys on forums saying how Apple is the best etc without any support and stuff like that, and the people that are posting in this topic that actually seriously use a Mac .

You forgot a third type of Mac user -- the type who thinks there are only two types of Mac users.

 

[Winni]

 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.)

 Higher resale value

No, OS X is --NOT-- more stable, secure and less resource hungry than Vista, especially not when we are comparing OS X Leopard in 64-Bit mode with 64-Bit Vista. In my experience, 64-Bit Vista outperforms Leopard on the same computer. And it is also less error prone than Leopard.

Macs also no longer have the better resell value that they used to have in the PowerPC days. Macs have become a mass market commodity, and accordingly their resell value has significantly declined; it's still better than that of an average PC, but it's no longer as good as it used to be.

 

[chewietobbacca]

It comes down to this: people are willing to pay for the higher price, whether its justified or not.

Personally, finances are tighter now, and if I can build the equivalent PC for $1300 less, I'm more inclined to and figure out how to make a Hackintosh for it. Some will glady pay the extra amount, and other's wont. Personally, I also don't like spending $350 for a video card that had its price recently drop to $150 as well, but again, not everyone has the same concerns.