Once and for all, proof that Macs are cheaper than PCs

Machinist.Salon ^ | By Farhad Manjoo

[Swordmaker]

Let's put to rest the myth that an Apple computer will set you back more than a Windows PC. In fact, it'll cost you less.

It's time to buy an Apple computer. Indeed, it's been that time for the past five years, at least, but only now, slowly, are people waking up to this fact. Thanks to Apple's relentless flash -- the John Hodgman ads, the iPods, the iPhones -- its Macintosh business is now in league with that of the biggest PC companies in the world. Everyone who's used it agrees that Leopard, the operating system that Apple released late last month, is to its chief rival, Microsoft's Windows Vista, roughly as Richard Wagner is to Richard Marx. This simple truth is dawning: If we forget about computer-industry network effects and monopolistic business practices, if we forget Apple's various ancient missteps -- if we're going just by what's better -- the ages-old Mac-vs.-PC debate is over. Long over. Yell it from the rooftops: The Mac has won.

And yet, you're not buying an Apple computer. Most of the world isn't. There is probably a single overwhelming reason you're clinging to Windows. Macs are expensive. This is what you've been told, and in your research, it's seemed to check out. If they acknowledge it at all, Mac fans will rationalize the higher prices by noting that you're paying for quality. Buying a Mac, folks say, is like buying a BMW (Apple CEO Steve Jobs regularly compares the Mac's market share with that of German luxury cars). But what if you don't want the BMW of PCs? What if you can only afford a Chevrolet?

The present article is an attempt to prove to you that, on price alone, the Mac is not the BMW of computers. It is the Ford of computers. I am not arguing that the Mac is cheaper only if you consider the psychic benefits conferred by its quality. Rather I'm going to illustrate something more straightforward: Even though you may pay a slight premium at the cash register for a Mac over a comparable Windows PC (a premium that gets slighter all the time), it will cost you less money -- real, honest-to-goodness American dollars -- to own that Mac than to own that PC.

Why this should be has to do with an economic truth that has not recently mattered much in the computer industry, but that, in an age of eBay and unyielding obsolescence, is now crucial. It is resale value. Macs fetch far more on the aftermarket than do PCs -- and after years of use, you can offset that cash-register premium by selling your Mac for a better price than you could your PC.

Consider this example: Last Thanksgiving, you could have purchased a fairly well-outfitted Windows desktop -- the HP Pavilion Media Center A1640n -- on sale from some retail outlets for $699. The machine came with 2 gigabytes of memory, a 250 GB hard disk, and it ran on a quick 1.86 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor.

Around the same time, you might instead have picked up Apple's top-of-the-line Mac Mini, which came equipped with a processor slightly less powerful than the HP's (a 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo), a far smaller hard disk (80 GB), and less memory (512 MB). The Mac Mini would have set you back $799, or $100 more than the HP.

A good way to gauge the current market value of a computer is to check how much buyers have been willing to pay for similar models in auctions recently completed on eBay. Doing so for the HP shows prices ranging from $236 to $257 -- let's say a rough average of $250. Sales of the Mac Mini, meanwhile, go from about $445 to $550. Let's assume you can unload yours for $500.

If you used your HP for a year and then sold it, you would have spent $449 to own it -- that is, your purchase price of $699 minus your sale price of $250. The Mac Mini, for the same year, would have set you back far less: $799 minus $500, or just $299.

I ran such comparisons on many Windows and Mac systems sold during the past four years, and in nearly every one -- whether the machines were laptops or desktops -- the Macs sold by enough of a premium over comparable Windows machines to make up for the greater amount you would have paid when buying them.

In the spring of 2006, for instance, you could have purchased a nice Dell laptop -- the Inspiron E1505, with a 1.66 GHz Core Duo processor, 1 GB of memory, and an 80 GB hard disk -- for $999 directly from Dell. At the time, Apple's roughly comparable entry-level MacBook -- 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo processor, 512 MB memory, a 60 GB disk -- went for $100 more, $1,099.

Even if you'd treated your machine very well, you'd be lucky to sell the Dell today for $550, while MacBooks have recently sold for $710, $740, $790, and even $800. It would, in other words, be a cinch to sell the MacBook for $100 more than the Dell Inspiron, thereby making up the purchase-price difference you paid earlier (and likely even beating it).

Apple fans have long understood the amazing resale value of their machines. Windows users, on the other hand, might be scratching their heads at my argument; in the Windows world, selling your computer (rather than recycling it) is almost unheard of. After just a year or two of use, a Windows machine gets so gummed up with spyware, viruses and other nasty stuff that it seems malicious to ask anybody for money for the thing.

When I say that it is time to consider buying an Apple computer, what I really mean is that it's time to consider that computers can live longer than what we in the Windows camp are used to. It's time to realize that a 2-, 3-, or even 4- or 5-year-old machine is still intrinsically useful -- if not to you then to someone else -- and you'd do well to take this value into consideration when choosing what to buy.

Last year, the Web entrepreneur Daniel Nissanoff published an intriguing book called "Future Shop," in which he argued that by making all goods more "liquid," eBay and other auction sites would profoundly revolutionize how we shop. The coming "auction culture," he writes, "will shake up the status quo by reshuffling brand values according to how well a product actually sells in the secondary market." Instead of choosing what to buy based on its price tag, we'll take into account "how much it will fetch on eBay next year, which corresponds to how much it will really cost you to own it up until then."

Tech geeks tend to purchase computers as if brands don't matter. As long as the specs are in order, they argue, you can buy a bargain-basement PC and rest assured that it'll work out for you -- the logo on the case doesn't mean a thing for how it runs.

Nissanoff's thesis -- not to mention the completed sales on eBay -- upturns this argument. Even for computers, brand matters. This week I compared prices of several machines from Dell, Gateway and other PC vendors against Apple's lineup of Macs. In most cases comparable Macs sold for within $100 more than the PCs.

But the Apples had something extra: that logo, the design, the history, the clutch of fans willing to snap up any products the company makes. You'll need another computer in a year or two, and at that time, when you go to sell your current machine, Apple's intangibles will count for a great deal -- much more than $100.

[A_Tradition_Continues]

Built it myself with all new components. Picked up OEM XP Pro for $65.00. Movie making software is ImageMixer VCD2 by Olympus (OEM software with Camera). DVD burning software I’ve been trying different software packages. Driver problems? no whatsoever.

[antiRepublicrat]

the Mac will set you back at least 50% more than the comparably equipped PC.

Just to start off, let's shop for a small, slim notebook. It's Dell XPS M1330 vs. Apple MacBook.

Let's get the mid-range Dell to keep the graphics equal, upgrade the processor to 2.2 GHz, add Windows Ultimate (you are going against Leopard), Bluetooth, not even get the slimmer display (to get it closer to the MacBook's size), even remove the antivirus, and you pay $1,823.

Now we'll go with the 2.2 GHz MacBook, upgrade the memory and hard drive to match the Dell, and it costs $1,524.

Just shy of $300 cheaper for the MacBook. Am I missing something here?

[wardaddy]

good for you.....you’ll live longer than me....God willing.

My aunt has G7...great clarity on the screen no doubt

but going to a Mac store is like going to Wild Oats ....waaay too many lefty smarmies looking all morally superior and indignant

i feel like I’m in a TV commerical for under 35 yuppies

for that we need a strong chinned woman with no makeup, the bespectacled asian, the clipped dreadlocked white looking black man, the swarthy white woman (indian or italian...maybe a Kardashian evenb) and a couple of waspy looking crackers for good measure.....all glowing with validation, earnestness and purpose..lol

[HAL9000]

Goatberg - New Gateway Desktop Takes on Look of iMac, but Can’t Match It

[GRRRRR]

Excellent, sounds like a nice machine! Seriesly tho, I enjoyed building my own machines, but just got tired of it. I really enjoy the iMac now and not having to be always trying to tweak something to optimize etc...

Have a great one!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Got a new iMac Monday. Had some teething pains getting used to it, still have a lot to learn. I'm happy having Time Machine and an external drive. The screen is beautiful and Safari, as advertised, is quick. 'Course that could be the faster 2GHz dual core processor, too . . .

I haven't tried to connect my old Mac to the new one to bring over any files yet, and I still need a codec to read video from my S850 camera. My wife mentioned Office; didn't I read that there some other program suite for the Mac was actually more compatible than the Microsoft Office for Mac version?

[Swordmaker]

The article presents a stupid argument. Most folks don’t sell their PCs every year. Purchase price is the only real gauge of what you’re paying and the Mac will set you back at least 50% more than the comparably equipped PC.

But the point was to establish a per month or per year cost of ownership... Purchase price minus cost recovery at resale divided by months or years of ownership. The cost per time period comes out lower for the Mac.

Aside from the logo you really don’t get that much more for your money.

For your money you get a complete suite of software designed to interact with each other... and you get a rock solid OS ... as well as top of the line engineering.

Worse, if you become a “Mac person” you’ll end up virtually computer illiterate and unable to use real PCs in the real world.

Now you are just being insulting... My experience is just exactly the opposite. Most Mac users are also Windows users at their place of work... and have chosen to buy a Mac for their home use. They are actually computer bi-lingual, so to speak. Most Windows users have never even touched a Mac, much less know how to use one.

Unfortunately I’m just about to shell out 3K+ for a Mac tower because my wife can’t seem to do her job on the PC that we just bought for 1/3 of that. . .

If you have Macs scattered about your house, why are you buying a new one? One of the others could probably do the job.

[Mr. Blonde]

As for the virus and malware argument, the real issue is that the coders don’t bother with Macs because nobody uses them. . . that's hardly a real advantage.

Swordmaker will have to give the specifics, but there was a virus written for Linux formatted iPods. You want to talk about something nobody is using that would be it. I would have to think the millions of Macs out there would have to be a much bigger target than the thousands (at most) Linux iPods out there.

The base machine usually costs 2 to 3 times as much for the same stuff

Outright not true. Mac Pros are cheaper than Dell work stations. Similar computers from other manufacturers cost similar to what a Mac will run you. Apple doesn't have bargain basement computers, and you shouldn't compare them to a bargain basement computer.

[Swordmaker]

Tradition said:

Let’s see...I’ve got a 3.2 gigahertz Intel processor, 2 gigs RAM, LITE-ON DVDRW SHW-160P6S [CD-ROM drive] TSSTcorp CD-R/RW TS-H292C [CD-ROM drive], 160 gigabytes of HD, Creative Sound Blaster 5.1, HP vs 19” monitor with XP Pro with less than $400.00 invested. Apple can’t beat that.

and Filo said:

Purchase price is the only real gauge of what you’re paying and the Mac will set you back at least 50% more than the comparably equipped PC.

Tradition, Apple does not compete in the low-end market... they do compete in the mid-high range market.

Filo... "Apples 50% more..." Not true. Let's do the comparison... actually I did it yesterday in a reply to another freeper:

---

To Blue Highway

Only if you compare Mercedes to Yugos... both will get you there but one is definitely better... and it ain't the cheaper Yugo.

The facts are that when you compare Apples to "apples," i.e. similar quality and capacity components, the Apple offering is often cheaper. For, example, a $3047 Mac Pro workstation (add 1GB RAM @ Apple price - you can upgrade cheaper with 3rd party RAM, plus 3yrs. Apple Care) was cheaper than the equivalent Dell by $942 when I duplicated the Dell workstation (Retail price: $3989) with the same processors (add/select: Core 2 Duo Xeon 5150 Woodcrest, same HD size and capacity, same memory, similar capacity video card, same 1000W p/s wattage).

Apple Mac Pro build on 11/06/2007, as described above:

Here is the price for an equivalent Dell desktop, build on 11/06/2007, as described above:

Which is less expensive, Blue?

And that is without the comparable PC prices to match the bundled software that comes free with the Mac!

Yes, you could buy a PC for $500 but it did not have Xeon processors, Buffered Error Correcting DRAM, dual 1.33GHz frontside buses, a 1000 watt power supply to drive eight 30 inch monitors and space for two terabytes of hard drive space inside the case. The $500 PC is no way comparable... and is considerably slower than the Mac Pro.

Dell's Workstation price is getting better... when first compared same month last year, the Dell was over $1300 more expensive!

[Swordmaker]

too many lib genx and echo boomers use macs.

Rush Limbaugh? President Bush?

[Swordmaker]

Whow! So many myths in one post...

I train people on both platforms... and by far the Mac users are more knowledgeable about Windows than Windows users are about Macs.

The base machine usually costs 2 to 3 times as much for the same stuff and Mac upgrades are usually at least twice as expensive. Need more RAM? You can't buy the standard sticks, you need the parity stuff for $100s more - and so on.

Absolutely not true. Show me a comparable Mac that is 2 to 3 times as much as a comparable PC. These comparisons have been done many times... including the one I just posted and the Mac is either cheaper or within a few dollars of a PC with the same hardware.

Plus Mac software tends to cost more.

You're going to have to prove that one... in actual fact, software is generally about the same price. Certainly the OS is cheaper on the Mac and it includes many free applications.

As for the virus and malware argument, the real issue is that the coders don’t bother with Macs because nobody uses them. . . that's hardly a real advantage.

Ah, the security by obscurity canard... there are approximately 18,000,000 OSX Macs in use in the United States... that is hardly obscure... and demographics have shown that Mac owners usually have more disposable income and cash available... and their machines are, for the most part, totally unprotected by anti-spyware, anti-adware, and anti-virus ware.... yet OSX has been in the wild for over 6 years and the spyware, adware, and virus count is still ZERO. You'd think if your argument were true, there would at least be a few malware writers mining that potential gold mine of unprotected Mac users, wouldn't you?

but if you try to do anything advanced you'll end up cursing more on a Mac than a PC, from my experience.

I think your experience is very limited... probably to pre-OSX Macs.

[Blue Highway]

Curious why after 10 years with Windows PC’s you’d be having driver issues. Ever since XP, drivers have generally been a non-issue as their legacy base covers alot of generic drivers to get you up and running. Trying that with Windows 95/98/98se would have been a headache as you needed drivers for everything from disk or cd. My and my other freeper buddy have fun blanking out drives and re-installing windows. Heck he rarely has a version of XP on one of his computers for a few months tops.

[Blue Highway]

I know. Up until a few years ago I was still using the computer I bought in December of 1996 a Cybermax AMD K6-233 MMX with 64mb. It was my regular computer and was running XP at the end of it's lifespan. It did get upgrades (lots of them over time, memory 512mb, new AMD K6 550 processor, new BIOS flashed, multitude of hard drives, Ultra ADA133 controller, SCSI adaptec card for my Syquest Syjets, Creative Audigy Platinum for sound and more) but I didn't buy into the "you have to buy a new computer every year" BS.

The computer cost me $1600 back then, and the 10 years I've used it, it cost me $160 a year when you break it down. I know the resale value is nil, but the parts I used to upgrade it were able to be used in other computers.

My Dell Dimension 4700C was a steal at $327 or something back in 2005. Came with a 17 flat screen LCD and a 3.2 P4 processor with a 40gb drive and 256 mb of memory. I added 4gb of memory ($150 steal) another multitude of hard drives (5 400/500gb drives) less than $80 each when they were fairly new to the market.

I still would like a Mac just for the sake of owning one and for curiosities sake. I mean there is nothing right now where I am kicking myself in the butt, saying I wish I had a Mac because I can't do "x". That said it would still be nice, and then after owning both, I could compare both. If I got bored with the Mac, at least I wouldn't lose much cash, especially since I'd be buying used to begin with.

[Blue Highway]

That’s what I never understood. Why is Windows a horrible experience. I use it everyday and it does exactly what I expect it to. It’s like a car, in that if it is fine tuned, it’s going to run like a champ.

[Blue Highway]

Macs are somewhat easier on the basics but if you try to do anything advanced you'll end up cursing more on a Mac than a PC, from my experience.

This was one of the basises for my rant on the other thread. I found this out on the old macs, but I stood corrected the newer mac osx versions were far superior than anything before it. One of my main curiosities is to see how advanced you can delve into it.

[Blue Highway]

That seemed to be my perception of the art students I knew that all owned Macs back in the day. That was one of the biggest reasons I swore off that company if they attract that kind of clientelle. The Mac always seemed more of a status symbol than anything else. I’m sure that has changed somewhat over the years, but I am also sure most of those same stereotypical Mac users are still using Macs.

[blu]

Worse, if you become a “Mac person” you’ll end up virtually computer illiterate and unable to use real PCs in the real world.

Wel, thets jis rong! I git along reel nic in a Peec wirld@

[Mr. Blonde]

Most of it comes from feeling like I have to trick the computer to do what I want it to. As opposed to a Mac where everything seems to work as expected from the get go. Not to mention the sheer amount of plug and play. I spent thirty minutes getting my sister’s PC ready to plug her digital camera into. With my Mac I snapped some pics and plugged the camera in and iPhoto started automatically.

And then some of it after using a Mac was the simple fact that XP doesn’t have an equivalent to Expose. I became addicted to using that in about a day. Now on a PC I’m like a crack addict clicking the mouse wheel expecting open windows to tile and it doesn’t happen. It isn’t enough to completely ruin the experience, but little annoyances like that tend to add up.

I certainly hope I’m not the only Mac user addicted to Expose.

[Mr. Blonde]

Now I get to ask you why. Why would you turn down a potentially better product because people you will never meet, and most likely have no actual effect on your user experience also use it?

I would guess about half of Windows users voted for Kerry in the last election, are you going to stop using PCs because they attract Democrats?

[avenir]

“I still would like a Mac just for the sake of owning one and for curiosities sake.”

Same here, but is that any reason to buy the Mac Pro simply because Apple refuses to offer a mid-priced tower with desktop components (do you really need workstation Xeon chips and fully buffered, i.e. bottlenecked, RAM? Oh, for $2499 you will only get 1GB of it, so get ready to pay for more since many Pro users recommend AT LEAST 4GB!)?

I find it funny that the iMac-vs.-Dell photo features an XPS, a mid-priced tower that Apple has no comparison for. Many users want to pick their own monitor. With Apple you are stuck with the comical Mini or the overkill Pro (for perspective, when was the last time you or someone you know purchased a Dell XEON workstation?).

If you drop the whole workstation baloney, Dell has an XPS on their site right now for $2439 that has an Intel Core 2 Q6600 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.4GHz,1066FSB/Blu-Ray recordable/nVidia 756mb 8800 GTX/2GB ram and a 20” monitor (which I’d nix and add their 24”, but at least you get one!)

When it comes to a system like that Apple makes ZERO sense (they don’t offer such a thing: no Blu-Ray, no GeForce 8800, no 2GB ram, no VISTA...that’s a little joke for you, SWORD!).