Posted on 11/07/2007 2:16:36 PM PST by 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.
Ok so the memory is standard DDR2 then? That’s good news at least they are using a standard that is easily obtainable and cheap. Anyone remember RAMBUS? I am glad that was shot down in flames when Intel was propping that up as the best thing since sliced bread and a price that would have stiffled new PC purchases with memory that expensive. It was a miracle from Heaven when DDR memory was offered cheaper and eventually able to outperform RAMBUS that sent it to the graveyard. It was great to see Intel cave in as they were moving away from SDram and were never intending to use standard DDR but were forced to due to competition.
“Sure is. But that’s only one Quad core... Add the second one and see what the price comparison with a Mac.”
Per the Apple Store: $2499 for “Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Woodcrest processors”, i.e. one quad core. The “second one” would raise the price to $3997.
I know the Dell cited isn’t comparable to the Pro processor—I never said it was—but how much would the Blu-Ray/monitor/GeForce 8800/xtra gig ram drive that entry Mac Pro up?
I guess we can’t know, really, since you can’t add a Blu-Ray or a GeForce 8800 to it.
Unless it's a Xeon workstation (Mac Pro), then it's fully-buffered chips.
Anyone remember RAMBUS?
Yep, that was a disaster. Despite them being cleared, I still think they were submarining the patent through JEDEC, the memory standards body, so they could threaten their competition. But RAMBUS lives on where it's actually useful -- in game consoles.
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.Actually, I only see that in posts by online trolls. The single overwhelming reason I find in talking to family, friends, and acquaintances is, they think they won't have software compatibility with Office (or some other proprietary software on which they rely for various things).
No. Avenir, you are misreading the specs.
The basic $2499 Apple Mac Pro has two Dual Core Woodcrest 5150 Xeon processors. That is a total of four processors. The $3997 price you are quoting is for two Quad core Xeon processors... a total of eight processors. Put two Quads into your Dell and see what price comes up.
Re: the $2349 Dell processors not being equivalent
. Then why are we even talking about it? Re: Blueray in the Mac. Apple does not sell one in their configuration on the store but 3rd party drives are available and are plug and play in that Mac Pro. I haven't priced them. In addition, your single Quad Core processor would have only one front side bus available to it. The two dual core Xeons in the Mac Pro have two FSBs. That makes a big difference.
Building a (cheap) computer
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=0&t=553826&highlight=computer
Well your first mistake was buying anti-virus and spyware software, the best stuff out there is free, and they’re not just the best because they’re free they’re the best because they’re the best the free part is just a nice bonus. They’d have probably done a better job of protecting your computer.
Next mistake was going to CompUSA, I hate those guys. I also won’t touch the big brands like HP and Compaq, I wind up dealing with them at work and they just do too much weird stuff, and they’re overpriced. I don’t think anybody likes Vista, as for it’s being confusing it’s like 4 mouse clicks away from “Windows Classic” (just like XP) which also turns off most of the memory hogging lame features, there’s always going to be some confusion because MS likes to rearrange things every release for no good reason.
I’m not on any side, I use Wintel machines because they do what I want, the software I want to run is supported on the Wintel platform. Yes I know Apple can pretend to be Wintel and from all accounts does so well, but I want support. If the latest version of Madden is giving me trouble I want to be able to call EA and when I tell them about the machine it’s installed on not be wished luck and hung up on. But that’s me, my call not necessarily applicable to anyone else. I was just pointing out that the reasoning in the article doesn’t add up, resale value is != to cheaper, and Wintel users don’t necessarily just chuck computers away after a couple of years.
Wrong, Discostu. If you are in business, the free home editions are not available to you legally. Who do you think supports AVG and the other "free" anti-virus and spyware makers? Do they get supported by all those people using their free version? No. They are companies who can make their software the best because people pay for it.
Yes I know Apple can pretend to be Wintel and from all accounts does so well, but I want support.
Pretend?! Discostu, when booted into Windows, an Apple Macintosh is not pretending... it IS a Windows computer... and according to many Windows pundits, the fastest Windows machine they have used.
Support? Since the Windows that is supposed to be installed on an Apple Mac is a retail version, not an OEM, all support for the Windows installation is required to be supplied by Microsoft. Calling a third-party software supplier should not make any difference. If you prefer using Parallels or VMWare's Fusion, reboot into Windows with BootCamp and do your trouble shooting there... and they can't claim problems with either... because it is just as much of a Windows computer as any other they may run into in the course of providing support.
Nothing wrong about what I said at all. He was discussing a home use PC, AVG for the home is free, how they manage to keep the lights on is not material to the discussion. If you want good anti-virus software for the home the best product available is free.
Sorry it’s pretending, at least as far as software support is concerned. I’m not talking about support from MS, read the rest of what I wrote, I’m talking about support from the 3rd party software vendors. Windows running on an Apple is not a supported platform for most of the industry. And they can claim problems because there are problems with all those thing. The software I work on professional will not fully work with VMWare, because VMWare doesn’t give proper access to PCI cards and we must access PCI cards (specific ones sold along with the software) to be fully operational. There are still barriers between these almost versions of Windows and real Windows. Eventually they will all be overcome, but for now these barriers exist and keep the majority of the vendor world from supporting them.
Do you swallow every myth you hear, hook, line and sinker?Both Apple's and Microsoft's CEOs were invited to tour the Xerox PARC facility. After the initial tour by Steve Jobs, he asked Xerox for a return visit with some of his engineers. The truth is that Apple PAID Xerox for the 8 hour tour with the engineers and the rights to use what they observed with 1 million shares of pre-IPO Apple stock (worth about $3,000,000 at the time of transfer - Xerox sold it after the IPO for about $15 million). Microsoft did not return for another visit nor did they pay anything to Xerox.
Incidentally, the Apple engineers walked away with absolutely no code or even screen shots of the PARC work. Two years later, Apple hired some of the research engineers that Xerox let go from PARC in an "economy" move.
So you can cherry-pick a couple of examples of cheaper software, ignoring the various other products that either don't exist on the Mac or are more expensive for that platform. Sounds fair.
Cherry picking? I don't think so. We are the ones who are buying the Macintosh software... and we see the prices. You are repeating FUD you've heard and cannot prove. You have been challenged to come up with software that is more expensive on the Mac than it is on the PC... do it. Find us a software title that is more expensive on the Mac. Prove your allegation.Let's see:
Microsoft Office for Mac from Microsoft's online sales $399.95And I could point out that every Windows title is also available for the Apple Mac when run under BootCamp, Parallels or Fusion... at the same price... which shoots down your "don't exist" claim. Did you know that there are more internet browsers for the Mac than for Windows?
Microsoft Office for Windows from Microsoft's online sales $499.95
SoftwareKing offers Adobe Indesign for both Mac and Windows for $255.
They also offer Adobe Illustrator for both Mac and Windows for $214.99.
Best Buy is selling World of Warcraft for both Mac and Windows for $19.95
Right. Mac software is more expensive than Windows software.
Seriously, though, I'm not knocking the Mac per se. I'm just not buying into all the hype.
When you repeat canards that have been proven false time-and-time again, especially when evidence is produced in the very same thread that you are wrong and then you repeat your FUD, you really cannot say that you aren't "knocking the Mac." You are.
Apple has made a lot of mistakes since the late 1970s and they are just now looking like they might be able to recover from them as a company. They aren’t doing it on their computer line, though.
"...just now looking as they might be able to recover..." Sheesh. Have you even BOTHERED to research anything? The fact is that Apple has been on a roll since 2001. That's six years, Filo. Apple's Stock has risen from $15 a share to over $380 (accounting for splits)! Apple stock has increased the second largest percentage of ANY company offered on any stock exchange in the last ten years. (The number one company increased from 7¢ a share so really doesn't count.) It is selling record breaking numbers of Mac computers and making record breaking profits (incidentally, 60% of Apple's profits come from their computer division, so it is indeed coming from the computer line), its growth in computer sales is two to three times the industry average and it has more than doubled its share of both international and US sales in the last three years, Apple's notebook sales are ~18% of the market(!) and climbing, and YOU say "[Apple]...are just now looking as they might be able to recover..." from mistakes made 30 years ago. When do you think you might put a "Buy" on Apple stock, Filo?
"Oh, sorry Filo, you said It was 2 to 3 times more expensive... Not 50%..."
I said both, but in different contexts. Perhaps you should learn to read instead of misrepresenting what others say?...
...The PC costs 1/3 of the Mac for comparable usefulness.
Excuse me? Learn to read? Did you not just say you did indeed say both? We have continually provided hard facts and price comparisons of as close to equally equipped computers showing that Macs are either less expensive or comparable to the PCs prices and you continue to spout nonsense about $500 computers being somehow comparably useful as $2500 workstations. Filo, if that were true, then no one would be wasting their money on $2500 workstations be they PCs or Macs.
Her new 3K Mac won't give her any more than her 1K PC except for the fact that she's a Mac person and can't get her stuff done on the PC. It's not that it's not possible - the PC has all the same software - it's that she, being a Mac person, can't do it.
So you allege that Mrs. Filo could be just as productive on a $1,000 single dual core computer as she could be on a $3,000 dual dual core computer? I don't think so. If she does any rendering, transforming, apply any filters, then the dual dual will be much faster making Mrs. Filo more productive. When I was doing graphic arts production, I charged about $100 per hour. The difference in price of those two computers is a mere 20 hours of work... it would not take too long of me twiddling my thumbs waiting for the slower machine to complete some rendering over the useable lifetime of those two computers to waste the short sighted, false economy purchase of a much slower computer... and after that I am eating productive time while I twiddle.We've already shown you that trying to duplicate that Mac Pro in the Windows world actually can cost you almost a $1000 MORE than the fully configured price of a Mac Pro... so to duplicate the power and functionality of the Mac Pro in a PC is considerably more expensive... I really cannot understand your assertion that a $1000 computer can match either one of those.
If what you claim is true and that she can do her job with a less powerful computer, since she is a Mac person, buy her a Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz iMac with a 24" screen, 320GB HD, and an ATI Radeon Pro HD-2600 256MB Graphic card for $1799. Have one of you enroll in a college course for a semester and buy it for $1699. Add a couple of external 320GB Firewire II drives (I just bought one for $97 at Fry's) and Max out her RAM with memory from Crucial and save yourself $1200.
The PARC visits were inspirational to Apple, but the Lisa/Mac user interface had only a superficial resemblance to Xerox's. The "look and feel" of Apple user interface was substantially different from Xerox's, with many new paradigms and features innovated by Apple.
Microsoft, on the other hand, simply tries to do a knock-off copy of the Mac's user interface. Windows has been a great marketing success, but it is an inferior product in terms of quality and value compared to the Mac.
They should have realized long ago that they are a software company.
Apple is the "whole-widget" company. This allows Apple to do a better job of integrating hardware and software than Microsoft can (at least until Microsoft starts manufacturing their own brand of PCs).
OK... let's see you put together a PC parts list and prices with the following:
While you are at it, you might price out similar software for the PC that comes on the Mac free.
It may be possible now... I haven't tried to duplicate Anandtech's attempt to match the Mac by scratch building from available parts in almost a year... but they couldn't do it and I couldn't. I'd be quite interested if you can.
What did they steal? Can you find a 320GB external Firewire2 drive for $97 in a brick and mortar store somewhere else?
Microsoft didn't do anything for quite a while. It was Apple that first came out with a GUI, which Microsoft tried to copy. I'd like to see any evidence that Apple borrowed from Microsoft. Microsoft announced work on Windows after Apple released the Lisa, the GUI forerunner of the Mac.
So you can cherry-pick a couple of examples of cheaper software
I can keep going. My VMWare Fusion for the Mac cost me less than half the price of VMWare Workstation for the PC. IIRC, all the Adobe apps are priced the same across platforms. Can you actually come up with evidence of Mac software generally being more expensive?
Apple has made a lot of mistakes since the late 1970s and they are just now looking like they might be able to recover from them as a company.
They looked like they were going to recover a few years ago. In case you hadn't seen the stock price and constantly rising marketshare (far more than any other in the industry), it's obvious their recovery is not only finished, but they've far surpassed where they've been before.
They should have realized long ago that they are a software company. The real competition in the OS space would have done everyone a world of good.
I know, their hardware sales are just so pathetic, only accounting for a majority of their income.
Note on quad-core vs. 2x dual core:
The main problem with packing cores on processors is getting the data to them. The memory and bus can keep up with one core, mostly with two cores with a good cache, but when you get to four cores your chances for one or more cores being starved for data go way up*. In that case, you might as well not have the extra cores, as they sit idle waiting for something to work on.
With 2x2 cores, you have the same processing power, but data isn’t bottlenecked at the one processor containing the four cores.
* Unless you do something like the PS3’s eight cores, but it’s designed for an insanely fast connection to the Rambus XDR RAM running at the die clock (25 GB/s) and an even faster I/O bus.
With the exception of certain esoteric applications and managed packages, that's absurd. All the Windows software I bought has no support terms dealing with the OEM. Do you have software that says "Support only valid if you run it on a Dell, Gateway, HP, ....."? Apple is just another OEM when it comes to Windows. And VMWare for the Mac is like running VMWare on Windows or Linux. It's not a problem specific to the Mac.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.