Mac Tax, Dell Tax, HP Tax

Harry writes "Microsoft's new Windows ad, with shopper Lauren buying a cheap 17-inch HP laptop instead of a $2,800 MacBook Pro, has unleashed the whole 'Are Macs Expensive?' debate again. I'm diving in with a pretty exhaustive comparison of the MacBook Pro against machines from Dell, HP, Lenovo, and Sony that were as comparably configured as I could manage. The conclusion: High-end laptops tend to carry high-end prices, whether their operating system hails from Cupertino or Redmond. And the MacBook Pro wasn't the priciest of the systems I compared." We looked at this question, not in as much depth, a couple of years back.

Comments

Thanks Microsoft

[Kohath]

Maybe this will lead Apple to lower their prices a little. That would be great. Cheaper Macs.

It would be one of the worst possible things that could happen to Microsoft though.

Re:Thanks Microsoft

[KylePflug]

That would also be one of the worst things that could happen to Apple. The company survives and remains extremely profitable by charging a higher margin, which they use to pay for the development and design work that leads to premium fit and finish and software on all their products (from iPod and iPhone to the computers).

If Apple comes out with a commodity computer with no such margin, even if it remains technically profitable, it seems to me that it has the serious potential to eviscerate their pocket cash to the point that the design and research will suffer, and then the premium goes away.

Of course, with the app store practically printing money for them these days, the additional cash flow they already have might make achieving market penetration a more important goal. Time will tell.

The question isn't just "are Macs expensive"

[CannonballHead]

... the question is also, "does Lauren need an expensive notebook."

Let's say the MacBook CAN justify its $2800 pricetag (i.e., it's not overpriced hardware, it's just good/expensive hardware and a lot of it). Ok, so the question is, is a $2800 laptop necessary? My $1350 dell ($2050 minus $800 deal) has been working for several years now (battery has died, that's about it. It's old enough that it has a dual core Centrino (32 bit processor).

"Overpriced Mac" can mean more than "the hardware added up doesn't equal the pricetag" ... it can also mean "it's twice as much as you need to spend for what you're going to do with it."

Non-Silverlight video link?

[schmiddy]

I know no one reads the fine articles but does no one really watch the fine videos? Or does everyone here have Silverlight install?

Would someone be kind enough to post up a non-Silverlight version. Bonus points for a direct link to an open video format (i.e. not flash), but I'm not picky.

Apples and Oranges err... Vistas?

[goltzc]

It's part of Apple's strategy. They offer hardware that makes their machines operate at a level that they find acceptable. HP, Dell etc. build machines at price points that they think will sell.

I know I'll spark off a debate on this one but you never hear folks complaining that Macs are slow. Part of that is likely to do with OSX but the other part has just as much to do with the fact that Macs are NEVER sold under powered.

On the other hand we have PC manufacturers selling dirt cheap machines that "run" Vista but not well. If those same manufacturers only sold machines that ran their intended software well, the price point comparison would be pretty moot.

Initial investment

[qoncept]

I don't take anyone questioning whether Macs are expensive seriously. They are, period. Getting the same specs on a Dell may cost the same/nearly as much, but you* can get a laptop that has everything you need for far less than you can get any Mac. The difference is resale value. Look at ebay. A 1 year old iMac with upgraded memory often sells, used, for what it cost new. A year old PC is relatively worthless.

The point? The cost of ownership over 10 years for a Mac vs PC is a whole lot more comparable than the up front cost. You may not have an extra PC laying around a year later after you buy your Mac, but you can upgrade to this-year's-model for next to nothing if you are willing to sell your Mac.

* You being most people

I hate to say it, but MS had a good point

[THotze]

I've been a Mac user for 6 years now, and have loved every machine I've purchased. Having said that, I'm a certain kind of user who matches the machines that Apple sells. I want mid- to mid-high range hardware, capable of pretty extensive multitasking (which, in my experience, works better under OS X than Windows), and the ability to do graphics design and layout (I admit, this was much more hardware-constrained in 2003 than it is now). Macs are a pretty good fit for the featureset that I want, and are price-competitive with Windows boxes.

HOWEVER in the ad, Lauren wants a machine with a certain amount of raw horsepower, a keyboard she likes (which, with Apple, is either entirely true or entirely not) and a 17" screen. That could mean a wide variety of machines -- processor architectures, memory, integrated or discreet graphics -- but Apple, when you want a 17" laptop, assumes you're a higher-end user, that wants a very well engineered battery, a lot of horsepower, a fast dual-core CPU, etc. etc.

Lauren doesn't. She doesn't want a lot of those things. She just wants a computer with a 17" screen. Apple doesn't sell the machine she wants -- but because there's at least 3 or 4 PC brands at any Best Buy, she can walk in and get what she wants for a fraction of what Apple sells it for.

It's a question of mapping: the goal isn't to take an APPLE to start with then compare it to the price of a similar PC; instead, it's to take a PC you want, and asking if there EVEN IS a similar Mac -- in a lot of cases, there just won't be.

Oh, look, fanboy whining

[0xdeadbeef]

Let's rile them up some more: I've owned four laptops in the last ten years, from IBM, Toshiba, HP, and Apple.

The Macbook Pro was the most expensive, has the worst LCD viewing angle, has the worst speakers, is the only one that overheats if you use it with the lid closed, and the only one to have a battery go all 'splody in slow motion. I also had to reflash the power management firmware because it stop charging due to a bug in the previous version. I don't care how much or how little they cost, I'm never making that mistake again.

Re:Oh, look, fanboy whining

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Well your milage may vary. I used to buy Sony laptops, and my office uses Dell and for a time Gateway laptops.

I purchased a 15" Macbook Pro three years ago to replace my comparably priced Sony laptop that died while I was out in the field. I have not had a single issue with my laptop. It has logged over 44000 miles of being tossed in a satchel, thrown in the back of a car, and used at many locations. I spent more months than I care to admit using it in the middle of nowhere in the fine state of New Mexico, and I used it while outside during hot and extremely humid days on the gulf coast. My laptop has operated at a variety of temperature and humidity levels. This is my one and only personal computer and it's been on almost constantly during the past three years.

If my laptop failed today, I would immediately buy another one from Apple. This laptop has lasted a year longer than my similarly priced Sony laptop.

During the same 3 year period, some of my friends and colleagues replace their much younger Dell laptops because they failed prematurely. My sister's Dell laptop is a little over a year and a half old, and she's looking at replacing a $250 battery. Most of my non-apple work laptops stay in the office because either they're now too slow (hard drive issues), the plastic clam shell case is broken, or the cheap ass hinges they use have failed.

In addition, my boss still uses his 12" powerbook, and pretty much all the Apple users where I work are not only happy with their current Apple computers, but continue to purchase Apple computers for themselves or their interns (much to the dismay of our Windows centric IT department).

I believe the reason Dell has been more troublesome for my friends and family is the fact that Dell tries to fit as many features as possible to make the laptop look good in a print ad while using the cheapest parts available to meet a price point that their marketing department determine that people are willing to pay.

But like I said, your milage may vary.

Re:That's fine but...

[VoxMagis]

"Ostensibly, this is to control the quality of the user experience."

I know that some of the advertising and fanboi's make this statement, but the reality is that they are a company looking to profit from as much as they can within their market.

IMO, Apple is a solid company with a tendency to be over-protective, over-aggressive, and over-bearing. That is how they stay in business in the long term, because the technology and ideas really only last so long before someone comes along and improves it.

I'm an Apple user, but that's a choice I make knowing that in the end, there really isn't all that much different between Apple and MS, other than that MS is watched closer by those in power.

Re:Upgrading

[MoonBuggy]

Isn't "better" a pointless term if you know it's not going to make any real tangible impact on performance?

It's unfortunate that I don't have the background knowledge to work out how much of an increase in error rates or decrease in speed you'll get with cheap memory. I'd be very surprised to see anything noticeable; maybe a test is in order: run two identical machines on the same task for a month, one with the cheapest RAM on the market and one with the most expensive, and compare their overall performance and any errors found.

Re:Upgrading

[UncleRage]

...and not donwloading and installing every random application you see will generally keep any Windows system running along just fine.

You know... I have a problem with that statement. That's half of the fun of using a computer; trying out new stuff. It always has been and always will be.

Of course, the other half is tied between fixing what you've broken or learning to do the first half without breaking it at all.

Re:I'm going to pick on his Fanboi here...

[cochranjd]

So then I assume you agree with the add that caused the article, right? Like others have said - it didn't say "What I get from Mac is way more than it should be" - it just says that you can't get a mac laptop with a larger screen for the budget of the chick in the ad. That is the absolute truth. I can say that if I'm after a 4 door sedan for under $30K, I am out of luck at Mercedes. Does that mean Mercedes aren't worth their price? No. Why is it wrong to say that a company that doesn't sell a laptop with screen larger than 13 inches for under $1000 doesn't sell a laptop with a screen larger than 13 inches for under $1000? If someone can't spend the money to get a mac, I doubt they care how "worth it" the price tag was to begin with.