Slashdot Mirror
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.
The Apple tax is the lack of variety.
It isn't that the expensive laptops aren't worth it.
It's that there is no low cost Macs.
... 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."
The question isn't "what does a comparably specced machine cost". It's "what does a machine that does what I need cost". I can get a $500-700 PC Laptop that will work great for most of my use. I can't touch that with a Mac.
We look at this question, not in as much depth, on nearly every Mac story.
Fixed that for you.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
Giving the Apple a point for "construction" seems a little dubious to me. There's no doubt that the fancy aluminum shell on the Mac is much sturdier than my all plastic Dell from work, but my Dell laptop seems to stand up just fine to the rigors I put it through. If the Mac were made of aircraft grade aluminum, would it be even better? Not really.
Giving a "point" to Apple for Firewire seems equally dubious. Most consumers who are choosing between a PC laptop and a Mac likely don't know what FireWire is, and the other laptops all HAVE a FireWire port, just a slower one. FireWire 800 is a "feature" that very few people need.
The point to Apple for "sound" is perhaps most dubious of all, since the Sony has some slick specs in this department as well.
Methinks the TFA is slightly biased.
News at 11.
Whether you want to say Apple doesn't make notebooks most people can afford or they're notebooks are too expensive in general, it's essentially a wash.
Also, the entire basis for this comparison is wrong... as the ad shows, it has nothing to do with the "exact" features. Consumers look for a couple key features and operate "within a market." If you want the real take-away here it's that Apple either a) doesn't understand the market they're targeting with the 13" macbook or b) is purposely trying to drive people to the more expensive machine. Either way, they don't have a product that meets what I think you can safely say is the "vast majority" of US consumers.
Personally I just hate the "I know what's good for you" Apple mantra. I be surprised if more /.ers wouldn't agree given the fact that Apple is essentially the antithesis of open source.
-rt
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.
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.
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?
That's a good question that everyone should ask, but it has nothing to do with a Mac Tax. It's a "high-end computer tax." If Apple is making a business of only selling high-end computers, that's the market they've chosen, nothing wrong with that. Now if you want to say that macs are overpriced, you need to compare equivalently specs, you can't say, "look, the other company sells a less powerful laptop for cheaper." Of course they do, if their less powerful laptop was more expensive than a high-end computer, everyone would buy high-end computers!
I also don't really understand why there's all this hate against people who choose to buy high-end computers. It's true that they're not getting the most bang for the buck, but if it weren't for those buyers financing the high performance parts, the mid-range computers wouldn't advance as quickly. Basically, the reason you can get a very fast machine for cheaper today is precisely because of those people who buy the expensive high-end parts. It's the same concept Tesla Motors is trying to leverage. They can't build an affordable electric car, so they build a car for the rich. Those buyers fund the development of the technology and eventually they'll be able to build an affordable electric car.
If they want them, and can afford them, who are you to tell you they're wrong? Especially when you're indirectly benefiting from their choice.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
In my experience, Macs are priced by Apple and rarely discounted much until they are EOLed for the next generation. Sometimes Microcenter or Macmall has $100 off or something like that.
Dell, on the other hand, changes their pricing and offers more often than I change my socks. I've found that you can get killer deals on them if you are willing to wait a few weeks until a deal rolls around. For instance (now expired), there were great deals for 17" laptops at 30-40% off what TFA paid:
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/913148
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/912911
Of course, if you are incapable of that kind of patience, preferring instant gratification, then Dell is more than willing to charge you a lot more if you are foolish enough to just go to dell.com and start clicking on things. [ Slightly OT Side Story: Ever since my boss found out that I know how to work the magic dell website, I've earned huge brownie points for buying the same equipment at basically half the great educational rates offered to my university. Actually, at one point I accosted the school's Dell Rep with a printout of the various orders I put in through Dell Home and asked if they would give an educational institution the same deals available to everyone -- no points for guessing the answer. ]
Bottom line: Dell's prices are volatile and the author of TFA is totally clueless on how to best work that.
a) no, Macs are not significantly more expensive than PCs
$1600 Dell:
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/913148
$2800 MacBook Pro:
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB604LL/A?mco=MzA3MTE3NA
You can keep trying to peddle that nonsense, but I think most /.ers are capable of comparing $1600 and $2800 and coming to their own conclusions. It's not even a close call.
The problem with this canard, or at least misconception, is that it takes the notion "I would buy this kind of thing if Apple offered it" (which may or may not be true) and assumes that, therefore, it would be a good business move for Apple to offer that configuration.
In the mid 90s, Apple had so many product lines and options that you couldn't keep track of them: Classics, Performas, Quadras, whatever. There were Apple-manufactured machines that had two processors for dual-booting, not to mention several brands of clones. (This is another thing that many people still say: "if only Apple would get their head out of their asses and license their OS to other manufacturers, they would increase their market share, blah blah blah...") At that time, it looked like Apple wasn't long for this world.
After Jobs came back in 1996 (1997? whatever.), the company slowly reined in the product lines and started to concentrate on making a few identifiable, distinct products, with a limited number of options for each. Apple is now a quite successful company, and, while their non-computer products are a large part of this, the company has managed to continue to hang on to, and even expand, its corner of the computer and OS market, a market that is surely stacked against it. Not only that, Apple has become a trendsetter in this market.
You can bet that there are some pretty savvy financial analysts at Apple who have probably looked at this a lot more closely than you have, and, if they really thought demand was high enough for a mid-range tower, they would make one. I would bet that the average computer user (not the average Slashdot reader, which is something else) never expands their PC past the basic configuration that they bought it with during its lifespan, and, furthermore, doesn't need anything more powerful than what comes with a Mac Mini. The population of customers who need more than a Mac Mini, but less than a Mac Pro (like you) is real, but too small to be profitable for Apple. Apple's success is not based on a shotgun approach but on carefully maximizing the profitability of a small number of product lines.
I'm just sayin'.
One brand, and a premium one at that, is not well served by having hundreds of different computer models. Sure, Apple could make a cheaper laptop with a 17" screen and they could make a netbook and a mid range tower and all those other things. But now they have the over head of twice as many computers and configurations. Twice the overhead of manufacturing twice the overhead of warehousing cases and other parts that are specific to a given model. (ok, maybe not twice as much, but the overhead is non trivial)
As a result, they might sell a few more computers, but not twice as many. The proper tactic from an economic point of view is to try to make as few models as possible while still covering the needs of as large a user base as possible. This keeps cost down and margins up while still maintaining brisk sales.
Now one could argue that the computers that apple makes aren't the best choices for the market, but I dont know that the data really backs you up. The few extra mid range towers they might sell doesn't really make up for the cost of adding a whole new line when for the vast majority of consumers, an iMac or mac mini is quite sufficient and professionals almost always buy a top of the line machine anyway.
Sometimes I think that we here on slashdot forget that there is a room full of economists, market analysts and manufacturing experts at apple that help shape the nature of the mac line. If a mid range tower was going to help apples bottom line significantly, then they would be making one.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Christ, when is this nonsense going to end? Yes, Macs are expensive. Perhaps unreasonably so. But that is not an honest comparison.
This crowd has gotten so upset with gigabytes and clock speeds that we've forgotten the most literal definition of hardware. So lets glance at some actual hardware specs:
Dell: 10.6 pounds, 2 inches thick.
Mac: 6.6 pounds, 1 inch thick (also noticeable less deep and wide for the same screen size).
It's not the glowing apple you are paying for, it's the fact that the Mac is literally HALF the size.
Other important considerations; the Apple has an 8 hour battery life and an extended-longevity battery, the Dell has a 1.5 battery life. The Apple also has OSX, backlit keyboard, vastly superior fit and finish, and a range of other benefits.
Again, expensive? Yes. Too expensive (at least for the general consumer)? Certainly not unlikely.
But the Apple is half the weight, half the thickness, 4x the battery life, and vastly superior in build quality and user experience. These are the things that are important in a notebook computer. You might as well compare a beige tower to the Apple in this instance. You're right - it's not even a close call.
Truthfully, I have to question just how important the "expandability" really is for most people anyway?
There was a time when this was a *huge* deal, but as technology has advanced, I've watched a lot more consolidation.
EG. Back in the days of my Intel 486 motherboard, even the serial and parallel ports were on cards, and I had such options as upgrading a basic 8-bit or 16-bit ISA I/O card with a more capable VESA local-bus version. Now, every PC motherboard you can find has all the ports built right onto it, permanently.
Same goes for sound cards. Remember when *everybody* who was remotely into gaming went out and bought the latest Soundblaster offering (or maybe a "Gravis Ultrasound" or something)? Now, you get full Dolby surround capable sound and often, even optical outputs right on the motherboards.
On the Mac side, I even remember some people arguing they "needed" to go with a PowerMac G5 tower or Mac Pro tower vs. an iMac, because those expansion slots were so critical. Yet, show me how often you see a Mac tower with expansion cards installed in it these days? At least in the days of the G4 towers, you often had an Adaptec SCSI board in there for somebody's scanner, or maybe a card that added more USB ports.
And look at the Windows users who brag about their hardware's superiority, all because they can "upgrade with faster CPUs and video cards". Nice, in theory, but by the time they're ready for that new video or CPU? Most likely, the pin architecture has changed again, rendering the socket they've got unsuitable for that new processor ... or maybe their power supply can't put out the wattage required for that new video board, or ?? You quickly realize it makes more sense to sell the whole machine and start over with a whole new one.
So Apple may just be doing this the sensible way, anyway.
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.
#SickNotWeak
Look over your own figures, asshat. That 0.26GHz processor difference REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY matters!
In case people take this anon post seriously, let me quickly point out that it's not just a clock speed difference, but an architecture difference. This means a slightly different processor design with a faster bus and faster RAM. I've heard a 10-15% clock-for-clock boost over last gen is the number thrown around, but that's a general number across desktops and laptops of different shapes and sizes. That would make the performance difference about 21% (10% on the clock speed, 10% on the architecture), taken with about a pound of salt (only matters in heavy use cases, doesn't help if you're IO-bound (disk/network), architecture improvements result in very asymmetrical speedups).
And if you didn't discover that for yourself in the first place, then, like the man said: time to hand in your geek card.