# Why are Macs so expensive?



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Now I know what most of you are thinking, so hear me out before you start linking Mac prices to their PC counterparts.

Sure, based purely on a technicality, Macs are often competitively priced with PCs. However, you see these PC laptops offered starting $399 (USD) and sure they're really not that powerful, perhaps sporting an AMD turion or Core Solo processor with (albeit rarely, looking at these HP Compaq offerings) integrated graphics; but they're still considerably cheaper than the entry level macbook which stands at $1249 (i think it was $1099 USD?).

Apple is missing a LARGE segment of the market who demand economically priced computers, based purely on the argument that it's the software that makes Apple computers worth the more limited offerings and often heftier pricetag; why shouldn't there be a core solo offering of the Macbook, since its limited graphics ability would often deter the more power hungry of users anyway? Why not offer a headless iMac, since the Mac mini effectively combines the limitations of notebook components with the immobility of a desktop?

That's just my opinion, anyway, I think if Apple focused more on expanding the product range rather than trying to destroy myths commonly assumed about the macintosh platform (Those PC vs. Mac ads, for one) they might be able to lure more customers in.

Thoughts?


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

The profit margin is much lower in the low-end of the market. Quite simply, Apple can't make their 40 points by having a $500 notebook.


----------



## Sybersport (Jun 7, 2005)

mikef said:


> The profit margin is much lower in the low-end of the market. Quite simply, Apple can't make their 40 points by having a $500 notebook.


No, but they could make it up with volume.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I'd rather Macs not become a commodity computer, thanks.

Plus I think it's better comparing MacBooks to $1200-$1500 range PC laptops because frankly the $600 PC laptops suck, great for low income people though I admit. Personally I don't know a single person who bought an under $1000 laptop, and if these budget buyers are anything like my dad, Macs will always suck whether they cost $500 or $5000.

While you're at it though, could you ask BMW to give us a well engineered and stylish $15,000 subcompact?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Oh one more thing to add 4 years ago I was thinking "$400 for an iPod?? So not worth it!"

My have times changed since then.


----------



## Blain_132 (Aug 22, 2005)

I would much rather have 1 good mac than 1000 cheap slow 500$ macs.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> No, but they could make it up with volume.


Not necessarily. Lower margin products will require the same integrated design, manufacturing and distribution services as the high margin stuff. The increase in volume would have to be very, very large to justify the expense. Apple would have to alter much of their business model to serve the low end of the market.

Of course, in most cases the low end exists only on papaer: to make the machines that headline at $399 truly useful they require add-ons that quickly escalate the price close to or into Mac territory.

The original question is a fair one. Perhaps what is important though is that Macs are not expensive _within the categories where they choose to compete_. Apple's strategy appears to be to maintain high margin business within certain segments and to ignore or barely serve segments that do not meet their criteria.

So in the end it is true Apple is missing lots of sales - but they are sales that may not match the company's strategy. They clearly do not want that business.


----------



## JPL (Jan 21, 2005)

The low end is serviced by the used sellers, thats part of the reason Macs hold their value.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Blain_132 said:


> I would much rather have 1 good mac than 1000 cheap slow 500$ macs.


Then you don't fit into the market segment they'd be targeting.

Just because there IS an under 500 mac doesn't mean you HAVE to buy it, you know.

I would buy it though. I certainly know a whole artillery of other fellow students who'd buy it.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

Simply put, Apple does not offer very many choices. It's one of my only annoyances from Apple. Whether it's the low-end market or something else, Apple is far too strict in what they offer.

While I can see that they may want to stay away from the low end market because of the low profit margin and because "cheap customers" are often far too hard to please (they tend to expect everything for free or cheap... a support nightmare), there's no excuse for missing the middle range consumer, or the customizing consumer.

Case in point: I need a Macbook Midi. Something in between the Macbook and the Macbook Pro. They won't let me upgrade the Macbook to my liking, and they won't let me downgrade the Pro to suit my needs. Why can't they have options like "no gloss" on the Macbook? Or the option for an ultra high-res screen, or different video card, like Dell? It's all possible... they choose not to offer it.

Like it or not, Apple is gouging its customers and forcing them to buy additional features they may not need. I'm surprised they get away with it. Too many people with disposable income I guess.

A7


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

JPL said:


> The low end is serviced by the used sellers, thats part of the reason Macs hold their value.


Bam.


----------



## harzack86 (Jan 30, 2005)

a7mc said:


> Simply put, Apple does not offer very many choices. It's one of my only annoyances from Apple.


I just found this paragraph on that page: http://www.apple.com/macpro/







Do you really think this is not enough choice?  
(just joking...)


----------



## WorldIRC (Mar 7, 2004)

mikef said:


> The profit margin is much lower in the low-end of the market. Quite simply, Apple can't make their 40 points by having a $500 notebook.


You know that Apple Retailers, even the Apple Store (as a seperate entity from Apple Corporate) make under 10% on Apple Computers? You know that the student discount is below Apple Retail Stores costs...which is why only Apple Corporate Retail and Campus Stores carry EDU discount.


----------



## Candidate (Aug 23, 2006)

It's not the hardware. It's the software and software integration.


----------



## djstp (Mar 10, 2006)

Candidate said:


> It's not the hardware. It's the software and software integration.


exactly!

apple has built a machine around its software... seamless intrigration


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

Candidate said:


> It's not the hardware. It's the software and software integration.


Ditto. There's the key right there. Although a little more flexibility on options would be nice, I admit.


----------



## Puccasaurus (Dec 28, 2003)

Because we keep paying for them 

I shudder to add up how much of my income has gone to Apple products, especially now that I'm saving for the downpayment on a house. Ouch.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Apple dare not risk the 'race to the bottom'*

As soon as Apple, or any other systems manufacturer starts competing primarily on price, most of their 'value added' features become irrelevant. Gateway went that route, and Dell ate them alive.

Apple produces complete systems, with the best (proven) hardware and software available. The have a modest array of mid to high-end systems, and they provide the best customer support in the industry. 

If you want cheap, buy the components to build your own system and put Linux on it. If you value your time and computing experience, buy a Mac. If you have no clue, buy a PC with Windoze.

Cheers


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

i stole this name said:


> However, you see these PC laptops offered starting $399 (USD) *and sure they're really not that powerful*...


Well then if it's cheap, underpowered hardware (compared to today's standards) you're after, then buy a _used_ iBook. I hear some are about $400.00 now. :baby:


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Dell's in this market and just look how they're doing, they're almost going under. Apple on the other hand has stayed out of this market and is doing great, in fact expanding their market share. Apple can't build Macbooks fast enough to keep up to demand - http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1984 . So, Apple isn't missing anything. Enough said.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

"i stole this name," why not just build a hackintosh?


----------



## hokuto (Apr 19, 2006)

You seem to be missing the mark all together. The price of a Core Duo chip is probably around $300 alone. The point is that you may be able to get a $500 or less PC laptop, but it's not going to be 1 inch thin, have a built in camera, high resolution widescreen display, dvd burner, wireless and bluetooth, firewire, DVI digital video, gigabit ethernet, optical audio in and out, or dual core configuration. That's just scratching the surface, then you can go into the extra value added features like the great MagSafe power adapter that shows if you're battery is charging or full, a system that doesn't have jagged lines or pieces sticking out of it, a sudden motion sensor for the hard drive (which is SATA I might add), etc etc. Then talk software. Show me a $500 PC that can run Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, Solaris, and so on. All Macs come with iLife as well, which even at $89 to buy. is worth ten times that much in what it does. Then you get the stability of no viruses or spyware, a system that is stable and doesn't crash. A system that doesn't include 500 trial programs and such that you have to remove. And finally most importantly, a system that is so tightly integrated with hardware/software and support.

Now having said that, sure people can argue that Apple could make a $500 laptop minus the camera, dual core, firewire, bluetooth, and so on. The point is that these things are all part of the Macintosh experience. It's the ability to be able to put any system in target disk mode using FireWire. Or to easily send a file from one system to another with bluetooth and 0 configuration. Apple does not skimp out to make a low cost system. Instead they include essentials and things that make life easier for the consumer. Because that's all it boils down to, those $500 system are skimped down units that are lacking everything. Apple includes one version of Tiger, whether you're a pro or consumer, you get the same. Unlike Windows, which strips features from its Home version. Honestly, after student pricing the base MacBook is $1199, is that really that rediculous for a laptop? The old saying is true, you get what you pay for. Go buy a $399 laptop and in a couple of years when you're pulling your hair out and ready to buy your third one, look over at the Apple user still plowing away on their original system which they probably haven't even had to format once.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

I think Hukuto hits on a point. With a Mac you're essentially paying for a standard. Selling cut-rate systems means cutting corners and Apple has never done that. Whether you buy a Mini or a Mac Pro you should expect the same stability of platform. Apple sells less models of their computers because they want to control this standard. They don't want to be like Windows where they have to support a 1000 different motherboards, chipsets, graphics cards etc. While this might be frustrating for people using a Mac, at least we can be assured that our hardware will work.

Back to the original question, Apple has very little interest in making bargain basement PCs because it would cannibalize their high end, high margin product line, and essentially that is what has kept Apple in business all these years. All the other manufacturers are catching up to Dell and making ridiculously cheap PCs, so why would Apple want to jump into that shark tank? It's easier for Apple to let them beat each other up while they sneak in a the backdoor and steal marketshare on the high end by offering a platform that can run OS X and Windows.


----------



## JPL (Jan 21, 2005)

Blain_132 said:


> I would much rather have 1 good mac than 1000 cheap slow 500$ macs.


Soooo why don't you?


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

hokuto said:


> The old saying is true, you get what you pay for. Go buy a $399 laptop and in a couple of years when you're pulling your hair out and ready to buy your third one, look over at the Apple user still plowing away on their original system which they probably haven't even had to format once.


My Fully loaded $1400 iBook G4 died in 18 months after two frustrating hard drive failures and a logic board failure. It was extremely slow next to comparable PC offerings.

No cutting corners? What about the G4 Mac mini? You did't get an isight, no decent graphics processor, laptop hardware and overall no features. Not even a keyboard and mouse (which the clever beans then marketed as a 'feature' with t he BYOKMM). Then Apple justified this by saying that they were using this to turn more people to Mac and everyone lost sight of its massive limitations and applauded them.

IMO they've brainwashed the masses with fancy marketing propaganda, which is a turn for cynical on my part but it's just what I think.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

i stole this name said:


> No cutting corners? What about the G4 Mac mini? You did't get an isight, no decent graphics processor, laptop hardware and overall no features. Not even a keyboard and mouse (which the clever beans then marketed as a 'feature' with t he BYOKMM). Then Apple justified this by saying that they were using this to turn more people to Mac and everyone lost sight of its massive limitations and applauded them.


I'm sorry to hear about your iBook, but we all knew the laptop line was lagging behind speedwise for a long time as IBM wasn't able to produce a proper mobile chip for Apple, so that's why it was so slow by comparison.

With the mini Apple wasn't selling processing power, they were selling a compact, inexpensive system. While I do think they should have included a keyboard and mouse, most people already have these things. I know myself I don't use the Apple keyboard and mouse, as I already own better equipment. The people who Apple targeted the Mini at weren't the people who want to run Final Cut Pro. Most people looking for a lower priced computer have more modest computing needs then maybe the average user on this forum.


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

modsuperstar said:


> With the mini Apple wasn't selling processing power, they were selling a compact, inexpensive system. While I do think they should have included a keyboard and mouse, most people already have these things. I know myself I don't use the Apple keyboard and mouse, as I already own better equipment. The people who Apple targeted the Mini at weren't the people who want to run Final Cut Pro. Most people looking for a lower priced computer have more modest computing needs then maybe the average user on this forum.


Agreed. Also, the market they were targeting with the mini were PC people looking to try a Mac with minimal investment. These people already have a PC with a keyboard, monitor and mouse, so they could pick up a $500 mini, use their existing peripherals and get a taste of what Apple has to offer. After that, Apple was hoping they would move up to something more, like an iMac.

They didn't cut any corners with the mini as far as I am concerned. It was basically a headless iBook with all of the same components. No compromises, just a very specifically targeted machine.

Trev


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> IMO they've brainwashed the masses with fancy marketing propaganda, which is a turn for cynical on my part but it's just what I think.


Always possibble, but in fact many observers complain that Apple does very little traditional marketing for Macs.

I would suggest that it is the Wintel world that has used marketing (not clever, but lots of it!) to shape the market. Many people fall into the upgrade trap as Intel and PC makers push faster and faster CPUs. There are those who need speed, but for a serious chunk of the market speed needs are limited to consumer level photo applications. So while such apps increase in capability and so processor needs generally most people will not notice a big speed increase by buying a computer if the one they have is 2 years or so in age. Keep it in good shape, max out the RAM and you are good to go.

The iBook you cite would certainly be slower than some machines for certain tasks, but for mainstream use it's speed is still more than adequate for many users. It's rather more important for many users that their computer work reliably and simply. In my experience Macs and especially the OS deliver on this, being simpler to set up and manage and providing more than enough power for many users.

The big question for buyers is: What do you use your computer for?

I believe that Apple offers a good range of machines at good prices for the _real_ needs of users. Between business and personal needs I have 4 Macs of different models. I was able to but to fit the needs of the users. The value was exceptional because they just keep working and require minimum intervention. So Apple successfully targeted 4 segements. Good for them.


----------



## Sybersport (Jun 7, 2005)

Kosh said:


> Dell's in this market and just look how they're doing, they're almost going under.


Dell turned a 500m profit, with sales of 14bil. I would hardly say they are going under. 

Don't get caught up in the market hype... "Below Expectations" doesn't mean that a company isn't doing well financially, they are just underperforming as compared to last years quarter.


----------



## PirateMyke (Jul 14, 2005)

the Dell equivilent of the MacBook is like 800 bucks..... and it's the same hardwear... for the price of the top end white macbook you can get a dell lappy with a 17inch LCD and a radeon or geforce vid card... WHY!!!!

oh well, i'll stick with the macbook


----------



## djstp (Mar 10, 2006)

PirateMyke said:


> the Dell equivilent of the MacBook is like 800 bucks..... and it's the same hardwear... for the price of the top end white macbook you can get a dell lappy with a 17inch LCD and a radeon or geforce vid card... WHY!!!!
> 
> oh well, i'll stick with the macbook



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_hi_te/tech_test_mac_pro_3



> Mac Pro beats Dell on price
> 
> For years, Macintosh computers have been praised for their cool looks and elegant simplicity while being knocked for often carrying a hefty price premium over Windows-based machines sold by Dell Inc. and others. It's time to think different — again.


----------



## duper (May 7, 2006)

I'm a bit disappointed that Apple sacrificed the under-$500 pricepoint for the Mac mini in the States. Getting the Mac under $500 was masterful move, but they increased the price with the Intel switch. It would be nice if they could drop the price of the Mac mini to reflect the stronger Canadian dollar, maybe bringing it close to the $500 mark.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I was glad when the Mac desktop and the PowerBook dropped under $4,000. Although I would have been happier if there was a better/existing used market at the time. And if I hadn't already bought at that price. Different times indeed.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

djstp: I dare you to find a similar report on laptops.

I'm waiting...

(I won't hold my breath) 

A7


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

a7mc said:


> djstp: I dare you to find a similar report on laptops.
> 
> I'm waiting...
> 
> ...


Here you go:
http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/laptop/2006/0516_lt1100.html . In this one Apple's Macbook was $5 more. This, of course, discounts the value of the included software, but there you go.

How about this one:
http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/laptop/2006/0516_lt1500.html . Same price, again discounting the value of the included software.

And this:
http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/laptop/2006/0408_lt2000.html

This:
http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/laptop/2006/0424_lt2800.html

Here is one from Macworld back in February which put the Macbook Pro at $182 LESS than the Dell (scroll to the bottom for the chart):
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/13/pricecomparison/index.php . 

However, shortly after Apple released the Macbook Pro with revised specs and prices, which put the Dell ahead by $18:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/14/pricecomparison2/index.php

Overall, the Mac ISN'T much more expensive. Its very comparible, sometimes within a few dollars in the difference.

Trev


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

TrevX said:


> http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/laptop/2006/0408_lt2000.html


I'm not sure about all the examples, but one seemed to add in the following:
Base system price $759
+ CoreDuo upgrade: $40
+ 1.83GHz CoreDuo upgrade: $80
+ Windows XP Professional upgrade $119
+ XP Professional Reinstall CD: $8
+ WSXGA+ display upgrade: $80
+ 80 GB 5400 RPM hard drive: $60
+ DVD±RW upgrade: $48
+ Intel PRO/3945 + Bluetooth upgrade: $39
+ ATI Mobility Radeon X1300 upgrade: $79
+ PC-cillin Internet Security upgrade: $95
+ Sonic DigitalMedia/MyDVD+ upgrade: $63
+ Corel WordPerfect Office 12: $79
+ Adobe® Acrobat® Elements upgrade: $31
+ 2 yr at-home warranty upgrade: $128
+ Corel Photo Album Premium: $31
+ Creative Labs WebCam Live! Ultra: $90
+ QuickBooks Simple Start Ed 2006: $100

Some ludicrous stuff in there. Getting that detailed would require similar treatment for both machines (how about more USB, more pixels and flash memory?). This comparison looks quite heavily rigged.

Also, the first couple Macbook comparisons were to a 14".

Mac's Pro/Power laptops have, for some time, been obviously overpriced even relative to the Macbook/iBook options.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

I stand corrected. There ARE reviews out there that show the Mac laptops are cheaper. Thanks for putting me in my place. 

Now find me a comparison that's ACCURATE. All of those comparisons are false and inaccurate, or misleading. The Macworld one is comparing a 15" laptop to a 17" laptop! And I have no idea where the system shoot out ones got their prices... They are WAY off. Go here if you don't believe me:
http://configure.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=ca&CS=CADHS1&l=en&OC=OCINSP640M_FEAT_E2

$1099 CDN with more ram, HD, etc.

The fact is, it's impossible to properly compare the systems. Some will say "but the Macbook has iSight" or "it comes with iLife" etc. That was my point from the start. Apple doesn't offer OPTIONS. They force you to buy EVERYTHING, even if you don't need it. I don't need iSight. I'll never use it. I don't need a light up keyboard. There are options I want to REMOVE, but I can't. I'm stuck paying for what I don't need. THAT's why price comparisons are impossible... because of Apple's inflexible systems. That's my gripe with Apple.

A7


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

PirateMyke said:


> the Dell equivilent of the MacBook is like 800 bucks..... and it's the same hardwear... for the price of the top end white macbook you can get a dell lappy with a 17inch LCD and a radeon or geforce vid card... WHY!!!!QUOTE]
> 
> Is bigger the better? (for a laptop screen that is)


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> THAT's why price comparisons are impossible... because of Apple's inflexible systems. That's my gripe with Apple.


I don't share your gripe, though I can certainly understand it. When I look at the big picture, I too get a few things I may not use, but the overall package is, for me, outstanding value _because it works so well for me_.

Apple's relatively low volume and business model do not lend themselves to a myriad of BTO options. They need to make an estimate of orders and options and contract with suppliers. Those suppliers need to do the same and so on. The Dell BTO system works because their volume allows them to contract on an 'by order' basis with certain minimums.

Given that my overall computing experience with Apple is simply outstanding I have no issues with their model.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Pelao said:


> Always possibble, but in fact many observers complain that Apple does very little traditional marketing for Macs.
> 
> I would suggest that it is the Wintel world that has used marketing (not clever, but lots of it!) to shape the market.


Not so much traditional marketing, rather viral marketing.

Just read through this thread and see how many people are willing to blindly stand by all of Apple's policies and decisions and curse the soul of anyone who thinks otherwise.

(No offence to anyone :lmao

People will do anything to justify why Apple is clearly lacking in some departments and why some Apple products are clearly and logically overpriced.

The Mac Mini G4 is not a cheap machine at all. People claim that it's made to be cheap to lure more people into buying a mac, but had I been a long time Windows user - faced with paying $500 for a little mac box with almost no expandability or paying $600 for a Dell tower, keyboard, mouse and monitor; well, you figure it out.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> The Mac Mini G4 is not a cheap machine at all. People claim that it's made to be cheap to lure more people into buying a mac, but had I been a long time Windows user - faced with paying $500 for a little mac box with almost no expandability or paying $600 for a Dell tower, keyboard, mouse and monitor; well, you figure it out.


Totally. Except of course, that the Dell is not a Mac. You are right, the G4 Mac Mini was not a particularly cheap machine, but it was a cheap Mac. I am sure part of the target audience was possible converts. The release came at a time when there was a wave of computer replacement and so it made sense for Apple to put something in the market.

Equally though, the Mini was an option for existing Mac users to add another machine.

In the end, comparisions with Dell or other PC manufacturers is largely moot. Apple is not competing for the bulk of Dells business. They have different business models and cost structures.

In general I feel Apple's products are far from over priced. They have a well marketed brand and for me they mostly deliver on the brand promise. I have never been able to find a product that works the way my Macs do, especially for my businesses.

I could write and talk for hours on things that frustrate me a bit here and there, or things I wish Apple would or would not do. But I have to recognize that the company's strategy is working, and anyway, I and my business and my family and many clients are happy customers. 

Blindness? Nope. Just an awareness that Apple is just a company and that I don't care much about it's policies and practices until they affect me negatively.


----------



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

Why are Macs so expensive? Simple. Quality. There is an old saying you get what you pay for.


----------



## planders (Jun 24, 2005)

I use both PCs and Macs. When I buy a PC I build it myself to get exactly the components I want. These PCs work every bit as reliably as my Mac--and cost at least as much as Apple hardware, if not more.

PC manufacturers can't build a computer for the price they're selling them for these days (at the low end). They make up the difference by selling desktop "real estate" to software vendors. I've seen computers that come with three browsers, five ISP installers, trial versions of two antivirus programs, crappy CD burning software, unnecessary utilities, etc. etc.

To be fair to Dell, they've generally avoided these kind of excesses (though the first thing I do with a new Dell is reformat it anyway). But there's no denying that a $400 Dell is built pretty poorly, and can't be reasonably compared to any Apple.

With current-model CPUs selling for $300 by themselves, Apple would have to both cut corners and pile on the bloatware to get the price down. If they did that, everything that distinguishes the Mac out-of-box experience would be lost.

The fact that Apple is holding its own in the market clearly indicates that a lot of people value that experience enough to justify the perceived higher cost, whether it exists or not.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

Pelao said:


> Totally. Except of course, that the Dell is not a Mac. You are right, the G4 Mac Mini was not a particularly cheap machine, but it was a cheap Mac. I am sure part of the target audience was possible converts.


Yup, the release of the Mini is what got my attention. It made Mac cheap enough that I could afford to buy one just to play with. However, as I also needed a new laptop, I decided that a ibook would be a good idea. If i didn't like OS X I could fall back to Linux (which was my prefered OS). Well, then I started looking at the powerbooks to get the better screen and support for a PC Card slot (to allow for a wireless card that would work under Linux). I ended up with a 15" powerbook. 

So, the Mini is what got me interested, but I managed to upsell myself to a machine 5X more expensive. What does this mean? Apple has products at the right price points to meet what the market wants.

Edit: Oh, and Iiked the Mac experience so much, 8 months later I bought a iMac to serve as a always-on system for music, bigger screen, photo editing software, etc. It all started with that $500 (US?) Mini hitting the market.


----------



## planders (Jun 24, 2005)

Atroz said:


> Yup, the release of the Mini is what got my attention. It made Mac cheap enough that I could afford to buy one just to play with. However, as I also needed a new laptop, I decided that a ibook would be a good idea. If i didn't like OS X I could fall back to Linux (which was my prefered OS). Well, then I started looking at the powerbooks to get the better screen and support for a PC Card slot (to allow for a wireless card that would work under Linux). I ended up with a 15" powerbook.
> 
> So, the Mini is what got me interested, but I managed to upsell myself to a machine 5X more expensive. What does this mean? Apple has products at the right price points to meet what the market wants.
> 
> Edit: Oh, and Iiked the Mac experience so much, 8 months later I bought a iMac to serve as a always-on system for music, bigger screen, photo editing software, etc. It all started with that $500 (US?) Mini hitting the market.


That's kind of how I got started too. I had been thinking about adding a Mac to my "arsenal" for a while, but the mini was ideal for getting my feet wet. I hooked it up to my big Samsung monitor (with two inputs and a handy USB switcher--perfect for keyboard and mouse sharing) and was hooked that first weekend. Less than a week later I ordered a maxed out 20" iMac G5 that is now my primary computer. My sister inherited the mini and a spare monitor, keyboard, and mouse I had in my "toyroom". While I don't see any new PC purchases on the horizon for me, the Mac Pro is looking pretty good...


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Apple101 said:


> Why are Macs so expensive? Simple. Quality. There is an old saying you get what you pay for.


Funny I have yet to see the quality. Prior to my iBook, I had a Compaq Armada laptop that lasted me years.

Then I switched to the dark side, got this iBook to start and said if i fancied it i'd get a Powerbook. Well, the Hard Drive died a week after the applecare ran out and the logic board was totaled soon after I paid that hefty sum to fix it. During the operational life of the machine it creaked and generally felt very cheap, but I'm willing to leave that as a personal qualm.

The fact of the matter is, over 40% of Apple laptops fail within 3 years of operation, there have been countless cases of unacknowledged cockups, several battery recalls more than your typical laptop, etc. Most recently the yellowing of the Macbook armrests. Quality hey?

EDIT: And don't get me wrong, I love macs, and am looking to get a Macbook Pro, which is WHY i'm quite bothered that Apple isn't better at doing this, why they can't offer more bang for the buck or woo passers by with cutting edge technology like they once used to.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

i stole this name said:


> Funny I have yet to see the quality. Prior to my iBook, I had a Compaq Armada laptop that lasted me years.


Armada's weren't cheap machines either, they were business class systems. I've got one that is a PII-266. I bought it many years ago from a corporation that was getting rid of their old systems. It may be over 10 years old and is still running (except the exhaust fan, it died a few years ago).

My work machine is an HP NC series, which is the current HP/Compaq business line. I don't like it. I MUCH prefer the feel/usage of my Powerbook. It's hard to pin down what is really different, but I find the user experience different and I don't like it. Before buying my Powerbook, I'd considered the HP (before getting one at work) I'm glad I didn't buy one.


----------



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

i stole this name said:


> Funny I have yet to see the quality. Prior to my iBook, I had a Compaq Armada laptop that lasted me years.
> 
> Then I switched to the dark side, got this iBook to start and said if i fancied it i'd get a Powerbook. Well, the Hard Drive died a week after the applecare ran out and the logic board was totaled soon after I paid that hefty sum to fix it. During the operational life of the machine it creaked and generally felt very cheap, but I'm willing to leave that as a personal qualm.
> 
> ...


Well I use to own a business system from Hewlett Packard. It was one of the ultra slim desktops, it was REALLY quiet, and fast, all in all a beautiful machine. The only problem was windows  I loved the system up until those piece of junk Belkin UPS'S destroyed it as mentioned in one of my earlier posts. Since then I have vowed that I will never buy any Belkin power product again. I like their USB hubs but thats all I will ever buy from them. I wouldn't mind purchasing another HP business system but now that I have an Intel iMac I really don't see the need to own another PC. I have seen apple desktops that run for years and are still running to this day. You probably just had a lemon.


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

The reason Macs are more expensive? Simple..Quality over Quantity..

Sure you can buy a $500 Dell.. and spend hours and hours fixing it and recovering from system crashes and viruses and other problems that plague cheap crappy hardware. Or spend the money upfront for something that will A) Last B) Work

I like Apples smaller selection of products. While there is not a huge product selection, it allows for Apple to be really good at a few things. Rather then dell being really crappy at alot of things. Not to rag on dell just using them as an example.

Not to mention it makes troubleshooting and problem solving hardware and software issues alot easier if the product line is small and there are only so many configurations that a system can have for you to troubleshoot problems with.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Why are Rolls Royce cars so expensive?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Why does Ford make Jaguars?


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Why does Ford make Jaguars?


They're wondering about that too. http://www.leftlanenews.com/category/jaguar/


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

SoyMac said:


> Why are Rolls Royce cars so expensive?


To appease people with excessive disposable income that feel like they're somehow better than others?


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> The fact of the matter is, over 40% of Apple laptops fail within 3 years of operation, there have been countless cases of unacknowledged cockups, several battery recalls more than your typical laptop, etc.


Interesting stats. I would appreciate you taking a bit of time to:
1. Document the 40%. Also, define failure, because as you have stated it the whole laptop has failed, and that's quite a disaster. A 40% _failure_ rate. Wow. Anyway, I would like to know where you got hold of the stats, because as far as I am aware Apple has not released them, and surely they are the only ones who would know.

2. Nothing is countless. Lets have some numbers about the unacknowledged cockups.

3. The 'several battery recalls more than your typical laptop' could do with a bit of justification too.

Apple certainly experiences hardware and indeed software issues. They also have a somewhat unorthodox method of responding. For a company that is so wedded to it's brand image they often avoid the usual response, which is to rush out a bland press release. If they do respond _my experience_ has been that they do so in a measured and effective manner. Of course others may have different experiences, but that is mine.

I don't expect perfection, especially since I am not paying a premium. I do expect better than average though, and so far that is what I have received. The OS behaves way better than the competing products I have tried. Software in general lives up to it's promise and offers more for the price: try finding an iLife competitor that even comes close for the price.

I have had a couple of hardware issues with Apple. My 15" PB was one of the first AL models. It had the white spots: an issue which affected one small production run. I rolled it into the Apple store and they replaced the screen. Then my wife's iPod HD failed after about a year. They replaced it in 3 days, including courier time. My Airport Extreme died after nearly 2 years. I called Apple, just in case there was something I could do to fix it. There was not. The Apple lady noted that I had bought it 2 weeks after my PB, which had Applecare. She set it up so that the AE was purchased at the same time and replaced my dead one with a new one. So there is a list of issues, all of which caused annoyance but for me fall within statistical probability. Better yet, the supplier fixed them.

I feel that highly technical machines will experience issues. I would hate to have my computers in for service or replacement on a regular basis. I have not had this with my Apple's or my IBMs or my Compaq's. On the other hand, neither of the latter 2 offer OS X or the unique control of both hardware and software that Apple does. So Apple gets my business, and happily.

On a philosophical level I enjoy their approach to business too, but that's a separate matter.

I would suggest that you take the time to back up your stats with links to sources - it makes your arguments much more effective.

In the end, this discussion really illustrates the power of choice. I am glad we are able to select different providers. While it's clear you enjoy Apple products, it is equally clear you find them excessively expensive. It may be time to place your bucks elsewhere so Apple feel the loss.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

if apple were truly expensive, you wouldn't have bought one. the fact that you bought one proves you think there is enough value in an apple computer to justify the premium, does it not?

also, have you been paying attention to the news? dell is sinking like a stone (even before the battery recall) because they can't compete. they bring nothing to the table except technology made by other companies, which they resell on razor thin margins. they are essentially just a retailer. apple could slash its prices if it went to that business model, but then they'd just be another dell and you wouldn't buy their product.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

i stole this name said:


> The fact of the matter is, over 40% of Apple laptops fail within 3 years of operation...


The thing about posting imaginary numbers to support one's _opinion_ is that they are often exaggerated, 82.7% of people who frequent public forums know that. tptptptp


----------



## treif (Jul 12, 2004)

*Neglected issue here*

Before calling Macs expensive, do a little research on total cost of ownership, or TCO. Macs perform well in this regard, and in terms of general maintenance and security, there's just no doubt about it-the Mac wins.


----------



## enon (Feb 12, 2010)

If only Apple would release a low priced Mac desktop, maybe at $499, then Macs would be more affordable and more people will buy them and see how great they are.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

enon said:


> If only Apple would release a low priced Mac desktop, maybe at $499, then Macs would be more affordable and more people will buy them and see how great they are.


The troll is back resuscitating an old thread... don't feed the troll. beejacon


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2010)

screature said:


> The troll is back resuscitating an old thread... don't feed the troll. beejacon


:clap:


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

If you want a $399 laptop, then buy one.

I'm sure you'll love it, but if you don't, then the the answer to your question is right there, and hey, you only paid four hundred bucks to learn the lesson. I'll even give you a hint: it comes from confusing value with price.


----------



## TheBat (Feb 11, 2005)

I'm not sure why this thread has been resurrected.

But, like many other elitists, I don't want everybody driving a BMW or Audi ("cheapens the brand"). I'm distressed enough that there are so many Apple laptops out there. I'd hate to see even more.


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

PC hardware made with the same amount of style and quality costs the same price. Cheap crap and Big Ugly Boxes (BUB!) cost less. It's that simple.

...and...

THREAD NECROMANCER!!


----------

