Microsoft is Right About the Cost of Macs
There are apologists galore on both sides of this argument. The problem with Microsoft vs. Apple arguments is that they are too often emotional. There is such a long history between the two companies that leaves much to be desired. And even though Bill Gates and Steve Jobs appeared to make up during their WSJ interview a year or so ago (a must see) us Mac users are still, well, pissed.
Mac users are pissed at their very core because the understand the one single truth PC users do not understand. And that is that Windows users are ostensibly using a Mac. That same feeling some of us had when we fell in love with the first Mac is felt, in a much watered down form, by those Windows users excited about the power of a GUI interface.
And after-all, this is what this is all about, really. It is about a mouse, a keyboard, and a screen that has the metaphor of What You See Is What You Get. It is what lit up Job's passion when he visited Xerox, it is what lit us up when we first used a Mac, and it is what Window's users get. The reaction to the GUI interface is almost instinctive.
Now, there are many different flavors of this interface and Apple Matters readers know that the Macintosh version of this interface is better. OS X is more stable, more powerful and more flexible than Vista (although Windows 7 is creeping up).
But the differences have become inherently subtle. The original Macintosh revolutionized many industries, but particularly graphic design. With a DOS prompt you couldn't design a book cover, with a Mac and PageMaker you could. But, and this is important, all the tasks that you can now do on a Mac you can do on Windows. Maybe not as elegantly, or as powerfully (although many would argue even that point) but you still can.
Which leads us to the question in front of us, why are Macs more expensive? If it isn't the operating system that is so different to Windows then maybe the hardware is a hint?
In the days of PowerPC, when Apple sold us the tired and incorrect story that the PowerPC processor was better we could have pointed towards the processor. But that is no longer the case. Same with SSCI, and firewire. If you look at a Dell today and a Macbook you will notice they have:
- the same processor
- the same ram
- the same hard drive
- the same video card
- the same screen
So what are we left with? Well, nothing.
This is where folks tend to get riled up. Build quality, and the genius bar (forget the fact that you shouldn't be there in the first place, it means something is wrong) are cited as reasons why the Mac is more expensive.
But I say BS. If all these different companies are able to make a laptop that sells for $500 then Apple should. To make this point unbelievable clear lets compare a Dell to a MacBook:
Dell Inspiron 15 ($554)
- Intel Core 2 Duo T6400 (2.00GHz/800Mhz FSB/2MB cache)
- 3 GB Ram
- 250GB SATA HD @5400 rpm
- 4 Cell Battery
- 15.6 inch screen 1366x768
MacBook (the white cheaper one, $999)
- Intel Core 2 Duo, 1066MHz frontside bus, 3MB shared L2 cache
- 2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
- 120GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
- 13.3 inch screen 1280 x 800
Now apologists will get very detail-oriented. They will note that the Dell does not include Bluetooth, has a smaller battery, and that the processor has slightly more frontside power on the Macbook. Yes, but the Dell has 1GB more ram and a hard drive over twice the size and a bigger screen. Of course Windows users will have to buy an Anti-virus tool (around 30-40 bucks) and don't have iLife (iTunes is free, Picassa is as good as iPhoto and free, not sure about iMovie).
The point here is that for machines with remarkably similar specs the MacBook is almost double the price.
And there are countless other examples of this up and down the Apple product line, whether it is XServes, Macbook Pro's, Mini's, etc. The whole Apple computing line is over-priced by at least 33%.
Unlike Microsoft I am not trying to attack Apple, or drive people to buy more PCs. I love Apple products and it is because of this I want to drive home this point. As the recession increases, and Windows 7 comes out these differences are going to be more and more glaring. At some point the extra revenue Apple makes with higher margins will get lost in reduced sales.
I have no doubt that Apple is working very hard right now on a NetBook that they may think is a solution to this problem. But it isn't. As long as I can very easily find machines that cost far less across Apple's product line that have similar hardware Apple has a big problem. And relying on the allure of OS X isn't going to cut it much longer (and I won't even get into the Hackintosh phenomenon here).
Apple, take a long hard look at your product line, and tell me why a Macbook costs almost double the equivalent specced PC product?
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
You bring up an excellent point and to bring that to bear here I have no problem with someone saying “I need a 15” laptop for less than $600” I’m going to recommend a PC 0 of the time.
However, and my incredulity should be evident, I’ve never seen anyone logically make an argument that Apples cost twice as much without resorting to curious omissions and some twisting of facts.
I think Hadley’s core argument rings true. Macs are more expensive and if Apple wants the numbers they have to become cheaper. I’m just not so sure Apple cares about marketshare when profits are paramount on Wall Street.
The biggest problem with the car analogy is that the cost of a car is an order (or two) of magnitude greater than the cost of a computer. And people spend more time in front of a computer than they do driving their cars. I have an expensive computer (MBP 17”) and a cheap French car (A cheap car that suits my needs better than anything BMW makes at any price, BTW).
Apple doesn’t want to sell to every Tom, Dick and Harriet. They only want customers who are willing to pay a premium price for the OS and pretty box. Just because you want to be an Apple customer doesn’t mean they want you to be.
Most studies show TCO for Windows boxes is very close to that for the “more expensive” Macs. My personal experience shows you get what you pay for with a PC. My first one blew a power supply. The second one developed a motherboard problem where first one processor and then both stopped being recognized. The third one has been running perfectly with all its original parts since November 2000.
In the same time I’ve had a dozen different Macs including Umax and Power Computing clones and the only one that failed was a white iBook G3.
I’m a Mac owner - haven’t had a PC in my house for 2 or 3 years now. However, I have to say that this tired old line about Total Cost of Ownership is just crap. As a home user, the total cost of ownership is the purchase price and the electricity cost. For both PC and Mac I replace them long before they wear out, so longevity is irrelevant (and most likely identical anyway). Antivirus software for the PC I get for free via a work home-use licence (but could equally well download for free or pay $30 a year for - irrelevant in terms of the overall pricing). I haven’t noticed any significant difference in maintenance activities between a PC and Mac - but even if there was, it doesn’t cost anything! Sadly my wife does not pay me to install software updates.
In the corporate setting the argument is equally specious as the Mac simply does not offer the enterprise level software capabilities that most medium to large businesses require. Use of the Mac is thus a non starter, lower TCO or not. The fact that a few small or medium size businesses can successfully use Macs does not mean they are ready for prime-time enterprise use.
Thus, whilst I love my Macs and will never switch back to Windows (at least for the forseable future - never say never) the reasons I prefer to use a Mac are nothing to do with money. It just weakens the argument to pretend they are. I use a Mac because I prefer MacOS X as an Operating System and like the design of the casings. (The internals, these days, are identical). If Windows 7 is as nice to use as MacOS and Dell manage to design equally solid and attractive cases, I’d not hesitate to switch.
My work mate bought a cheap pc laptop for $500 and was fully disgusted at the performance of World of Warcraft on it especially when he saw how it ran on my Mac Book Pro. Well, I did pay $2000 - I would expect it runs better! So recently, a few months after the fact, he bought another cheap pc laptop to improve his WoW experience. The new laptop is about $950 and the specs are near similar to my 3 year old Mac Book Pro. He is getting decent performance now, but still complains it doesn’t look as good as on my Mac Book Pro, even with similar video card an everything. One thing specs don’t tell you is the quality of the LCD, and I guess it shows here. On his laptop, World of Warcraft is too light. I was surprised to here this because it is my experience that pc’s gamma tend to be on the dark side. Well, he is still needling around in the preferences trying to make his WoW experience as nice looking as mine.
Hywel said:
“Probably most people, the Hyundai makes more sense. Telling people to get BMWs because they’re better cars is nonsense. A Hyundai can do pretty much everything a BMW can do in the hands of an ordinary driver.”
Unfortunately, you stretch the analogy too far. There is no equivalent of the Hondai in the computer markets. That is, cheap, good and effective are never offered together. The business models of both Apple and Wintel preclude that.
Much of the problem is that Apple does not sell into the low end markets, but that is what they are often compared to. And there is no equivalent to a white box or build your own computer in the automobile markets.
I had four points:
1. That superficial similarities may conceal underlying differences.
2 Those unperceived differences may be the reason for the price differences.
3. That buying cheap may not be buying wise. That cheap often soon becomes junk.
4. That even reporters may not understand the real differences or may not care.
That just seem like common sense statements.
Hywel said:
“The biggest problem with the car analogy is that the cost of a car is an order (or two) of magnitude greater than the cost of a computer. And people spend more time in front of a computer than they do driving their cars. I have an expensive computer (MBP 17”) and a cheap French car (A cheap car that suits my needs better than anything BMW makes at any price, BTW).”
Price, itself, doesn’t change anything; principal do. At one time, computers cost more than cars did.
My only problem was with false analogies. Using some constructed checklist will always bias a comparison. You can put expensive parts in a junky computer to make it look like the combination has value. The question is how long it lasts and gives satisfaction.
The problem, Hywel, is that the Ads paint a false picture.
What if people said,“Sure, Macs cost more than white box manufactured computers, but they are worth it.” Would you object to that opinion?
The Ads imply that, “A Computers is a Computer, so why not buy cheaper?” I disagree with that statement. Computers are not all alike; even if you were just comparing PC’s. The ads gloss over the differences.
Begalad said:
“Most studies show TCO for Windows boxes is very close to that for the “more expensive” Macs. “
Gardner has some interesting studies on this in small businesses. The Brand name PC’s that companies bought (HP, Dell, etc.) cost a little less than a Mac, but by the time four years had passed, the PC’s cost two to three times more than a Mac, because they needed more parts and expert help and they needed software and maintenance which the Macs did not require. You could say that no one keeps a PC for four years, but businesses do, and Mac owners do. If you buy a PC every two years you have doubled your cost.
“My personal experience shows you get what you pay for with a PC. My first one blew a power supply. The second one developed a motherboard problem where first one processor and then both stopped being recognized. The third one has been running perfectly with all its original parts since November 2000.
In the same time I’ve had a dozen different Macs including Umax and Power Computing clones and the only one that failed was a white iBook G3.”
All I was saying was that buying cheap may not give good value. Thus, the purpose of the ad is false.
Paul Howland said:
“I have to say that this tired old line about Total Cost of Ownership is just crap. “
The studies are clear; many independent sources have verified this. You may simply have not counted up the costs. Small business owners say that Mac users are 20% more productive than PC’s users, because they don’t have to spend as much time maintaining their computers.
Of course, there are condition when a person would never notice this fact. Mostly, it is where they don’t place high demands or long hours on a computer and trade it in very often. These are the equivalent of low millage car. Low milage cars tend to have fewer maintenance costs.
I didn’t start with the car analogy. Buying cheap isn’t buying wise, but then neither is buying expensive. I’ve bought expensive things and found it was a waste of money. That the cheaper option was just as good or better.
Personally I much prefer OS-X. I much prefer Mac laptops if only for their superb multi-touch trackpads (though it’s more than that).
Getting hung up on specs can be silly. For example, a 1.3MP webcam isn’t any more use than a 0.3MP iSight. 0.3MP is typically the same res as a lot of those digital photo frames that people seem happy with. It’s pretty much SD resolution that people are largely happy with, and streaming higher res (duplex) over a typical connection just wouldn’t work anyway.
to all, comparing BMW, Mercedes or any other luxury car maker to Apple is a false analogy. Those vendors include cutting edge technology and luxury features in their cars. Apple does not, in fact, it often leaves out things.
The better analogy for Apple is Toyota, a company that makes reliable cars with nice design, and charges more (esp their people movers).
ZFS isn’t cutting edge ?
OpenCL isn’t cutting edge?
Cocoa isn’t cutting edge?
Core Touch isn’t cutting edge?
Hardware does not own a monopoly on technological innovation. In fact the move from proprietary hardware to commodity hardware has been going on for decades thus the true innovation of a platform is encapsulated within its software in many cases.
I still think if Apple wants to get into the cheap hardware with small profits, they should just sell OSX for specific clones. Do a deal with Dell or HP to have a special range of low end machines that can run OSX.
Hywel dsaid:
“I didn’t start with the car analogy. “
No, I did.
“Buying cheap isn’t buying wise, but then neither is buying expensive. I’ve bought expensive things and found it was a waste of money. That the cheaper option was just as good or better.”
Cheap or expensive isn’t the point; It depends on whether you got good value for your money. The ads imply that buying cheaper is always good, because it assumes that the value is there. It may not be. The issue of buying a computer is more complex than just price.
“Getting hung up on specs can be silly. “
Yes. You have to know what the specs mean and whether they are valid. You have to know much more than just numbers. You have to look at the whole package.
Chris Howard, don’t get hung up on the cars. I was using them as an analogy for between different kinds of buyers: the ignorant, penny penching, mass consumer and the discriminating buyer who knows what he is getting.
Chris howard said:
” comparing BMW, Mercedes or any other luxury car maker to Apple is a false analogy. Those vendors include cutting edge technology and luxury features in their cars. Apple does not, in fact, it often leaves out things.”
Apple only has a few SKU’s. It only offers some styles. It ofters All-in-one desktop computers rather than towers. This means that it offers less flexibility than many PC users like. It offers fewer plug ins and cards. But, that doesn’t mean that it is ordinary. You just don’t like the fact that Apple isn’t catering to your needs.
“The better analogy for Apple is Toyota, a company that makes reliable cars with nice design, and charges more (esp their people movers).”
Place them where you will; it is nothing to me. But, Apple only charges more than the white box manufacturers. A Dell or HP compared to a Mac is often more. Where is it not, the Dell or HP has quality issues.