What is misleading in this sort of comparison is that only the "price" is looked at. One cannot tell the value from just the price.

Most likely, the $700 "windows laptop" and the $1510 "mac laptop" are completely different products.

A Ford "car" compared to a BMW "car" on price alone would make about as much sense.

...nuff said....

Is the author conveniently overlooking TCO?

What about the fact that apparently consumers have woken up and that Macs are selling between 2 and 3 x the rate of PCs? Obviously, price is no longer the driving factor.

Look what happened to Dell. Their sales stalled, their market share dropped, and their stock price stagnated. They WalMarted themselves.

It should first be noted that the story does not quiet compare apples to apples. As is well known, Apple does not sell any computer for less than $1,000.00, other than the Mac Mini, and most of the PCs that sell for less than of thousand are not a valid comparison, because they don't compare to Macs in their features and components.

However, given that the story may have some merit, one of the things that strike me about this story is that Macs continue to sell well, which may mean that PCs are being forced to compete against the Mac on price, because they can't compete on any other feature, such as operating system, quality of construction, reliability, security, etc.

That's a very bad thing for PCs. Competing on price means that the other guy has the superior product. If Macs continue to sell, and they are selling well, it means that customers have decided that Macs are worth their price, which means that consumers think that Macs are superior.

If Macs start to also compete more aggressively on price, while maintaining their quality, the PCs' sales will decline even more and even more rapidly.

Does this qualify for a bump in the death-knell counter?? It seems to have been a while since we've had one. WHere's Rob Enderle when you need him??

The author's conclusion was that, despite the intangibles of gold, gold cannot gain further market share unless prices go down and that factor of two gulf is reduced.

you do realize of course, that the exact opposite of what you're claiming is the case: the price diff has diverged, while Macs continue to GAIN market share in LEAPS & BOUNDS!

this has been the trend for the 3 years you analyze. You present absolutely no evidence why this would suddenly change, other than your opinion.

wanna place any bets?

PC and Mac are very comparable in price; matching component for component. However, I have notice a lot of PC, like Dell, discount or provide instant rebate up to $400 or more. So, is the price they quote for PC before or after the instant rebate? Does it matter?

Paper plates are cheaper than nice china, and outsell them a thousand to one. Why would anyone buy nice china?

So, the wintel world has to keep dropping prices in an effort to maintain volume yet it's still losing ground to Apple. Sad, isn't it?

That tells me that wintel PCs are still priced too high...

... the myopia around price both clouds the reality, and attracts like flies those that choose to have a different relationship with their equipment.

Put market share on the chart. Put resale value on the chart. Customer service satisfaction (despite recent bumps in the road). And, as stated in another MO article, the meat-and-potatoes MacBook Pro has not had a major redesign in 5.5 YEARS... meaning, it has performed with or above the competition (evidence: market share) without need for wholesale redesign.

Now put PE ratio and stock price on the chart, and watch what happens by the holidays... hang on!

P.S. Oh, and let's not forget cash reserves.

There seems to be some evidence that Microsoft is providing subsidies for low cost laptops so that Vista sales will show increases. Most machines are most likely being "upgraded" to XP.

When exactly was it did Steve Jobs announce that he was going to join the rest of the PC industry in the race to the bottom?

When did Apple announce that it would be competing in the commodity PC space, building the cheapest and worst boxes available and selling them at the lowest margins possible?

What we have with Apple is what we've had for many years: excellent value for what you're getting. Why is it that more than 50% of the laptops I see on campus, in coffee houses, and on the train are Apples? Maybe it's because users of PC laptops are embarrassed to bring them out in public, but I expect that the root cause is that Apple continues to deliver machines that people think are worth buying.

Then again, it could be that students/faculty, people who hang out in caf?s, and people who ride public transportation are weird Apple-using hippies. But these people are still willing to part with their cash in return for an Apple laptop, and so far it seems to be enough to keep Apple growing at the expense of the rest of the PC industry.

macs are overpriced. let's be honest about it.

i just bought a laptop, not mac. i'll let you know what it came with. 3G's of Ram, wifi, 160G's of hard drive, superdrive, 2.0 Core 2 Duo processor, built in camera. it's bigger than a mac, about 1.5 times the weight but it is still light.

Got it for $550.

macs, in everything i wrote above are either equal to what i got or not as good.

now, i'll be honest, i would love a mac. i think they're great. but the average person making 24-30k a year, who's raising kids can't afford to fork over $1100 for a machine that has no superdrive, 1G or Ram and only 120G's of hard drive. if i went with a mac i would be paying $550 more just for the OS. then my kid who is going to college wouldn't have a laptop.

the one thing macs have going for them is they're OS. i bet if they quit making computers and only sold their OS they would make tons more money. tell me someone running vista who wouldn't switch to leopard. i probably would. i guess that does depend on whether they would try and sell it for $550 though b/c it seems that they think that is what it's worth apparently.

macs are computers by the way, not a freaking car. quit comparing pcs and macs like they're fords and BMWs. i've heard this a million times. be original.

you wrote

"What about the fact that apparently consumers have woken up and that Macs are selling between 2 and 3 x the rate of PCs? Obviously, price is no longer the driving factor."

that's a lie

What a lame commentary. The key misleading word in there is "the gap is getting worse", implying that Apple should somehow be responsible for maintaining a price point relative to PC's, regardless of how dramatically they've plummeted in price. And at that, it's only the freakin' notebooks that have had a major price change, not desktops!!

What this idiot fails to address is the consequence of competing mostly on price will have on consumers and the market for Windows: in order to maintain those price points, not only will vendors have to sell in volume but they'll have to keep finding creative ways to keep cost of components down; ie. resorting to cheap parts, which will result in increased hardware failure. And let's not forget the ol' shell game standard, back door payoffs for pre-installed crapperware. : )

I don't know where this information is coming from, but as someone who sells PCs for a living, this article just isn't true. When you configure a PC, desktop or portable to match the same or comparable specs/feature set as a Mac, many times the Mac will come in cheaper. I won't go into the whole issue of TCO and such.

It's pretty simple economics here. There is high demand for Macs and low demand for PC's. If people are willing to pay higher prices for Macs, does that somehow mean that Apple should sell them for cheaper simply because they want to make less money? If Apple is able to sell all the stock that they can build at current prices, who cares whether a PC is half the price?

There is another factor here as well - foreign competition. Factories in Taiwan, China, etc are able to build PCs for lower costs and are forcing prices down. Since Apple has not licensed any other manufacturers, they are able to maintain their prices.

If everyone is willing to pay more for a steak than a hamburger, should farmers be expected to drop the price of steaks simply because the public thinks that steaks are overpriced compared to hamburgers?

More importantly, if you are an Apple stockholder do you expect Apple to drop their prices, margins, and profits simply because the competition can sell their product at half the price?

PCs are commodities, Apples are luxury items. There is no way to equate the markets that they operate within.

oops, that should have read "...simply because the competition cannot sell their product at half the price?"

Quote

Guest wrote:
It's pretty simple economics here. There is high demand for Macs and low demand for PC's. If people are willing to pay higher prices for Macs, does that somehow mean that Apple should sell them for cheaper simply because they want to make less money? If Apple is able to sell all the stock that they can build at current prices, who cares whether a PC is half the price?

There is another factor here as well - foreign competition. Factories in Taiwan, China, etc are able to build PCs for lower costs and are forcing prices down. Since Apple has not licensed any other manufacturers, they are able to maintain their prices.

If everyone is willing to pay more for a steak than a hamburger, should farmers be expected to drop the price of steaks simply because the public thinks that steaks are overpriced compared to hamburgers?

More importantly, if you are an Apple stockholder do you expect Apple to drop their prices, margins, and profits simply because the competition can sell their product at half the price?

PCs are commodities, Apples are luxury items. There is no way to equate the markets that they operate within.

There is no reason for Apple to have these prices (other than to improve their cash reserves). The same equipment on a PC versus a MAC costs a LOT less. So the "premium" is only on the OS, which they sell for only $100 or so. However you cannot build your Mac (otherwise their prices would have to come down a lot) because they have tied their OS to a little hardware validation switch.

If MS did the same things that Apple does, there would be antitrust people all over it!

I think it is really funny that all of these mac users are trying to justify the extremely high cost of macs when they generally come with similar or worse hardware then the comparable PC. So what are you actually paying that extra money for? An operating system that would be easily usable on any PC if apple allowed it? Apple purposely makes it so that their OS will only work on their computers so that they can make more money on their computer sales. Unfortunately all of you mac users are gladly complying.

I just bought a great pc.

A few specs, Amd Phenom x4 9950, GTX 260, 2gb OCZ REAPER 1150mhz DDR2. It totaled with other things under $900.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
However you cannot build your Mac (otherwise their prices would have to come down a lot) because they have tied their OS to a little hardware validation switch.

So do you live in the cheapest house you can find? Do you drive the cheapest car you can find? Do you eat the cheapest hot dogs you can find? Or maybe you're willing to pay for quality.

Mr. Wilcox's comparison is completely meaningless without comparing computers feature-by-feature, which he does not do. I once (not that long ago) did a comparison of a Macbook to the cheapest Dell laptop that I could find but configured with exactly the same features as the Macbook except for one but it was very similar. The result was a difference of around US$50 and I think the Macbook was cheaper.

The cheaper PCs lack many of the features of any Mac model, for example, DVD-ROM vs. DVD-RW, 100 Mb/sec ethernet vs. 1000 Mv/sec ethernet, 802.11g wireless vs. 802.11n wireless, and on-and-on. Why do magazines/web sites waste people's time with such useless information?

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,review-31192-2.html

When I think of a MAC I think of the JC Pennys ad slogan... "It's all in style." Anyone who buys a MAC is buying a Nike equivalent PC (Yes... A Mac is a PC = Personal Computer). But its a restyled PC which looks pretty but is way too limited for what I need a PC for... Personally I go for functionality and compatibility along with quality and ease of use so I build my own PCs which are half the price of a MAC but give me nearly twice the performance and last just as long. Since I've looked at the design of MACs closely over the years I often have laughed at some of the thinking which must have gone into one of them, either at the customers expense or because I can tell when it was Piss poor planning on Apple's part. Thing is... MAC gives the customer what they want, its a very pretty, very nice appliance to use and look at and PC's give you performance for value.

The idea that MACs are any better than PC's are ridiculous and is dependent on the person and what they hear from who or what they swear by. If you want to get the real true just look at this list and ask yourself if there is anything your MAC or PC can do but the other can't. They both offer the same functionality but at different prices. Stick with the basics.

1). Word Processing
2). Database
3). Internet
4). Mail
5). Video (Editing and Viewing)
6). Device Sycronization
7). File Management
8). Music (Editing and Viewing)
9). Gaming
10). Applications and Programming

Apples to Apples (PC) (Pun Intended) they do the same things each other does. So the thing is, do you buy hype or do you buy standard? Everyone wants to be with the "In Crowd". - It's all in style.

Did your laptop come with a shift key, or did it break already? /snark

These type of stories really bring the "guests" out of the woodwork

Quote

Guest wrote:
macs are overpriced. let's be honest about it.

i just bought a laptop, not mac. i'll let you know what it came with. 3G's of Ram, wifi, 160G's of hard drive, superdrive, 2.0 Core 2 Duo processor, built in camera. it's bigger than a mac, about 1.5 times the weight but it is still light.

Got it for $550.

macs, in everything i wrote above are either equal to what i got or not as good.

now, i'll be honest, i would love a mac. i think they're great. but the average person making 24-30k a year, who's raising kids can't afford to fork over $1100 for a machine that has no superdrive, 1G or Ram and only 120G's of hard drive. if i went with a mac i would be paying $550 more just for the OS. then my kid who is going to college wouldn't have a laptop.

the one thing macs have going for them is they're OS. i bet if they quit making computers and only sold their OS they would make tons more money. tell me someone running vista who wouldn't switch to leopard. i probably would. i guess that does depend on whether they would try and sell it for $550 though b/c it seems that they think that is what it's worth apparently.

macs are computers by the way, not a freaking car. quit comparing pcs and macs like they're fords and BMWs. i've heard this a million times. be original.

Quote

Guest wrote:
When I think of a MAC I think of the JC Pennys ad slogan... "It's all in style." Anyone who buys a MAC is buying a Nike equivalent PC...

Quote

Sir Harry Flashman wrote:
Did your laptop come with a shift key, or did it break already? /snark

Most Likley?? you say it like you know that is the case......

There is a market for cheap computers, and there is a market for expensive computers. Apple doesn't even try to compete in the market for cheap computers. You can compare the average selling price, but you have to be careful with your conclusions.

You can draw the conclusion that if you have $500 spare cash, then Apple doesn't have anything for you. That conclusion is correct. You can draw the conclusion that for $1000, Apple will give you less value than other manufacturers. That conclusion is wrong. You can draw the conclusion that other manufacturers are not very good at selling in the more profitable high end market. That conclusion is correct.

What you are doing here is like comparing two companies building houses; company A builds 100,000 houses a year with 2 to 5 bedrooms; about 1000 of those are the most expensive 5 bedroom ones. Company B builds 1000 five bedroom houses a year and nothing else. Of course the average price of a house built by A is lower. But what if you want a five bedroom house? Company B is quite likely to give you better value for money because that is the target market that they are concentrating on.

When is everyone going to finally get it through there heads that cheap hardware = waste of money? Sure I can get a PC for $300, if all I want to do is e-mail the folks and download porn. Now I admit I'm a noob and can't necessarily "testify" to the greatness of Apple but consider this: the $3500 Alienware machine that I got 5 years ago took me 2 years just to get it running halfway decently (with no Alienware support) between Sonar, a Delta 1010 PCI card, all my plug-ins, three hard drives and tuning friggin' XP. When it was all said and done I still eventually ran out of processing power and memory after a few years when my projects got bigger.

I just got a refurbed iMac 2.4, threw in 3G of RAM and switched the whole damn system over to MOTU hardware and software and I was picking up where I left off in 2 days. 2 Days! No crashes, no hardware conflicts, no I/O errors, no hiccups. Even if I factor in the iMac, new hardware and new software to total cost, I still paid less for this entire system than I did for just the Windows machine (the iMac is twice as powerful, too) and not a single headache.

I have learned from (many not-so-great) experiences that just because you save money on the front end, doesn't mean it won't cost you a fortune on the other side. This includes cars, houses, furniture, in most cases you really do get what you paid for. Cheap Garbage.

I tell you what. Why don't you go over to Dell's website or HPs and find us some comparisons using the same specs? Good luck with that, I already have. Apple either beats the competition, or is slightly higher. Here is an example of a Dell notebook that matches Apple's Macbook:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=bycwn1s&c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&kc=category~notebooks

It comes in at $1, 198, which is $ 99 dollars more then the Macbook. Keep in mind, the base price was $899, but when you configure it to add bluetooth support, up the processor specs (to match the Macbook), add the better battery (which the Macbook has) and upgrade Windows to Vista Ultra (which I think is only fair), it is priced higher. If you don't up Vista, the Dell is only fifty dollars less. However, I didn't add into the price any benefit of iLife and Time machine (which the Dell machine is also lacking).

Moreover, if you are a student the price of the Macbook goes down another hundred dollars. In addition, with Apple your support staff speaks English. Finally, there are other benefits such as better design (which some how Windows fanatics never seem to see the value of) and the Mac can run Windows as well.

My point: Apple is very competitive when comparing the same specs.

Quote

Guest wrote:
There is no reason for Apple to have these prices (other than to improve their cash reserves). The same equipment on a PC versus a MAC costs a LOT less. So the "premium" is only on the OS, which they sell for only $100 or so. However you cannot build your Mac (otherwise their prices would have to come down a lot) because they have tied their OS to a little hardware validation switch.

If MS did the same things that Apple does, there would be antitrust people all over it!

"There is no reason for Apple to have these prices (other than to improve their cash reserves)."

Apple is a business

"The same equipment on a PC versus a MAC costs a LOT less."

Just because the abbreviation for personal computer is PC doesn't mean that the abbreviation for Macintosh is MAC, it is Mac. MAC is an acronym for a number of things, check your network settings and you should find one.

All Macs are PCs, but not all PCs are Macs even if all PCs have a MAC.

To get a fair comparison, you needed to upgrade the spec of Wilcox's Dell:
full version of Vista $120 extra; separate graphics chip: $60; digital sound in/out $100; speakers $20; 20 inch screen with webcam $90; premium mouse & keyboard $35; all in one industrial design: priceless (requires more expensive laptop components which the Dell tin box doesn't use); iLife equivalent (Adobe elements bundle?) $99. 802.11n $30. can't remember the other things.

You also need to allow for the crapware that Dell imposes on their customers in order to get a total of around $100 subsidy from the suppliers. It'll take you about half a day to clear it out, if you have the geeky skills to get rid of it.

Macs would be a better choice even if they were more expensive, but they're NOT when you get down to a really detailed comparison. In this case, as usual, within 5%; not 60% more expensive at all.

This is not a feature-by-feature comparison, only average price. So it doesn't mean that Apple is more expensive for a comparable machine. One interpretation is that more and more, Apple is raking off the cream of the market, with other PC manufacturers only able to compete for consumers who are looking for an absolute minimum bargain-basement PC.

quit peeing your pants b/c someone wrote something bad, probably truthful, about macs.

i have one and love it.

a buddy of mine just got a vaio though for about 3/4 the price. pretty much the same thing i've got. though, he did get it at a going out of business sale. that would never happen with a mac. apple would probably destroy their machines before selling them at a lower price.

macs do cost more, probably too much more. i wouldn't go so far as to say twice as much though.

one last thing. when is mac going to upgrade it's components if anyone knows? they are starting to get a little week.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
though, he did get it at a going out of business sale. that would never happen with a mac. apple would probably destroy their machines before selling them at a lower price.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
one last thing. when is mac going to upgrade it's components if anyone knows? they are starting to get a little week.

Is this one of the "vista promotion" ads ??
...
I have to say this so useless.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Is this one of the "vista promotion" ads ??
...
I have to say this so useless.

Here is the problem with Apple. They are selling you hardware that costs them the same amount as a PC for more than twice the price. The only difference is the Operating system. I will not argue which system is better - Windows or OS X, but lets say that OS X is really that much better. Is it worth another 500-1000 Dollars? Considering Operating systems retail on average for about 200 dollars, and the price of the OS is already included in a PC -- OS X 10 should be 250% better, and wash the dishes and do the laundry and take the kids to soccer to boot! Apple's advertising team needs to be commended, they have done an amazing job of not only convincing you that you need a Mac, but also convincing everyone that a PC can't do everything a Mac can. (it can, and at half the cost -- Plus there are a lot more software options)

Every movie I see these days (set in the present obviously) have a computer with a Mac Logo on it... you are paying a premium for your shiny Mac to appear in these movies, and you are paying for the famous actor(s) in the Mac commercials. When I buy a computer, I want to pay for what I get, and not for advertising.

Yes, we're all told that Macs come with great software and when you add it all up, a Mac is on par or even less than a similarly loaded PC. Really?

Quality has taken a severe hit at Apple over the years. Leopard has shown its spots and they aren't pretty. iTunes and iLife have not faired well in the upgrade process. Early 2008 MacBook Pros exhibit stripes reminiscent of a real Tiger, not the operating system. Or, perhaps Apple is making the jump to Zebra?

Apple's troubles have many yearning for the return of Panther and hardware that "just works." Instead we get a MobileMess and most attention on the iPhone and iPod touch. There's even talk of a MacBook Touch, with a virtual keyboard?!!

Apple has lost its way and found itself on par with Microsoft, in a very bad way. No longer can Apple claim that things "just work." Instead, they spin problems to make them look good, rather than fixing them. It is a sad, sad day for Apple.

I was all set to take the plunge and get a MacBook Pro. But recent events and eye-opening articles and discussions on Apple's terrible track record on Quality Control have me weary.

Apple hardware cost twice that of PCs. And what do we get? PC-style headaches and a lighter wallet! That's about it! A very sad statement on a once very cool computer company known for making computers that "just work." If only we could go back to the good old days.

You're a depressing one, aren't you?

Quote

Intruder wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
However you cannot build your Mac (otherwise their prices would have to come down a lot) because they have tied their OS to a little hardware validation switch.

This is clearly false, since Psystar builds a machine without using any parts from Apple. The OSX86 project gets the OS to work on generic PC hardware. Where, exactly, is this little hardware validation switch to which you are referring?