When I was looking at notebooks... I just looked at the macs briefly just to see wha the price ranges are.. and they were really expensive.. and I was told by a friend that generally all mac things are more expensive.. is that true? And why?

you mean the hardware?..well that's because Apple use better material to make their notebooks stronger and better. It last a lot longer....

and that also goes with their desktops and stuff right? i had a lot of pc desktops and they lasted till.. well till now... also i had never had a laptop that didnt last for a long time... neither have i heard of any for that matter.

err....well...it's just that since apple make everything them selfs, I guess their quality control and such is better unlike for example you can get some cheap generic stuff that don't last as long...

also they're prettier, you're paying for research into what will look stunning and turn heads.

Because apple uses its own hardware. Even though apple notebooks are built strong, i think IBM could give them a run for their money.

The desktops seem more expensive, but the laptops are often cheaper then a really good wintel laptop. Dell laptops are not the best quality and that is why they cost less.

Everything with apple is propriatary. You are paying for a sleek, well designed product (desktop or portable), that has a great service record, and has great tech support along with it. These machines just work, and so you end up paying a slight premium for a premium product. Now dont get me wrong, i'm not an Apple fanboy... as I have been using windows since i was little, but I wouldnt mind having a Mac around the house.

I used to work at a place that did packaging for Apple and yes, Apple has better quality control over their products so yeah you're paying more for the quality of the product.

apple laptops are slightly more expensive than wintel models, but not by much... the powerbooks are awful good value, considering apples quality. their desktops aren't the best bang for buck though.

I'm not sure why everyone has the impression that Apple uses its "own" hardware...

CPU - Not made by Apple
RAM - Not made by Apple
HDD - Not made by Apple
GPU - Not made by Apple
...you get the idea.

Even their mobile machines are manufactured by third-party OEMs in Taiwan, many of which manufacture machines for x86 hardware vendors like Dell and HP as well:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/13/co...o_build_15_4in/
http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article1...&pages=A1&seq=1

Correct. Apple do not use their own hardware when it comes to those listed above (since Apple does not make hardware like that) - but they do build the entire computer + the software that comes with it. Compare that to Microsoft making the software (and sometimes a few hardware devices) and another company like Dell or HP building the PC, it can be a mess. I remember calling HP because I had problems with my computer - I was told to call 4 different companies and they all said I should call HP I don't have a Mac so I can't compare that to Apple Support, but I'm sure it would be alot easier since Apple build everything themselves.

saiz66: if you compare Apple notebooks and desktops to those of PC manufacturers, Apple are generally a little bit more expensive but remember quality is everything. Compare things like graphics cards between those used in Macs and PCs and you will spot a difference. And also keep in mind that the speed of processors used in Macs are different to the speeds of those used in PCs (eg. a 2GHz Mac is faster then a 2GHz PC).

All the previous reasons factor into it but the main reason is due to one of the basic laws of economics....Supply & Demand.

Apple is the only company who sells Macs. If you want one you have to buy it from them and they are free to set the price at anything they wish. There are no clones and no competition like there is in the IBM-PC Compatible world so if you don't like Apple's price you'll either have to just suck it up or do without a Mac.

not really, its more because of quality than supply and demand. apple produces quality products, stuff that lasts a long time. sure they are the only ones but that isnt a huge factor in price. another thing is, a lot of the services offered by apple are still based in america. it is all desgined in the us, tech support is based in the us, etc...

That is one of the big contributing factors in the pricing, it costs more to keep a bunch of production and service in the states rather than going to india or china for tech support and designing. but the main factor is still quality control and the effort put into designing.

Personally my belief its a little bit of everything. In business its not just one factor that decides everything, rather multiple factors.

1. While Apple may not design the actual components, the final product is that of higher quality. Ever opened a PC before and look at all the wires. Open a Mac and you'd be amazed.

2. Apple products do look very nice and it takes money to have prototypes made and engineered to a quality standard

3. Apple is the only sole supplier of the Mac.

NetRyder - Their machines may be made by 3rd party manufacturers however the Chinese make the machine according to the schematics delivered by the manufacturer meaning if Dell were to deliver a better schematic for their laptops, maybe less people would complain about them.

Btw... if a mod can fix the title to "Is Mac stuff generally more expensive?" everytime i read the thread title I smile.

Duh dude. Mac stuff is waay more expensive. Its worth it though. I love my powerbook (and my iBook) and hope to get a mac mini and a g5 this summer

Josh

is more expensive because all mac stuff have a high standard quality than pc stuff, inclusive the software make by apple, in which most of then are for professionals and some are the standard in the industry of movies and music

Apple hardware holds its value better compared to PC's though...

sure does, just check ebay....

yep....apple stuff are A+ quality...I had my powerbook for a bout 2 years now....nothing wrong with it...works like a champ..

no kidding... i've been trying to get a powerbook/ibook on ebay for a while and the auctions just keep topping out above what I can afford....

its great in terms of resell value, i mean im gonna be set with my pb, when im ready to sell it in 5 years, it will have the max amount of ram and by my estimates, i should get a only a couple hundred dollars less than what i bought it for. they are really awesome machines.

That is a load of Apple PR BS. They just want a monopoly on the whole process.

Thus... no competition on Apple HW, means they can charge ridiculous prices and people either pay it or go to Linux/Windows!

I think the only reason Apple has not also got investigated like Microsoft is they just don't have the marketshare and the lawmakers don't feel like bothering.

You are correct, however the CPU/Mobo are only allowed to be sold to Aple. I cannot go down to the local computer store and build a mac using whichever case and powersupply and video card I want to and then load OS X.

I am going to have to disagree here.

The standard shipping video card in the top of the line G5 is an AGP ATi 9600Xt-variant??

That is a load of BS!!

The only other option is a $450 upgrade to a 6800 variant??

You are stuck with crap or severe overkill for most people!!

People should be able to install whatever video card they want such as in the PC area, but b/c Apple is so close-minded, that is not going to happen!

It has nothing to do with Apple being close minded.

Apple opened their architecture a while back and companies like UMAX and Power Computing started building macintosh OS based systems. They were extremely succesful in their ventures. Cheaper with better hardware.

The Power Computing PowerTower 180 (I still have one) was one of the first MAC OS based systems to come with PCI slots.

It is true that the CPU is IBM, the HDD is possibly Seagate/or Western Digital, the video card is ATI or NVIDIA and the RAM is (who the hell cares)...

The key here isn't who makes it - it is who authorizes it to be put together into a cohesiveness. You cannot go and build a SUN SERVER with off the shelf components. Eventually it comes down to the system ROM/BIOS that controls everything. Sure - I could get a SPARC chip, RAM, SCSI HD and other peripherals, but the MB is manufactured by SUN or through SUN.

Now think about this... Why is it that my MAC doesn't crash but my Windows based PC crashes about 1 -2 times a week (soft crashes - i.e. misbehaving app brings system down, not BSOD)? If Apple controls the hardware and what hardware it needs to support and keeps that very small, then the support costs will go down because the OS only has to be certified for those set components. Much like Dell does with their OPTIPLEX line of computers - very seldom (1 every 1 1/2 years) does the optiplex line shift into new hardware, while the Inspirion line shifts constantly with the latest trends.

Yes - Apple Macintosh's are more expensive, in general than a PC. And although Apple does not actually have the die presses for the G5 processor on site and replicating in Cupertino, CA - this does not add up to say that Apple buys off the shelf components - they don't. They have a hand in the entire process from creation of design to implementation in delivery.

I am not here to say or spout some religious rhetoric about which is better - I am totally biased about that... But I recently had the choice of purchasing a top of the line Dell with XEON processors and Nvidia video card, or a dual G5 with ATI...

Wanna know which one I took - check the sig.

Bill

You can compare it to buying a kit car against buying a factory build car.

If you buy all the parts seperately and mash together different brands, qualities etc then you get an unstable system that doesnt work so well. It just wouldnt be such an integrated solution. However go down the dealership and get a Honda Civic and it'll be problem free for years and be backed up solidly. Kit car = PC, Factory car = Apple.

Surely another major selling point has to be Mac OSX? It wont run on anything else, both due to chipset architecture and legal small print. Its such a good operating system its worth paying more to get a machine that runs it.

Sorry, I just dont buy that analogy anymore! There are too many people who can build a PC in their head that will outlast any Dell or for that matter often Apple's powermacs with no problems whatsoever.

With Apple you are sutck with wahtever features and mobo that Apple deams worthwhile, but with PC you can choose based on your budget.

Bennifer - So you're saying since the parts are made by different people they don't work right? News flash: All the parts in Apple computers aren't made by one sole company. Like ncoday said, you can buy just what you need and it comes out cheaper, and it's well built to your specifications.

Don't get it twisted though, I do want to buy a Mac soon.

deal with it, apple has been doing that kinda stuff for years they wont change now

ncoday -

I think you are missing the point. PCs run great for a lot of people. Macs are more of a luxury computer. One that is built to run with certain combinations of hardware. It makes everything run smoothly. The software doesnt have to worry about a million different hardware components and it also helps apple's support team. It allows them to help out. Apple doesnt manufacture all their parts, but they team up with companies (if they need something special... for example: G5 by IBM) and they program their software and hardware to support the combinations. With Apple, I wouldnt say you are "stuck" with what you get. Yes, its true that you cannot upgrade your processor or motherboard, but they give you a great one to start out with. You can upgrade your graphics, hard drives and whatever else you want to add in. If you want a new Mac, chances are if you sell your old one you can get a GREAT price for it. Since Apple's hold their retail value for a long time. You cannot really compare Macs to PCs though. Its like comparing apples to bananas

Hope this helps

Josh

That's not luxary computing - that's the way it's supposed to be. You're not buying hardware so you can figure out drive conflicts and lose 30 minutes a day to Word crashing are you? No? Me either, and I don't even use a Mac!

What sort of ****-poor hardware/software have you been using where you use the term "luxary" to describe when things run smoothly?



Tell that to the people that let you upgrade a 450MHz G4 to a dual 1.8 GHz system.

Nope, Can't upgrade Mac processors - no way, not ever.



Product X is used by person B to do task C.
Product Y could also be used by person B to do task C.

Why the hell can't I compare X and Y's suitability to perform that task? Is it because your pet-platform might not look like such a good value at the end of it?

^^^ Obvious windows fanboy....

Why do you bother posting? We are trying to explain why Macs are more expensive. If all you have to say is Macs suck then get out of the Apple Hardware Discussion.

With that said...

Luxury computing (as I was referring to it) is just the higher standard that macs have to run flawless.

About the CPU upgrades: You physically can upgrade them (I guess) although it voids your warranty, and is not that easy. (can sometimes ruin your mac)

You cant compare macs to pcs because they run on completely different architectures. They dont run the same at all, so they may both be computers, but you cant neccesarily compare them equally.

Josh

Apple products are more expensive because:

Their hardware products are higher quality, and cost more to manufacture.
Their market range is willing to pay more for these products.
They don't need good prices, they practically sell themselves.

Accessories for apple products made by third parties are more expensive because:

Apple users are a minority, thus when demand is low, price is high.
In some cases, there is no competition for that product, so the price is high.
They don't need good prices, they practically sell themselves. (white sony fontopia vs.black)


Think about for a second. It's kinda like the same reason why parts for expensive cars are more expensive.

Note: many PC laptops are built with the same quality as Apple's, and have more features, are more powerful, have nicer screens, look nicer, and are much much cheaper.

they are also more expensive because tons of software is installed also...

Perhaps you should read some of his posts in other threads and rethink that statement.
Or is everyone who disagrees with your point of view a fanboy?

"Luxury computing"...what a joke.

Mac hardware hasn't been higher quality than PC hardware for many years now because they are practically the same thing. The only exclusive parts are the cases and motherboards, but like the other components they are manufactured by third parties. Macs do not have a higher quality standard, they are just as prone to hardware malfunction as PCs, and they will not last longer.

Also, the supposed advantage of having full control of the hardware and the software is just a myth. Like Windows XP, Mac OS X supports a wide range of combinations of CPUs, chipsets, firmwares, and graphics chips (going back even further than the G3 series), and likewise it will not work properly on some of those combinations. Of course a Mac will usually run flawlessly with the software it ships with, but this is no different with any competent PC seller. A more logical explanation for why Macs might run smoother than PCs is that Windows is extremely prone to hard drive fragmentation and corruption, and also the availability of spy/malware and how easy it is for an average Joe to get it onto their computers.

I dont see Mac users going into Windows Hardware support and posting crap about windows sucks. The point is. If you dont belong somewhere, why are you there? I wouldnt have a problem with peoples posts except the fact that they are completely blinded and think that apple is crap. If they think apple is crap thats great, but they dont need to voice their opinion here. Thats like going into the middle of a Lakers game and saying LAKERS SUCK!! So go back to your windows and have a good ol time. I was only trying to help one person understand why Mac stuff is generally more expensive.

I think were all missing one point here.

Macs are made to run the software and Apple Computers designs the computer to run their own software

Whereas the PC world is pretty much open architecture and the software is designed to run the computer.

There is a big difference between the two. Both have their pros and cons which can be discussed in a lengthy matter, heck thesis papers for your masters degree can be written about how different the two platforms are.

However just think about the two differences.

Find one of my posts where I've been a blind fanboy of anything. Just one, it shouldn't be hard: I've only made about 150. Even if I was what you say I am, does that somehow make my argument less valid? "You don't agree with me so everything you say must be wrong!"

Clearly your intellect will crush me.


Is that the sound of moving goal posts I hear?



Way to drop to the ad-hominems to support your argument. I thought you would have been able to last at least another 2 or 3 posts before you started attacking me rather than my arguments. Oh well, at least you proved me wrong one way - even if it wasn't by supporting your claims.

Good show! I'll credit you in my new book: "How to win arguments by ranting like religous fundamentalist"



No, they're made to run software. period. OS X is the primary operating system used on Macs but the software available for that platform is what peole are really interested in.

If Apple was designing computers to run only the code that they produce then they'd be an embeded system's provider (like they people writting code for refridgerators and VCRs). They sure as heck wouldn't be providing an IDE with every machine and making developer documentation available on their website.

Did you even think about Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, ID, Digidesign, Quark, Omnigroup, etc. when you made that post?

Your wrong. Since Apple controls both hardware and software when they develop OS X they develop to run it only on their OWN hardware. When they develop their hardware they develop it to run Mac OS X and not Windows or Linux. Sure Linux has PowerPC distributions however they are more generic then anything whereas Mac OS X is optimized and designed to run on a PowerPC.

Also the software your listed runs under OS X, without OS X all the titles made by those companies wouldn't be able to run. People generally get a Mac for the OS if anything these days. Apple doesn't advertise "Look Adobe has this" no they advertise the OS.

Sure I may have worded what I said wrong but your argument to what I originally said is a bunch of balony.

Macs are designed for Mac OS X and Apple Computers designs the computer to run their own software (meaning operating system).

Yes a Mac will still run a linux distribution but the "Apple" or "Mac" experience won't ever be complete without Mac OS X.

He didn't say anything about Linux and I think he's right about the Macintosh being as much about the software it runs as the hardware that runs it. Head over to the iMac or PowerMac product pages. They're flogging OS X but they also show off they're capabilities for Halo, Quicken, Photoshop, Lightwave, After Effects, BLAST, and the ability to create custom software that takes advantage of the operating system's features. One choice page is the Powermac solutions section of the Apple site: the focus is on the things owning Apple's kit will let you do, either by creating your own software, or by purchasing software purchased by someone else. The bundled applications and hardware are mentioned as supporting components that work together to get something done.

If what you wrote isn't what you meant in your first post that's fine, but I completely agree that Macintosh systems are built to run software: Apple's, Microsoft's, Adobe's, or mine - it's all moving Macs out the door - and that's where the bulk of Apple's profit comes from. I'm sure they don't really care if I took my machine and installed Linux, BSD, Windows, TRON, BeOS, or any other operating system on it (assuming it'd work) provided they still got their $1800 from me.

Of course I'm biased: my last job was writting custom software for Macs.

expensive? ja! i got my ibook (60bg/256mb..)+apple care protection(3 years) +case+keyboard protection+ printer+office mac (student /teacher edition)+a portable flash drive(256mb) all for$1800. (and waiting for a mail in rebate( $100 for the printer and $20 /flash drive) uhmm good quality and design...for me apple is the best.

Considering your a programmer, you should know better. Your developing software for Mac OS X not for the Mac computer. The two, while developed by the same company, are two different subjects. Your software would not function if Mac OS X were not installed on your computer. It would just be lines of code sitting in limbo.

That is the point I am trying to make. Apple develops or builds both making the software (mac os x) great with the hardware (their mac hardware) and vice versa. Your software simply runs UNDER Mac OS X. It does not run on top. It does not make calls to the OF, it makes calls to the OS or its kernel.

you said: "Apple Computers designs the computer to run their own software".

Apple's own marketing and our resident know-it-all contradict you. If what you wrote is not what you meant then just withdraw the statement. Otherwise you're going to have to come up with some pretty impressive evidence to back that claim: You'd have to show that Apple's own website was not actually marketing Apple's products for the reasons they say they are.

They're posting performance comparisons between PCs and Macs running third party applications on the iMac and powermac pages. The iBook, Xserve, and Mac mini pages both drop notes about the availability of 3rd party software (Halo is feature prominently on the consumer products, BSD Applications on the XServe page).

It depended on the job. Sometimes I was working with a specific version of Mac OS/OS X in mind, sometimes times I was working specifically with the G4 in mind. Other times I was targeting "UNIX-like" systems as a platform. It depended on what the needs of the day were.

All the same, I think the only safe thing to say about the programs I wrote was that I was targeting Macintosh as a platform.



Some would some wouldn't. It depended on what my primary consideration was when I wrote it. Some of it only runs on OS X 10.2/3, some on OS 9, some of it only runs on a G4 but would work on linux (assuming you did the configure, make, make install dance), some of it would work out of the box on pretty much any unix-like platform. Some of it even worked on Windows even though my primary consideration was making it accessible to Mac users.



Apple ships a platform for further development. Isn't that what I said in my last post?


What exactly do "under" and "on top" mean WRT software execution? As far as I can see you could use the terms interchangeably unless there is some obscure definition I'm not aware of.

Like I said earlier, I targeted the Macintosh as a platform because that's what we used. The importance of the OS or the hardware for any given project was weighed to make sure I could deliver the best application to the people that needed it in the shortest amount of time possible.

At no point did I ever feel like apple designed the hardware to run their own software to the exception of my own. That was the statement that I think macssuck to exception to.

Good points all together. You have some great points and I'll agree to just bury the whole topic. Water on the bridge type deal.