Jump to content



Photo

Mac's will always be more expensive than PC's


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#1 simmorya

simmorya

    Simmo2K

  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Australia

Posted 10 February 2008 - 01:46

IMO I reckon if Apple wants to keep it's market share down under 15% in the future they will need to keep making the hardware more expensive.

Does anyone else agree that if the Mac OS X market share increases over 15% this will change and possibly destroy the whole "Mac" platform from the way we know it.


#2 Nashy

Nashy

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 05-September 04
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S5 - SM-G900i

Posted 10 February 2008 - 01:49

What.... Did you even think about that before you posted it.

More sales = more money....

#3 kraized

kraized

    Slam Dunk My Funk!

  • Joined: 04-July 04
  • Location: London

Posted 10 February 2008 - 01:49

Apple at the end of the day don't make crappy budget PC's with Celeron processors. And FWIW the MacBook Air is way cheaper than the Sony equivalent.

#4 OP simmorya

simmorya

    Simmo2K

  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Australia

Posted 10 February 2008 - 02:32

Sorry its hard for me to explain what I really mean. I know my first post sounds dumb.

What I really mean is that for people that have used Mac OS X for a long time probably dont want its market share to jump significantly. Especially if It would make the system more vulnerable. My guess is that Mac OS X has been so reliable and hasnt had a massive hit of viruses like Windows because it doesnt have large market share.

Do veteran Mac users want to see Mac OS X get a larger market share or are they happy with the way things are?

Im just saying if the market share of Mac OS X jumps significantly things will change with Mac OS to accompany it, the only way I can see Apple reducing this is by driving costs of its Mac hardware higher and higher.

Is Apple happy to have a more vulnerable Mac OS just for more $$$ in the future?

Edited by simmorya, 10 February 2008 - 02:41.


#5 Matrix XII

Matrix XII

    System F

  • Joined: 12-March 04
  • Location: Vancouver, Canada
  • OS: W7 64 SP1 | OS X 10.9.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S3

Posted 10 February 2008 - 02:33

and then people would start developing viruses for them.. lol

#6 betasp

betasp

    Cooler than a polar bear's toenails...

  • Joined: 24-September 03
  • Location: 2nd Level of Hell

Posted 10 February 2008 - 02:40

Let me put it this way...

I don't care what Apple's market share is as long as they continue to make machines that work the way I expect them to work, not the way some engineer thinks they should work... that is all.

#7 goji

goji

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 20-June 03
  • Location: Monster Island

Posted 10 February 2008 - 02:41

Let me put it this way...

... as long as they continue to make machines that work the way I expect them to work, not the way some engineer thinks they should work... that is all.


:blink:

Did you just cancel out your whole argument?

#8 OP simmorya

simmorya

    Simmo2K

  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Australia

Posted 10 February 2008 - 02:42

Let me put it this way...

I don't care what Apple's market share is as long as they continue to make machines that work the way I expect them to work, not the way some engineer thinks they should work... that is all.



Umm.. Steve Jobs? Does he make everything the way HE wants?

#9 XPTech

XPTech

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 06-February 08
  • Location: UK

Posted 10 February 2008 - 12:37

I honestly think that Apple has a fair range of PC's aimed from low end (mac mini) to high end (Mac Pro) - for the quality of machinery and the pure ease of use of the OS, you get what you pay pay for to be honest. When I switched to my mac mini, I think i spent around £900 after all the additions but I'm not grumbling - it's the best computer I've ever had:))

Bonus is - opensource/freeware and shareware software development for osx is simply top notch in quality and there is something for everyone. In the long run it evens out I reckon in price comparison to what you spend on repairs and all to any other PC.

#10 vetMathachew

Mathachew

    Wise beyond my youth... that's what she said!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 19-September 04
  • Location: Spring, TX
  • OS: Windows 7

Posted 10 February 2008 - 14:32

The "overpriced" nature of Macs compared to PCs has leveled out, especially over the course of the last three years when Macs when to Core 2 Duos. A feature and spec comparison of a Mac vs any other PC will show that it can sometimes be even, less, or more, depending on the system it's being compared to. One of the things that's stopped me from getting a Mac is that:

  • I don't want a laptop
  • I want something more powerful than the MacMini
  • I don't want a monstrous system in the Mac Pro
  • I don't want to remote into my current PC if I get an iMac
I can think of two ideal solutions:

  • Allow video in signals from additional PCs, such as a MacMini or a PC that I already have
  • Create a less powerful, and thus more affordable, Mac Pro
Anywho, Macs being more expensive than PCs is not as valid of an argument as it used to be, because a Mac is a PC, with some subtle differences.

#11 WelshBluebird

WelshBluebird

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 05-August 05
  • Location: Rhondda, South Wales

Posted 10 February 2008 - 14:37

The "overpriced" nature of Macs compared to PCs has leveled out


Thats not what I can see. Not sure about the desktops, but for laptops, apple still overcharge (by a lot too).
For the same price I paid for my Inspiron 1520 (2.2Ghz C2D, 2GB RAM, 250GB HDD, 8600MGT), I would get a macbook with a worse CPU, less RAM, a smaller HDD and integrated graphics. To get something from apple to match what I paid £700 for, I would have to spend £1300 (and even then I get a smaller HDD).

#12 se7en.hu

se7en.hu

    ...

  • Joined: 11-September 04
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted 10 February 2008 - 14:48

Is Apple happy to have a more vulnerable Mac OS just for more $$$ in the future?


It wouldn't be more vulnerable if it had a greater market share.

#13 +Wannes

Wannes

    iCommand ⌘

  • Joined: 03-January 04
  • Location: Belgium
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 10 February 2008 - 14:53

I actually like the idea there are only a few Mac users compared to Windows users. I do notice that since the iPod's popularity that Apple gets more "known" to the unknowing public and that people will look at an equivalent for Windows, being Mac OS or Linux. The only cutback with Apple is its price indeed but they got cheaper as time grew. If you look back a couple years you'll see that an Apple desktop and/or laptop was way more expensive as they are now, yet we still can't call them "cheap".

Though I do believe that Apple hardware will get cheaper as time continues evolving. It's an inevitable fact. They will get more money for research and development, production and so on allowing them to make the hardware cheaper. However, with that being said, I think you're right about Apple hardware remaining to be more expensive than Dell, Sony, HP, ... which all run Windows standard. That market still is bigger and, in my opinion, will always remain to be bigger.

Nonetheless, Apple is doing a good job with their hardware.

Ps. As for the viruses, sooner or later there will be Mac OS viruses around. You can't stop them being created as the number of users keep growing.

It wouldn't be more vulnerable if it had a greater market share.

The OS may not become more vulnerable, people will still try to find ways to create viruses. A virus is not necessarily created with bad target goals. One may create one for his assignment in college but when it gets leaked ...

#14 vetMathachew

Mathachew

    Wise beyond my youth... that's what she said!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 19-September 04
  • Location: Spring, TX
  • OS: Windows 7

Posted 10 February 2008 - 15:24

Thats not what I can see. Not sure about the desktops, but for laptops, apple still overcharge (by a lot too).
For the same price I paid for my Inspiron 1520 (2.2Ghz C2D, 2GB RAM, 250GB HDD, 8600MGT), I would get a macbook with a worse CPU, less RAM, a smaller HDD and integrated graphics. To get something from apple to match what I paid £700 for, I would have to spend £1300 (and even then I get a smaller HDD).


Each product is different, but I ran through a comparison with the top of the line Inspiron and matched it as best as I could with the MacBook, with the MacBook being $123 more, however this didn't include the $249 for the Apple Care plan, which makes it $372 more. Comparing the MBP against the Inspiron is like comparing a Honda to a Corvette or Ferrari. Compare the top of the line Dell to the MBP and that gap isn't so big. And unless I'm mistaken, the MBP has dedicated video card, while the MacBook and MBA do not. Is it more expensive? Yes, but not as much as it used to be.

Macs are more comparable when you get to into the desktops. HPs iMac look-alike costs more, and gives you far less, thus making the iMac a better deal. The Dell XPS one (most expensive) is a little more than a 20" iMac with comparable specs, with the only exception being the iMac doesn't have a BD player (not yet). There is no Dell XPS 24", so I can't compare that. The cheapest iMac and XPS One are almost the same price (iMac slightly cheaper). So the price comparison varies, but not in all cases is the Mac more.

#15 petroid

petroid

    Neowin Lurker

  • Joined: 20-December 03
  • Location: Tamworth, Australia

Posted 10 February 2008 - 15:46

The biggest component Apple overcharge on is memory. But it's not just Apple, 2GB of Kingston 667 "MacBook" ram is easily $150AU more than the standard Kingston 667 ram. I'm not even sure if there are any differences in the product other than the model number. Guess which one I use in MacBooks?



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!