Analyst: New iMacs offer more value than competition

Yes, you read the headline correctly. AppleInsider has reported that analyst firm Oppenheimer & Co. stated that Apple's newly refreshed iMac product line offers more value for money than its competitors. How exactly does it reason this? Read on.

Analyst from the firm Yair Reiner has complimented Apple on its recent update, as well as its continued efforts to make its products more environmentally friendly. "While the much anticipated update did not break new ground in terms of form factor (as we had hoped), the extent of the hardware improvements is a positive surprise," said Reiner, but he hopes that the refresh will bring new life to Apple's business and consumer product line sales. This is all well and good, but just how exactly do the new iMacs bring more value? Have a look at these charts below.

The above image shows Apple's low end iMac compared to Dell's XPS One 20 and HP's TouchSmart IQ500t.

The above image shows Apple's mid-range iMac compared to Dell's XPS One 24 and HP's TouchSmart IQ800t.

These images show some interesting comparisons in the mid-range line of products. However, there is one issue I have to address. Firstly, let me state that I use both Apple and Microsoft products on a daily basis, as well as Dell computers and an HP laptop, so I am in no way biased, but there's something bugging me about the images. I find it extremely unfair that the analyst firm chooses to include 'iLife' as a relative advantage, when it is not available on the Windows platform. It may be a handy piece of software, but I believe that it still shouldn't be included when comparing computers. I'm not sure others will agree with me, so please don't attack me for it, but it's my opinion. According to AppleInsider's article, "Reiner gave kudos to Apple for its iLife digital lifestyle suite, which comes with every new Mac and lacks a strong rival."

So, after hearing what Reiner has to say, and having inspected the charts, what do you think? Do you think the iMac packs more value for your dollars than competitors? Please let us know sensibly in the comments.

Images courtesy of AppleInsider and Yair Reiner of Oppenheimer & Co.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

BlackBerry opens up BlackBerry App World

Next Story

Mac Dock and Windows 7 Superbar - Part 2


Commenting is disabled on this article.

This article does not reveal the TRUE POWER of Apple
For you see, mere text cannot portrait the actual pheromones that an Apple releases.
So called "PC's" only are you "humans" say.... a casket of wires. Maybe a time capsule of technology is a better example.
This article is just the puss on a mirror after popping a pimple on your is just the beginning.

[and for any editors/reviewer that will give me another warning.... this is a joke....not an attack.....JOKE -JOKE-JOKE]

I think if iMac gets a bonus/plus for having iLife then it should also get a bonus for running Mac OS X :P

Then again, it is capable of running both OS X and Windows.

On a side note, I do think iLife is a definite advantage for Apple. It might not be perceived as such by advanced computer users such as ourselves. But for your average Joe/Jane, it is added value. They can start using the computer right out of the box, easily and quickly. Immediately forming a good bond with the computer and seeing it as a useful tool.

Rather than being frustrated with Windows and the bloatware it comes preloaded with (which is what gives Windows a bad rap). And even after they've removed all unnecessary software (hopefully w/o getting the BSOD), they now have to look for iLife equivalent software. And they might find good equivalent software, some for free, some at a price, but it just won't work as well as how iLife manages to work with itself. Every app in iLife was created to work in harmony with each other. That's what Windows is missing and that's why iLife is an advantage.

Microsoft is just catching on with its Live products... but boy are they far from being as close to iLife.

2 days ago I compared the prices with Alienware and Apple. When I compared the Mac Pro with an Alienware PC with the exact same specs, The Mac Pro cost $500 more. When I compared an Alienware laptop to a Macbook Pro with the same specs, the Macbook cost $450 more.

bobbba said,
Well I'm sure you did an unbiased 100% like for like comparison just like these guys did...

Saving money is the only bias. That's the difference. This analyst started out with a premise and then created a false reality around it. Which is par for the course when dealing with Apple. These wild claims don't exist independantly.

Every quarter you get stuff like this from blogs, 'analysts' and Fanboi's showing contorted comparison making the claim on no price difference. Then you hear anecdotes saying "I just spec'd a dell and it was same or more" but invariably it turns out to be BS.

It just becomes a hilarious exercise in debunking it for those with the time. Next year they'll have a column for "Feel good factor" and chalk that up also a "Win" for Apple.

LMAO. Everytime I see one of these charts its obvious we have a Fanboi or heavily hedged Apple Analyst contorting facts and grasping at straws to conflate. The Fanboi's blogrolls of course eat it up...

Hardware 2.0 sums it up best...

First off, the chart is a little biased (accidentally I assume) in favor of Apple.

For example, when comparing the 2.65GHz dual-core CPU in the iMac to the 2.33GHz quad-core CPU in the Dell, Reiner puts this down as a win for Apple. Hmmm,sure the clock speed of the Apple piece is higher, but there are fewer cores. I could equally debate the 6MB of CPU cache verses 4MB if feels a bit like Reiner is clutching at straws a bit to bring validity to his chart.

Other examples of oddities in the chart include the inclusion of iLife to the chart, not giving Dell a win for the 2.0 megapixel webcam, and the odd inclusion of the weight of the base case to the list � not sure what that means to anyone.

Yawn, what a painfully biased comparison. The fact that they've rated a 2.66GHz Core Duo as an "advantage" over a 2.33GHz Quad and ignored the 4GB RAM makes this article lose any credibility that it may have had.

I wonder how much Apple paid for them to write this?

edit: Also, the low-range XPS One with the spec they listed is $799 not $899.

Where are the facts on warranty cost?
What inputs are included?
What upgrade options are available?
Audio options?

The iLife category is particularly funny because the non-Apple systems could have superior software to iLife but you'd never know it according to these charts. The tiny, insignificant advantages in number (like slightly faster RAM) doesn't come close to the advantages offered by the TouchSmart.

Anyone else notice that Dell did not get the "advantage" in the Mid-range for having a Core 2 QUAD vs. Apple's Cored 2 Duo?

This little chart reeks of ignorant bias.

It is nice to see Apple classified in a "low-range" comparison though. Apple fanatics have tried to tell me they only sell the high-end stuff and can't be bothered with other markets.

Pretty funny:
4GB of ram is not an advantage?
cheaper is not an advantage ?
quad core (which make the whole clock speed comparaison useless)
upgradability is not an advantage?
touchscreen is not an advantage?

go buy a mac then if they have SO HUGE advantages over non-apple PCs :P

It's unfortuate that this is a somewhat credible source. People that don't know enough to tell the difference will surely lap this up and take it as gospel.

I think all 3 are overpriced, lol. They have some seriously crappy video cards on all 3 of those for that price range, ridic.

if you are in the market for a AIO computer... sure

but if you are in the market for any computer... imacs are still more expensive than competition...

Um did anyone noticed that HP's 22" touchscreen is marked as an advantage over the two PCs? So the fact that HP has a touchscreen advantage isn't ignored.

But what HP has an advantage over the screen, it loses points by skimping out the components (CPU, hard drive, graphics, etc.). Same for Dell. CPU alone can be enough to drive the price up. Also, consider that Apple uses notebook CPUs on the iMac line.

You'll get no argument from me that Apple usually charge more than the competitors - because it's true. But I always found that the cost is justified in some ways - because of just how reliable Apple machines are. My experience told me that more often than not, machines from Dell and HP would break a lot. Sure, there's issues coming up in the news about Apple hardware failing, but I found that Apple's machines generally has a much higher quality build than the competitors. I say generally because they can still fail - just not as much as the competitors ever since they try to cheapen out on the components.

Having said that, I did expected more, like LED displays and faster graphics (it does allow you to upgrade to AMD 4850 graphics for $200 more, but PC graphic cards are much cheaper). But this is supposed to be an all-in-one machine after all, not a full-fledged tower desktop.

Another thing - quad core is overkill for end users. I am not aware of any day-to-day apps that uses more than 1 core, save for some games/graphics/video encoding apps.

You know, Macs might not be so reliable as you think. Theres more people using PC's, and therefore there would be more repair cases.

It's just like Apple saying that Macs are virus free. Well, Neowin posted an article a few months back proving that Macs actually have more vulnrabilities then Vista. People just think that they dont get viruses. But when less people use them, there will be less virus writers, and therefore less viruses.

Same with the hardware. If there are less people using them, then there's going to be less reported hardware failures.

But who knows, were all subject to what the media says, since that's the only way for us to know stuff, so I wont know the truth if Macs are more reliable unless I did my own study.

GreyWolfSC said,
The specs are bogus. Look at the TouchSmart page yourself here:

You can configure them just like an iMac, and they took the lowest config and slapped the price for the highest config on it. Then they did the opposite for the iMac and specced it highest but used the low-spec price.

What are you saying? Those prices they put up for HP and Apple are correct. The highest spec'ed Apple iMac has a 3.06GHz CPU. The lowest CPU option is 2.66GHz. The Highest CPU you can configure with HP touchsmart is 2.26GHz.

I agree though that the charts are confusing. Plus, they conveniently left out the fact that HP and Dell run frequent promotions that can save you money, which Apple does not. Also, HP gives you a Blu-ray option should you desire.

This is really a "I like Mac's better and I'm gonna find a reason to justify it" comparison. If you like Mac's better, fine, it makes no matter to me. Just don't try and sell me on an "analysis" that is clearly skewed to generate the outcome you're looking for.

They're wrong. I just posted a comment yesterday showing you can build a Mac Mini for less than $250, and if I can get the parts for that price you know Apple can get them cheaper. I don't care what some "analyst" says, Apple overcharges horrendously for their hardware and there is no value in that. And the HP TouchSmart is a touch-screen, dear analyst. Touch screen. That's why it's more, and the IQ800 isn't even available any more. You get a bigger screen for less with the current TouchSmart line-up.

Oppenheimer & Co. is totally lying and is just a tool in Apple's false-advertising campaign.

I love how under "dedicated memory" it has 256MB then shared in parenthesis.

Shared memory is not ****ing dedicated memory.

Inaccurate to say the least.

All the mistakes in the article pretty much makes this invalid. I mean, if you are doing a review on something...then make sure to get the facts straight...

yes this is completely biased. Dell's quad core is definitely much better than the iMac. Plus, I agree, having iLife is unfair. I'm sure there are plenty of bundled software on the other two.

The problem with these kind of comparison is the vast amount of offerings from PC manufacturers compared with the offerings from Apple.

Those two PC's are compared with a Mac but they left out (almost certainly) a great number of comparable PC's with different price ranges/features...

That being said, it is good for competition sake that Apple keeps cutting their prices, even a little bit to bring pressure to other manufacturers. We all can benefit from this.

These are analysts?! what a joke...

You know as a big tech site what neowin should do now is fix the comparison for them.

This comparison is really bad on top of other things already mentioned in other comments they also completely ignore the fact that the hp has 4 gb of ram while the others only have 2.

Aero_Rising said,
This comparison is really bad on top of other things already mentioned in other comments they also completely ignore the fact that the hp has 4 gb of ram while the others only have 2.

yea not to mention the tiny if anyone would actually notice difference between 1066 and 800 in real world normal use. i know i sure cant :

Aero_Rising said,
they also completely ignore the fact that the hp has 4 gb of ram while the others only have 2.

Yea 2x more Ram is a huge difference compared to the 1066 and 800 difference in Ram Speed.

I call Shenanigans!!!

Aero_Rising said,
This comparison is really bad on top of other things already mentioned in other comments they also completely ignore the fact that the hp has 4 gb of ram while the others only have 2.

+1 for the 4GB RAM

interesting... too bad they fail at comparisons. I wouldn't even call this analytical more like scraping the sides of the bowel.

Seriously what do they expect dell to come out with AIO PC with exact same specs at same price except ship with windows i mean seriously pull your head out the dirt with that one. just like others stated as well it isn't even accurate.

Yeah, they've definitely skewed the results a lot there. They also completely ignored the 2Mp webcam on the dells.
Plus, comparing the imac to the HP is silly, the HP has a touch screen and those aren't cheap.

Compare the iMac with the Sony all in one. I think Sony made one.

Although the iMac might beat the Sony, since Sony seems to be overpriced also.

This would be so true if : iMac had a LED backlight and a quad core CPU...

The analyst seems to like Apple products...

(I am so mad it's not quad core and LED!)

I wouldn't go so far as to say they offer better value, but they're at least on par with the rest. People keep calling them overpriced when in fact they're not.

And yes, iLife is a plus.

That's a pretty good comparison, I hate it when people compare the imac with tower based pc...... But I have to admit I wish the would offer a smaller tower than the macpro

Pretty lame chalk and cheese comparison, there's also a few mistakes here:

iMac doesn't have an LED display
HP is touchscreen shouldn't that be a criteria?
Shouldn't the low range highlight $200 cheaper for the dell?
Shouldn't the mid range highlight quad core for the dell?

There's no weighting on the advantages/disadvantages and it also ignores release date as a factor as some of these small advantages are only there because of a more recent release. I would consider iLife as an advantage though as the Dell and HP don't come with an equivalent that is as capable.

Yea touchscreen is a big diff, but they gave it an advantage in that category.
The Dell is cheaper, but gets no credit for that.
Quad Core is another feature that should have gotten recognition, b/c it will make a difference in performance.

Thus, I smell bias.